I mean, sure, we don't know and it's obviously just conjecture all the way around.
I still think it's preferable to put him in front of the electorate and try to force some accountability rather than just let him run a side campaign for the general.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Democratic Presidential Primary |February OT| It Can't be Worse than Iowa, Right? (Discussion Guidelines in OP)
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
I still think it's preferable to put him in front of the electorate and try to force some accountability rather than just let him run a side campaign for the general.
Reducing the criticisms of Bloomberg to "you don't like him" sucks man.
A billionaire using his immoral wealth to buy his way to the nomination/presidency shouldn't be excused by saying "that's how the system is supposed to work". It's not. Shit is fucking broken rn.
Seems like Warren would be the smartest choice to try to pull some support from Bernie. I feel like anyone they pick is just going to further split the moderate vote though.
Yes it's disheartening to see people on the left not want the fascist who used the police force in their city as a private army to terrorize minorities to be able to run on the ticket and use his billions of dollars to buy his way into people into voting for him.
You do realize how little people actually pay attention to the debates, right? You do realize a video that was uncovered of him being openly racist was treated as an attack by a Bernie Bro by the media.
Frankly, the system is flawed and the democratic process should not be a billionaire outspending his way into an election. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out.
LMAO:
I've been saying it, Trump would love to run against Bloomberg. He'd beat him like a drum.
Nothing to see here, right?
I've been saying it, Trump would love to run against Bloomberg. He'd beat him like a drum.
Nothing to see here, right?
Yeah I hope he stays far away from the nomination, but I must admit I like how he can get under Trump's skin.Bloomberg is an asshat as a person and candidate, but he's got good people in his media team. His ads that I've seen are on point and this social attack is good. Hopefully whoever wins the primary actually lets his media team run a bit without interference using whatever is left of the billion rather than think they know better - the Dems media has been bad for years in my opinion
Mike Bloomberg on Twitter
“.@realDonaldTrump - we know many of the same people in NY. Behind your back they laugh at you & call you a carnival barking clown. They know you inherited a fortune & squandered it with stupid deals and incompetence. I have the record & the resources to defeat you. And I will...twitter.com
The other thing is, Bloomberg isn't the frontrunner, so the other candidates have far less reason to go after him. I would hope they have the moral backbone to do so anyway, but some of them definitely don't have a moral backbone (looking at Pete, for example).
Yup, he's pulling a lot of great talent from other smaller campaigns across the country since he's paying more than anyone else.Bloomberg is an asshat as a person and candidate, but he's got good people in his media team. His ads that I've seen are on point and this social attack is good. Hopefully whoever wins the primary actually lets his media team run a bit without interference using whatever is left of the billion rather than think they know better - the Dems media has been bad for years in my opinion
Mike Bloomberg on Twitter
“.@realDonaldTrump - we know many of the same people in NY. Behind your back they laugh at you & call you a carnival barking clown. They know you inherited a fortune & squandered it with stupid deals and incompetence. I have the record & the resources to defeat you. And I will...
The Bloomberg Effect: Local Campaigns Are Starving for Help
“This is hands down the toughest time I’ve ever had finding field staff,” said one operative, reflecting on the sweeping impact of Bloomberg’s spending.
theintercept.com
A few days ago Bernie and Amy brought up the question of whether a pro-lifer has a place in the party. I think that's a much more legitimate question than whether someone like Bloomberg has a place in the party. We're talking about someone who thinks the police is their own personal army and that intentional discrimination against black people and Muslims is actually good. He's like a billionaire Joe Arpaio.
Btw, it's incredible to see African-American endorsers lining up behind Bloomberg and Biden, objectively the two candidates with the worst record on race relations.
Pete fired a popular police chief under FBI investigation and y'all were talking about his ability to pick up AA support as being impossible almost solely as a result of that. But now Mike "stop-and-frisk" Bloomberg is lining up endorsements left and right.
Pete fired a popular police chief under FBI investigation and y'all were talking about his ability to pick up AA support as being impossible almost solely as a result of that. But now Mike "stop-and-frisk" Bloomberg is lining up endorsements left and right.
Hey, don't attack the "democratic process " of a billionaire racist, transphobic, islamophobic, MBS/Epstein/Weinstein buddying, climate change profiting, sexual harassing piece of shit buy his way into the election!
errr, yes?
