Imagine owning being called a 'political hack' but think being called a communist is an insult.
What a loser
What a loser
-
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
Okay but you're not saying that, you're defending the democratic integrity of buying elections.
There is no democratic integrity whatsoever in the primaries, so arguing that it has to be respected is nonsense
If the process HAD integrity than candidates would be able to win off the backs of their policies, charisma, electoral record, and ground game. The budget would be equalized between all the candidates
Tell me, why is Bloomberg polling so well? Is it because of his signature policies (he has none)? His charisma (he has none)? His great electoral record as mayor (it was horrible)?
No, he's polling well because he has by far the most money, so he's inundating the airwaves with ads to boost his name/face, and taking advantage of the fact that millions of Americans will vote whoever has a D next to his name
Complete joke to say Bloomberg should be allowed in the name of fairness. A party should be allowed to remove candidates that they deem unfit to represent them, and Bloomberg is wholly unfit for the job.
If the process HAD integrity than candidates would be able to win off the backs of their policies, charisma, electoral record, and ground game. The budget would be equalized between all the candidates
Tell me, why is Bloomberg polling so well? Is it because of his signature policies (he has none)? His charisma (he has none)? His great electoral record as mayor (it was horrible)?
No, he's polling well because he has by far the most money, so he's inundating the airwaves with ads to boost his name/face, and taking advantage of the fact that millions of Americans will vote whoever has a D next to his name
Complete joke to say Bloomberg should be allowed in the name of fairness. A party should be allowed to remove candidates that they deem unfit to represent them, and Bloomberg is wholly unfit for the job.
Nominating Bloomberg also means every moral argument Dems have made against Trump the past 5 years goes out the window.
He will IMMEDIATELY campaign on "The Democrats...they call us racist. They call us sexist. They call us homophobic....yet they have the audacity to nominate someone like Bloomberg!"
He will base his entire campaign on the hypocrisy of it all and he'll win the argument.
He will IMMEDIATELY campaign on "The Democrats...they call us racist. They call us sexist. They call us homophobic....yet they have the audacity to nominate someone like Bloomberg!"
He will base his entire campaign on the hypocrisy of it all and he'll win the argument.
If you don't care about gun control, climate change, immigration, reproductive rights, childhood obesity, I mean, I guess Trump is the moral choice.
Ok, I fail to see how "Michael Bloomberg has racist policies that he has enacted upon" has anything to do with "well what if the plurality of minorities vote for him" when he hasn't won a single state and there's literally another candidate that has been doing good with minority votes.
Imagine thinking Bloomberg is gonna lead the way on any of these issues.
No, I'm not. There should be spending restrictions, but their existence or nonexistence doesn't make Bloomberg's current support invalid. Those voters support him as of now, no matter how they made their decision, and they have the right to express that decision in the Primary.
I'd love if the DNC placed personal spending limits on the primary tomorrow, forcing Bloomberg to start taking donations to run.
Now we can't be too hard on the minorities backing Bloomberg because?
Does their endorsement erase his past?
Fuck those fools, I only hope for their sake that they're uninformed, otherwise they aren't worth shit in my eye. Literally as bad as minority Trump voters.
Does their endorsement erase his past?
Fuck those fools, I only hope for their sake that they're uninformed, otherwise they aren't worth shit in my eye. Literally as bad as minority Trump voters.
Look at this thread?
It's nice to show all the different ways money can interfere in the process. It is not just about the ads he bought.
Because Bloomberg is quickly gaining support among minority voters, whether people on this thread like it or not. So, it's important to actually have a conversation about that possibility. In my perfect world, Bloomberg would've been DOA and Sanders, Warren, Julian Castro, Jay Inslee, and Cory Booker are all getting ready for Nevada. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world.
It be a start for sure. As for actual claims of not allowing him in. I'd argue that given his proximity to media as the owner of Bloomberg News actually does place him in an unfair position at the start and that rules should prevent him from joining unless he can divorce himself from the close ties to the media or that this fact is always mentioned to show that there might be some subtle bias that can result of it.
lol
do an ounce of research on Bloomberg please. there is nothing to indicate he will lead on any of those issues you care about, and I have zero confidence in a billionaire changing face from just a few years ago was a Republican and threatened third party runs multiple times.
