US Politics - Turtles crawl, the constipation sensation that's gripping the nation.

[Lykos]

This is a bit behind the action, but I liked it so much.

Nell Scovell in Conversation With John Oliver (YouTube)

Trevor Noah on Bloomberg

[DMC]

On this Bloomberg discussion - by all means do whatever you can to make sure he doesn't get the nomination, I'll do the same.  But if people truly in the middle or "centrists" can hold their nose and vote for Sanders, leftists can do the same damn thing and vote for Bloomberg against Trump, grow up.  Yes, stop & frisk is a huge black eye for him and the comments coming out are especially odious (albeit relating to stop & frisk it's not exactly surprising that's how a 78-year-old white billionaire still thinks about crime).  But let's put what he did in context.  While there were certainly many at the time that emphasized its plain and abject racism, Bloomberg succeeded Giuliani and Bratton who implemented the "broken windows" theory of policing that was considerably popular at the time - including among academics.  It was also in the post-9/11 and Iraq backdrop when protecting civil liberties wasn't exactly en vogue even with many on the left.

The notion Bloomberg would be "just as bad" (or anywhere close) as Trump is absolutely preposterous.  Dude ran a city roughly the size of Virginia and New Jersey (and larger than 38 other states) for 12 years and NYC's institutions are still doing ok.  On a host of issues - including the environment, guns, LGBTQ issues, abortion - basically a whole hell of a lot of social policy, Bloomberg is worlds apart better than Trump.  More importantly, as the Democratic nominee and then president, he would have to rely on the party in Congress, as an organization, and in the electorate to implement policy - which should be a whole hell of a lot better for ANYONE on the left compared to Trump doing so with the GOP's counterparts.  Hell, just simply stopping McConnell from rubber-stamping Trump's judicial nominees should be sufficient.

Finally and most importantly, if you think four (or more) years of Donald Trump as president represents any type of existential threat to US "democracy" - which many if not most on these threads have expressed one way or another - then it comprehensively defies any type of logic to not vote for Bloomberg as the Dem nominee.

 

[Jeor]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

On this Bloomberg discussion - by all means do whatever you can to make sure he doesn't get the nomination, I'll do the same.  But if people truly in the middle or "centrists" can hold their nose and vote for Sanders, leftists can do the same damn thing and vote for Bloomberg against Trump, grow up.

Totally agree with this. I'm really hoping that once the Democratic nominee is decided, people will really focus on the fact that it's this nominee (whoever it is) versus Trump. Simple binary choice there and while some Democratic voters will throw their toys out of the pram and take the third option of not voting at all, I'm hoping they're a very small group.

However, if it's Bloomberg who gets the nomination, I can see Sanders supporters downing tools simply because he's a billionaire who will have been seen to have "stolen" or "bought" the nomination out from under Bernie's nose. Never mind that Bloomberg would still be miles better than Trump. If he does win the nomination (still a long way out now), Bloomberg will probably need to nominate a strongly progressive VP. If he can keep the progressives on board, along with his money and his ability to attract centrists and moderate Republicans, Bloomberg would be a formidable opponent for Trump.

[Ice Queen]

2 hours ago, Jeor said:

Totally agree with this. I'm really hoping that once the Democratic nominee is decided, people will really focus on the fact that it's this nominee (whoever it is) versus Trump. Simple binary choice there and while some Democratic voters will throw their toys out of the pram and take the third option of not voting at all, I'm hoping they're a very small group.

However, if it's Bloomberg who gets the nomination, I can see Sanders supporters downing tools simply because he's a billionaire who will have been seen to have "stolen" or "bought" the nomination out from under Bernie's nose. Never mind that Bloomberg would still be miles better than Trump. If he does win the nomination (still a long way out now), Bloomberg will probably need to nominate a strongly progressive VP. If he can keep the progressives on board, along with his money and his ability to attract centrists and moderate Republicans, Bloomberg would be a formidable opponent for Trump.

They won't. Bernie is willing to burn down the Democratic Party, just like Trump did the GOP, if he doesn't get the nomination. I for one am sick and tired already of my party being held hostage to these goons. They are just like Trumpers--there's no reasoning with them and they can't see the forest for the trees. 

I saw on Twitter this morning that Sanders might nominate Tulsi Gabbard as VP. Like I needed another reason to suspect he's in cahoots with the Russians. One destroyer per party--he's no more a Democrat than Trump is a Republican. If he does nominate Gabbard we will absolutely hand Trump the election and it's sayonara United States of America.