There are lots of people who are angry with the state of things, there is a stark difference between turning that anger into instant attacks on anyone else who isn't a complete ideological fit or a group of people who are seen as a potential "ally".
Bringing up Lenin as some type of apt comparison also is a mega bad look considering what you're implying and what the conversation is regarding Sander supporters being overtly hostile and causing harm to Sanders campaigns needed outreach outside of his base.
this is kind of a wild assertion, though! like, it bears more than a passing resemblance to the "you have no evidence that I literally said you give me X and I give you Y, therefore, no quid pro quo" argument that trump has made!
we have scads of evidence that this is how bloomberg works. he gives people money, because he's such a nice guy, and then (miraculously) when it comes time for him to get something he wants, he gets it. this is how money in politics works more broadly, but we have evidence of him doing this constantly in new york city. there's actually very few reasons to not believe that this is what happened.
Lmaoo, tell me about it. "We gotta beat Trump at all costs! Even if we bring in someone worse!"
Fucking idiots would get us all killed.
Well, we know Biden is planning some sort of attack on him at the debate.
pete doesn't have the cash like Bloomberg does to bribe people
Bloomberg is like 1000x richer than Pete and money gets endorsements. This is the reality of it.
Biden you have to think is from Obama ties, but Bloomberg is because of the money and connections.
The answer is no, a fascist mayor who hates black, muslim and transgender people does not have a place in the party.
this bloomberg debate is funny. Is this nigga even out there campaigning and meeting with people? fuck outta here
It's disheartening to see people unironically support party rule by elites and fiat, rather than democratic support.
The Democratic nominee for President should be the person the party electorate chooses it to be. Not you nor I nor anyone else has the right to steal that decision from the party, even if a potential result would be incredibly distasteful.
I'm going to preface this by saying this is the last post I'm going to make on this subject, because I know exactly what is going on here.
I guess my point is I don't know what you're asking me to provide for evidence--and I suspect that really is the point. Is the only non-anecdotal evidence you're willing to accept me literally linking posts on here? Because I'm not going to do that. I provided quite a few links to various sources establishing--mostly just this election cycle--that Sanders has a subset of his base that is incredibly active online, and incredibly toxic.
The reality is this; if one person calls you an asshole, it might be on them, if many different people say you're an asshole, you might actually be an asshole. If everyone kind of acknowledges that this issue exists, it's more than likely an actual issue. You can either try to excise those people from the movement you guys care about, or deny it's a problem.
Copied the wrong link for that article, fixed it now.
And those people should be criticized for that. I have never said they should not. But this kind of runs counter to your entire post especially the part later one where you criticize me for making generalizations. None the less, I firmly believe those people should be held accountable.
I have never once said things Sanders did are the reason why I think his supporters are toxic. You're conflating two entirely different concepts here. The bigger problem is, like I've said, is his supporters which disproportionately seem to be toxic. I do on many levels support Sanders. I helped send him to the Senate twice, donated to him in 2015 (and again in 2016), and voted for him in the Democratic Primary in 2016. My issue is with the people and their actions. I don't think all Sanders supporters are toxic nightmares, but he disproportionately has them compared to other candidates--and I believe I said as much.
You won't catch me defending Bloomberg or Mayor Pete as some great candidate, but tearing down people who are considering voting for those people is not exactly a good way to convince them they are making a poor choice. I won't say they are as bad as Donald Trump, granted Bloomberg has said some really terrible things on race that should never be forgiven, but I can understand why people would back him--he's running the right kind of campaign to be effective, seizing on an opportunity that he saw. Both have said and done reprehensible things while Mayor of their cities, and caused a ton of damage to communities of color, that much is undeniable. I still think both of them are better for this country than Donald Trump, and understand why some people support them. I disagree with them, and I will vehemently express that while trying to convince them otherwise respectfully, but I understand it.
Hmm, right.
I guess my point is I don't know what you're asking me to provide for evidence--and I suspect that really is the point. Is the only non-anecdotal evidence you're willing to accept me literally linking posts on here? Because I'm not going to do that. I provided quite a few links to various sources establishing--mostly just this election cycle--that Sanders has a subset of his base that is incredibly active online, and incredibly toxic.