Just a small primer of who Bloomberg is for everyone:
theintercept.com
Michael Bloomberg’s Right-Wing Views on Foreign Policy Make Him a Perfect Candidate for the Republican Nomination
It’s not just domestic policies — Michael Bloomberg’s positions on the Iraq invasion, Saudi Arabia, and Israel-Palestine are extreme.
theintercept.com
I think your disagreement misses some of the key components about how candidacy rules are applied in the U.S. Even at the lowest federated level, let's say State House of Representatives, there are hurdles that must be overcome to appear on the ballot for the primary. In Florida, for example, a candidate must reach a certain number of signed petitions from residents of their district, or pay a flat fee to the state. For candidates selected by a party, the party will offer to cover that fee so the candidate may spend their money and workforce hours elsewhere, essentially eliminating that hurdle due to party favoritism. A candidate not selected by a party has an uphill battle to even qualify for consideration by the public for nomination. This process is deeply undemocratic, and yet we accept it as it is, perhaps because most people don't know about it.
So, at the local level, the party may choose to attempt to block someone they do not like from becoming a genuine choice in an election by refusing to offer help. This undemocratic process has pros and cons: a poor person may not be able to gather the attention or resources to appear on the ballot, but the party can also prevent prospective candidates who do not represent the platform or interests of the party from campaigning as easily.
Would you advocate that this process be changed to be more democratic as well? And if you did replace it, how would you prevent individuals with malicious intent or goals too similar to opposing parties from appearing on the ballot? Is this a fair choice to the people? At what point does platform overlap negate the purpose of democracy?
Here's a little more.Just a small primer of who Bloomberg is for everyone:
Michael Bloomberg’s Right-Wing Views on Foreign Policy Make Him a Perfect Candidate for the Republican Nomination
It’s not just domestic policies — Michael Bloomberg’s positions on the Iraq invasion, Saudi Arabia, and Israel-Palestine are extreme.
Bernie Bros of the world unite!
Trump has already started, look at his tweets about Bloomberg today. He's going to hit Bloomberg on racism, and sexism, and it will work, because the Democratic electorate and some independents actually do care about this stuff, whereas the GOP base does not.
Meaningfully making progress on climate change necessitates broad and radical taking on of industry, which a billionaire ain't doing.
It's nice that he thinks it's real and has some vague notions of what to do about it, but "not good enough" is barely meaningfully different than "doing nothing" as far as temperature projections are concerned.
Childhood obesity is a poverty problem. Bloomberg thinks it's because the plebs have no self control.
I think that could be a totally reasonable rule, as long as anyone with media ties has a process they can use to come into compliance.
Doesn't Carville have some foreign dictators he needs to go help get re-elected?
These fucking old Dem pundits, man...
I wasn't even a year old when the Soviet Union disassembled so I don't quite relate to this longstanding red scare shit, but man, if they're scared of "communist" Bernie Sanders, they ain't seen nothin' yet...
I wasn't even a year old when the Soviet Union disassembled so I don't quite relate to this longstanding red scare shit, but man, if they're scared of "communist" Bernie Sanders, they ain't seen nothin' yet...
Some more on Bloomberg's record, specifically regarding the impoverished and homeless:
www.salon.com
www.coalitionforthehomeless.org
He spiked the rate of homelessness 80% and waged war on them
How Bloomberg made life worse for the poor in New York
Prophesying his presidency, the billionaire's mayor rein over New York immiserated and impoverished thousands
Bloomberg on NYC Homelessness: A Total Lack of Accountability - Coalition For The Homeless
www.coalitionforthehomeless.org
He spiked the rate of homelessness 80% and waged war on them
Until we have poll numbers translate into actual votes and delegates I think its preemptive to think he has a plurality of minority support. And, again, this has nothing to do with the fact that Bloomberg has legitimate issues with racist policies.
First of all, I've worked in national politics, so I understand how they work.
Secondly, in that Florida example no one is being blocked, they just aren't being helped, though I don't have a problem with ending that practice.
And yes, that's a fair choice. What would be unfair is making that decision for the people.