When this is all over we should do what the Republicans should have done to the Tea Party: banish the left to the fringes or force them to start their own party. They are blind and ignorant and short-sighted and we don't have time for their childishness and selfishness. They need to grow up and deal in reality. I used to think there was room in the tent for them, but no more. They are holding us hostage to their adolescent whims and Bernie does nothing to put them straight. Why? Because he, too, is a narcissist. 

That's not to say I'm not sympathetic to some of their positions. I am. But Bernie is a demagogue just like Trump and he is not the person to deliver that message.

That being said, I would pull the lever for Bloomberg. Anyone who thinks he's as bad as Trump is an ideological fool.

This is not a policy election. It's about getting rid of Trump. They Bernie bots are either with that or they're not.

[Jace, Extat]

I wasn't expecting three posts in a row of intelligent commentary.

I'm doing my part to retore balance.

[A True Kaniggit]

19 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

I wasn't expecting three posts in a row of intelligent commentary.

I'm doing my part to retore balance.

Well my body does have to enter a nonactive deathlike state every now and then in order to function properly. 

I haven’t yet discovered a way to post during this process.

So sometimes these people sneak in intelligent conversation streaks while I’m unable to intervene. 

[Kalbear]

Here's the deal - if I'm willing to support Sanders in the general - or whoever else wins - you should be willing to support Bloomberg - or whoever else wins. 

Because the alternative is that my kid doesnt get healthcare. 

[Guest]

I'm a Sanders supporter who will be more than happy to give a verbal and/or digital beatdown to any purported leftist who doesn't vote for whomever the Democratic nominee is in November.

If you truly think that 4 more years of Trump is an existential threat to our freedoms, which given Trump's behavior after his impeachment acquittal I absolutely do, you're fucking delusional if you think not doing everything in your power to make sure a Democrat - hell, ANY Democrat - gets elected will somehow make things better.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, Ice Queen said:

They won't. Bernie is willing to burn down the Democratic Party, just like Trump did the GOP, if he doesn't get the nomination. I for one am sick and tired already of my party being held hostage to these goons. They are just like Trumpers--there's no reasoning with them and they can't see the forest for the trees. 

I saw on Twitter this morning that Sanders might nominate Tulsi Gabbard as VP. Like I needed another reason to suspect he's in cahoots with the Russians. One destroyer per party--he's no more a Democrat than Trump is a Republican. If he does nominate Gabbard we will absolutely hand Trump the election and it's sayonara United States of America.

When this is all over we should do what the Republicans should have done to the Tea Party: banish the left to the fringes or force them to start their own party. They are blind and ignorant and short-sighted and we don't have time for their childishness and selfishness. They need to grow up and deal in reality. I used to think there was room in the tent for them, but no more. They are holding us hostage to their adolescent whims and Bernie does nothing to put them straight. Why? Because he, too, is a narcissist. 

That's not to say I'm not sympathetic to some of their positions. I am. But Bernie is a demagogue just like Trump and he is not the person to deliver that message.

That being said, I would pull the lever for Bloomberg. Anyone who thinks he's as bad as Trump is an ideological fool.

This is not a policy election. It's about getting rid of Trump. They Bernie bots are either with that or they're not.

The Gabbard as VP is a stupid rumor and Sanders would be idiotic to pick her.  Gabbard is not popular outside of a very small faction.  It's the same as the rumors going around that Bloomberg is going to pick Clinton as VP.  These would be stupid picks for so many reasons.

And fuck this "Sanders is holding the party hostage" and the same as Trump.  If you want party unity how about not judging all Sanders supporters by a few of them instead of throwing these grenades?  Bloomberg is total shit but I will vote for him in November against Trump if necessary.  We get it, you don't like the people who like Sanders; maybe stop alienating them based on a loud and vocal minority of online people?

And the idea that Sanders is actually in  cahoots with Russia is one of the dumbest fucking things I've heard in these threads in a long time.  You're not doing anymore for inviting against Trump than the Bernie or bust people.  Remember that in 2016 something like 3/4 of Sanders primary voters voted for Clinton.  

You want to criticize Sanders go ahead, but you're focusing on the wackiest, most sensational rumors as if they're fact.  This isn't helping anything.  