The reality is this; if one person calls you an asshole, it might be on them, if many different people say you're an asshole, you might actually be an asshole. If everyone kind of acknowledges that this issue exists, it's more than likely an actual issue. You can either try to excise those people from the movement you guys care about, or deny it's a problem.
Copied the wrong link for that article, fixed it now.
And those people should be criticized for that. I have never said they should not. But this kind of runs counter to your entire post especially the part later one where you criticize me for making generalizations. None the less, I firmly believe those people should be held accountable.
I have never once said things Sanders did are the reason why I think his supporters are toxic. You're conflating two entirely different concepts here. The bigger problem is, like I've said, is his supporters which disproportionately seem to be toxic. I do on many levels support Sanders. I helped send him to the Senate twice, donated to him in 2015 (and again in 2016), and voted for him in the Democratic Primary in 2016. My issue is with the people and their actions. I don't think all Sanders supporters are toxic nightmares, but he disproportionately has them compared to other candidates--and I believe I said as much.
You won't catch me defending Bloomberg or Mayor Pete as some great candidate, but tearing down people who are considering voting for those people is not exactly a good way to convince them they are making a poor choice. I won't say they are as bad as Donald Trump, granted Bloomberg has said some really terrible things on race that should never be forgiven, but I can understand why people would back him--he's running the right kind of campaign to be effective, seizing on an opportunity that he saw. Both have said and done reprehensible things while Mayor of their cities, and caused a ton of damage to communities of color, that much is undeniable. I still think both of them are better for this country than Donald Trump, and understand why some people support them. I disagree with them, and I will vehemently express that while trying to convince them otherwise respectfully, but I understand it.
Hmm, right.
One of these days I'd love to have a conversation about how corrupt the Congressional Black Caucus is when it comes to establishment politics.
Don't forget poor people! He spiked the homelessness rate in NY 80%.
Yes, a moderator on a site where we apparently care about minorities is "disheartened" we want to stop a fascist from buying his way into the election.
Um arguing about political leanings and outcomes due to giving someone a platform to boost their campaign aren't the same thing tho? What?
User Banned (2 weeks): hostility, antagonizing other users
This is some galaxy brain shit right here, the fact is a fascist should not be allowed in the Democratic party. I don't know what else to tell you, if you're disheartened by that then I suggest some introspection about what values you want from candidates running for office on the democratic ticket.
Buying your way into an election and lying about your history is not democratic support.
What they're arguing is someone that has a lot more resources than any other candidate using those resources blanket the internet and airwaves in ads is unfair and inherently undemocratic.
When the most support goes to whoever has the most wealth to get it, we're officially an oligarchy.
Pretty gross were trying to distort what I said into "you just dont like him".
That's about 17 tweets saying "yeah he is rich and bought himself a lot of power." Not really much of a playbook as much as it is an example of how money in politics works.
Agreed. All of these stories about Bloomberg, Steyer, and even Bernie to a lesser degree paying off people who give them endorsements makes my blood boil. That shit should be illegal.
exactly. how many doors have the Bloomberg campaign knocked on
Topic idea I've been legit throwing around: Do people really want a democracy?
That will only happen if Democratic candidates continue to fall for the lie you actually have to answer the question the debate moderator asks you.
I guess the only thing that matters is that the ''voters should make a decision" whilst ignoring everything that surrounds said decision from propaganda in the form of paid ads being ass-blasted everywhere to buying out power.
Sure. Democracy.
Sure. Democracy.
I mean, most politicians are individually wealthy. It would be nice if average people could get elected, but that's just not how it seems to go.
No, people are arguing that the Democratic Party shouldn't be the ones who pick and choose who can run, that the voters should be trusted to pick the best candidate.
Otherwise you're giving the party power to decide whoever they want to run or not run. Power taken away from voters to decide for themselves if the candidate is worthy or not
Probably a lot in short order honestly. He's hiring a ton of people to do it for him
I'm not distorting anything. You don't like him, you shouldn't, he's gross and awful and unfit for the office, that's all true. But our feelings on him should not be the arbiter of who gets to be the Democratic parties nominee. The voters should decide that, that's their right. Otherwise what's the point of all this?
- Status