Because I wasn't a fresh faced transplant minority in NYC under two years of Bloomberg? I don't really need to do research.
On the issues I listed, he's actually pretty dedicated to them and it's absurd people are implying he wouldn't be drastically better than Trump.
This is a primary discussion thread - by your argument, we shouldn't talk about any support any candidate has, because there's been no votes in these states yet.
One can believe Bloomberg has racist, sexist, and classist policies, which he does, while also believing that when those polls were taken, a chunk of minorities supported Bloomberg. That may change when he's gang-attacked in the debate by every other candidate, or when people know more about his past via the media, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to talk about his current levels of support.
So you're saying you think it's more important that the people be able to choose a party's candidates, rather than the parties themselves, as well as choose their representatives in elections, because the same principle of choice should apply at all stages. Even if this means the final election loses any differentiation between candidates, which is indicative of non-democratic regimes, because letting the people have a say is more important than the value of the final decision.
At this point then, what purpose do the parties actually serve, if anyone can be a candidate for any party?
The Democratic Party preferring an actual Republican over leftist policies was honestly always gonna be the end point of Third Way
Bloomberg's decades of systematic sexism/misogyny/sexual harassment/workplace harassment/emotional and mental abuse (as far as I understand, there is much more out there that the article doesn't cover):
abcnews.go.com
I did some highlights of it:
Bloomberg's sexist remarks fostered company culture that degraded women, lawsuits allege
Mike Bloomberg has on repeated occasions faced and fought allegations that he directed crude and sexist comments to women in his office.
abcnews.go.com
Bloomberg's Gun control is at the expense of the rights of black people. come on dude
All this talk about integrity of the process can't help but remind me of that "You go high, we go low" video from Innuendo Studios on youtube, the part where he talks/explains about how democrats value the system.
Eerily on point.
Eerily on point.
Just read a 354 page thread? I just got here and I'm not from the US. I am just curious
Yeah, but then he'll bleed votes to the "wait, so we can keep the racism/sexism/homophobia, but with someone who's a regular liar instead of a serial one? And is actually mega rich and thereby favored by God and not just pretending? Intriguing. Tell us more." voters.
All he has to do is say he's not so sure about this abortion thing and he might have this in the bag.
Well your example is a straw man, because the Democratic and Republican candidates in any given race are not exactly the same.
But yes, I wouldn't call making decisions for the electorate against their will giving them "more choice." Elites alone choosing which candidates will be on a final election ballot is also "indicative of non-democratic regimes."
Democrats have a person with the most support from women and minorities in their race and decide to instead support the racist fella who enables rapists at his workplace.
*golf claps* at the absurdity.
Bloomberg may be a womanizing rape enabler but at least he's not a serial rapist like our current president. #resist
*golf claps* at the absurdity.
Bloomberg may be a womanizing rape enabler but at least he's not a serial rapist like our current president. #resist
lmao
A few pages behind is enough, also some have posted some of his record.
But some minorities are supporting Bloomberg so...Gosh..what do we do?
/s
Bloomberg hasn't won a single primary and is polling in 3rd place
I'm not sure why people are absolutely losing their minds like he just won the primary or is even close to being the nominee. His support at this point are just people answering a poll (and only coming in third), he has yet to have a single vote cast for him and won't for awhile.
Five days to Texas primary early voting. Will need to read up on non-presidential primary candidates this weekend.
Bloomberg partnered with 6 other companies to create Bloomberg Green, a global publication dedicated to climate change. That dirty billionaire has done more for climate change in the past month than all of the candidates combined have done in the past year.
Bloomberg has serious problems with race and should be hammered on it. But even as mayor, he pushed climate change as a priority. As he did gun control. And supporting reproductive rights. And immigration. So I think it's safe to say he would be drastically better than Trump just due to those issues.
People are acting like he's the candidate the Democrats want and him winning is a foregone conclusion when there's no evidence to support that.
you don't see an issue with what you just said?
he came in so late he hasn't been in a single primary and is polling in 3rd place from just his own funding. There is definitely cause for alarm especially once he's actually on the ballot with an unlimited war chest.
- Status