 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 hour ago, Ice Queen said:

When this is all over we should do what the Republicans should have done to the Tea Party: banish the left to the fringes or force them to start their own party. They are blind and ignorant and short-sighted and we don't have time for their childishness and selfishness. They need to grow up and deal in reality. I used to think there was room in the tent for them, but no more. They are holding us hostage to their adolescent whims and Bernie does nothing to put them straight. Why? Because he, too, is a narcissist. 

Blame the game not the player.

The US political two party system is mde this way. The Democrats have to accomondate the people further to the left of the political centre (than you mgiht like), while the GOP serves the right and far right of the political spectrum. You won't win a GE if you cut off a third (random number DMC might give a more accurate estimate of how big the Sanders camp actually is) of your voters.

Personally I don't find the left wing of the democrats = tea party analogy particularly helpful. AOC is not Michelle Bachmann. And what DMC said about Bloomberg can also be said about Sanders. As much as you may disagree with him politically, he is not a threat to US democracy.

I don'T have a dog in this fight. I just hope whoever wins the nomination will get the votes from all potential Democrat voters. I don't really care whether it's Biden, Sanders, or Bloomberg. The upcoming GE election is a vote on your very own Republic, nothing less.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Also the idea that a grassroots movement, with a guy like Sanders, who is getting his support from a ton of individual small donations, is holding the party hostage, as opposed to the billionaire and corporate shills and super-PACs, is some dystopian fascist bootlicking.  Gross.

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, Ice Queen said:

 Bernie is willing to burn down the Democratic Party, just like Trump did the GOP, if he doesn't get the nomination.

What is this supported by? Is this backed by facts, or just an impression?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

If it comes down to, absolutely vote for Bloomberg over Trump.

But we're not there yet and I think the more important conversation right now is how utterly disturbing it would be for an ex-Republican billionaire to be able to basically buy the Democratic nomination and Presidency. Bloomberg has a political (and personal) history that ought to make him completely unacceptable to the Democratic electorate, and if he's able to overcome that by throwing around hundreds of millions of dollars of his personal wealth then I no longer have even a little hope that participatory politics matter in this country or that any meaningful change will take place until there's a major crisis. 

[Kalbear]

17 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

What is this supported by? Is this backed by facts, or just an impression?

It's based on both. On him doing things like not endorsing clinton until the last minute, or actively saying the system is rigged against him, or supporting anti-choice candidates. Or, really, refusing to run as an actual democrat. 

Also

 

[Jace, Extat]

I thought "trim" meant pussy. I'm not that old. The fuck? Has the vernacular of the day passed me by? Do I drift through a fog of incomprehension, blind to the dimness of today's discourse? What witless witticisms have I witnessed without wishing woe upon the wasteful whisperers whose waxings I regard, well, wanting?

[Zorral]

6 hours ago, DMC said:

and NYC's institutions are still doing ok.

They are not.  He starved the safety net system, particularly housing for the homeless and even shelters, as well as those who are desperate for mental health treatment, cut the city's library system's budgets in all areas (which have not recovered what was lost at all -- something I know professionally at first hand), allowed the police department to commit racial injustice and sheer physical abuse with impunity, so much so it screams physical and political threats at the current mayor when he condemns out-and-out murder by cops on unarmed black people, he blocked the city from paying out the Central Park Five's award in their false arrest, coerced false confessions and incarceration, he did everything he could to get rid of rent stabilization -- one can go on and on, about what isn't functioning as it should be thanks to his so-called management and oversight -- which was geared entirely toward comfort of the financial and real estate industries. He bought the mayor nomination, turning again from gop to Dem for he perceived that the field of Dems was a better opportunity for his billions than the gops -- who already had all the millions they needed. He was NOT good for NYC.

And fer pete's sake, @Kalbear, why do you think your kid's healthcare is going to continue under Bloomberg?  There is NOTHING in his record to base that on, and plenty in his record to show he's not going to do anything for your kid's health care.  He's in favor of privatizing everything, except what he can get from public funds for his own ventures.

 

[Rippounet]

19 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's based on both. On him doing things like not endorsing clinton until the last minute, or actively saying the system is rigged against him, or supporting anti-choice candidates. Or, really, refusing to run as an actual democrat.

Regarding the bolded: after Trump started tweeting that the system was rigged against Sanders his campaign (Bernie's) took the position that it was rigged in 2016, but not in 2020.
And before anyone starts screaming let's remember that Warren stated, in absolutely unambiguous terms, that she also believed the 2016 nomination process was rigged.

I get that Bernie's messaging might be irksome for moderates though.

[Zorral]

I sent more money to Warren.

This is how effective the establishment of the DNC is -- just ... NOT.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-iowa-caucuses-came-crashing-down-under-the-watchful-eye-of-the-dnc/2020/02/15/25b17e7e-4f5f-11ea-b721-9f4cdc90bc1c_story.html
.

Quote

 

. . .By the end of the week, an effort was underway to place blame squarely on the state party, which critics portrayed as ill-equipped and unprepared for its moment in the spotlight. The chairman of the DNC, Tom Perez, went on prime-time television to call the caucuses a “major league failure,” saying of the Iowa chairman, “he owned up to it.” Perez called on the state party to begin a hand audit, tweeting: “Enough is enough.”. . . .

But a detailed review by The Post found that the chaotic events of Feb. 3 were years in the making, and that the responsibility extends beyond the local party leaders who have borne the brunt of the criticism.

Rather, the turmoil in Iowa reflected a systemic failure in which Democratic officials eager to avoid repeating the disastrous campaign of 2016 — marred by Russian hacks of party emails and allegations that the nominating process had been tilted against Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — oversaw changes that triggered a whole new crisis. ....

 

In the meantime, food for thought, since height is now an election issue, US Presidents ranked by height, tallest to shortest:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights_of_presidents_and_presidential_candidates_of_the_United_States

 

[DMC]

53 minutes ago, Zorral said:

They are not.

The notion that Bloomberg did anything remotely in the same stratosphere as Trump regarding institutional decay and breaking of norms during his 12 years as mayor compared to Trump in a quarter of that time is objectively ludicrous.  He starved the social safety net?  That's quite the trick, considering the mayor - any mayor - has very little to no influence on the main policies/programs that compose the US social safety net.  Now, he was considerably critical of the ACA, but the way in which he was critical - and what it says for his values on health care - aren't too objectionable to me:

Quote

"It's really sad because they say they've insured or provided coverage for another 45 million people," Bloomberg added in the speech. "Except there's no doctors for 45 million more people and unless they fix immigration and let people who come here for medical education stay here, those people are just going to do the same thing. They're going to have to go to the emergency rooms where they've been except that now it's going to cost a lot more money." [...]

"Some parts of Obamacare I don't think will work, I don't think is fair, I don't think is intelligent, whatever. But I don't have a better answer other than let's try this," Bloomberg also said.

And this:

Quote

“President Obama has identified critical nonpartisan principles that should guide any health care reform package and I support his push to enact comprehensive health care reform this year,” said Mayor Bloomberg. “Our challenge is to keep Congress at the table until they come up with a workable solution – and commit to not walking away when the going gets tough. We need to ensure that federal reform strengthens and meets the needs of immigrants.  At the same time, we will continue to advance our innovative efforts here in New York City to reduce smoking, encourage healthy food choices, and invest in health information technology.  We’ve heard a lot about how government has to step in when a company is ‘too big to fail.’ This push for health care reform is too important to fail.  It’s too important to our cities.  It’s too important to our nation. It’s a challenge we can’t flinch from – and it’s an opportunity we must seize.”

Then, yes, he's made some statements on social security that should concern the Dem base - but they were largely during sequestration in 2013, and sounded a lot like the "centrist fiscal conservative" Bloomberg has cultivated his entire career upon.  In other words, expressing some compromise in some means testing/raising of the retirement age in exchange for stabilizing the program long term.  Politics is politics, and I'm perfectly fine with his primary opponents exploiting this "record" (in fact I'd even encourage it), but it's hardly any reason to worry a Bloomberg administration is coming for your SS (the plan he just put out, btw, is in line with the Democratic mainstream).

Public housing?  Yeah, that and the corresponding rise in homelessness pisses me off about him too.  But even this very critical piece on Bloomberg's public housing record describes it as "mixed at best" - hardly anything resembling an existential crisis.  What else?  He opposed raising the minimum wage til, like, a week ago?  Sure, I really don't like that either.  But "starving the social safety net" it is not.  He cut the library system's budget?  Alright, my mother would be very angry at him, but just the mere fact you're using that in comparison to Donald Trump's administration boldly demonstrates the absurdity of this argument.

[DMC]

I don't think there's any doubt Trump's base is going to turn out (although I'm not sure those comparisons to Dubya and Obama's reelection campaigns mean much of anything - all three were obviously going to get the nomination, so the metric is just conceptually rather pointless).  We even saw that in 2018, and the key there was turning out more that do not want to vote for Trump (and making sure they don't vote 3rd party).