Based on his tenure as mayor of NY? Probably the first two, maybe the third, and he's on tape advocating for the last.
-
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
Here's some of the doxxing paper trail :)
Bernie Sanders's Supporters Doxed a Critic on Twitter
[Original title edited by Admin] Unhappy that the tweet above was shown on MSNBC when they covered the #MyBernieStory hashtag campaign, Sanders campaign employees and several notable supporters are encouraging the doxing of that detractor. Here is Sam...www.dailykos.com
Btw, all of this came about because you asked what he could do. When you have top level staffers doxxing, rushing to defend Tulsi Gabbard, keeping Trump supporters on your staff, my thought was that perhaps a culture change at that level might make some of the types of supporters that Warren was talking about less emboldened.
I agree with Warren. You don't need to, no one here needs to but I do.
As I said I'm happy to follow with more links tomorrow but it's not some wacky out of the blue or at all new or undiscussed notion that Sanders has some extremely problematic hires (and my hypothesis is that might have had an effect on the culture of some of his more... enthusiastic supporters.)
Just catching up, but are people really outraged at this? A tweet that was showcased on a cable channel being exposed as being written by a corporate oil shill is now doxxing? I use my real name on twitter, as do most from what I can tell. Never even thought there was the illusion of anonymity on twitter. That's why news orgs quote it, and not 4chan, right?
He overtly supported targeted surveillance of the Islamic community, praised "Stop and Frisk" policies which unfairly targeted minority communities until the courts told him to knock it off, and has been an opponent of Social Security and Medicare in the past.
Don't let the "D" fool you. He's a political chameleon who's going to claim to be part of whatever party he thinks will be most advantageous to him while implementing his out of touch and racist policies.
:)Bernie's on the verge of crossing 25% in the RCP average.
You think a Dem House and Senate are going to just allow that stuff to happen? He's not going to just propose a bunch of crazy shit that's totally out of step with the party.He instituted openly racist policies as mayor against both black and Muslim Americans, so I no idea why he'd just stop as president. He's also on video advocating for cutting social programs.
Bloomberg Apologized for Stop-and-Frisk. Why Won't He Say Sorry to Muslims for Spying on Them?
Bloomberg's NYPD engaged in mass surveillance of Muslims, mapping where they prayed, ate, and worked. It was an attack on religious liberty.theintercept.com
I think a Bloomberg presidency would be pretty much exactly like a Biden one would. Middle of the road, boring, "safe." In other words, "back to normal," which many voters seem to want.
According to you, these Bloomberg numbers are more due to:
A. Dumb/ignorant people who saw ads and swallowed it "yeah sounds good, kinda like Obama"
B. Smart/weathy people uniting behind the "consensual moderate choice to beat Trump" (which is eventually just as dumb)
A. Dumb/ignorant people who saw ads and swallowed it "yeah sounds good, kinda like Obama"
B. Smart/weathy people uniting behind the "consensual moderate choice to beat Trump" (which is eventually just as dumb)
Every single elected figure supporting him he has given millions. If he becomes the nominee, he will funnel hundreds of millions into most Democrats across the country.
Yes, I fully believe most of the party would go along with whatever the hell he wants. They are confirming right now they're bought and paid for.
In addition, this is exactly the problem the progressive leftist base which Sanders represents have with the modern bastardization of the term Identity politics and why barbera smith endorsed him. Watch this.
IDPOL is traditionally about a broad coalition of economic and social forces coming together to bring about positive structural societal change.
In the modern era as Sanders has previously explains, it has become a cynical ploy in our society for weaponizing tokenization over actual social and economic based policy.
"IE the CIA should have a specific amount of females in it, who cares what the CIA actually does topping goverments"
"A huge company should have a black face on it as it exploits workers"
"We should elect women of color like kamala harris to the presidency despite their terrible records with poor minority neighborhoods and communities because they cynically use MLK day to push themselves further without doing anything for black communities"
Its basically saying. Dont elect black female republicans as if that's changing the white institutional system which keeps minorities down and poor populations inert.
I think a Dem House and Senate will allow whatever Bloomberg tells them to allow if he's bringing his money with him and delivers a Democratic trifecta. This sounds like exactly the kind of rationalizing Republicans did with Trump, and it took exactly a year for all trace of resistance to him in their party to completely disappear.
Usually it takes a few back and forths for people to just outright say it, but at least you just went there and got it out of the way.
Like, if you think ID-Pol is just boiled down to "voting for a women/gay/minority" because they are that, then you have a horrible understanding of what ID-Pol is on a fundamental level in terms of how it functions in the Democratic Party.
I just can't see that. Dems wouldn't ever treat their leader as a person chosen by God who has the divine right to do as they please. They wouldn't turn into grovling sycophants.
User Banned (Permanent): dismissing bigotry, previous severe bans for the same
I have spent 12, and i say your wrong. Also acting like him going on Rogan's show and saying to his(rogans) viewers that he has his endorsement is just smart strategy. He doesnt have to believe in everything joe rogan believes to gain votes. Indeed, he made his leftist progressive case to Rogan and Rogan hiimself endorsed Sanders. Sanders didnt give a single inch on anything, he had rogan come to his point of view. That's a whole lot better than pretending to be a epublican to gain votes like Biden. or actually being a republican like Bloomberg.
I also fully disagree with you on Cenk. he was a republican for a long time and indeed, as he would tell you, was a pretty terrible dude. But people change and evolve and there's no bigger example than him who fights for leftist causes and social justice and economic advocacy every day.
User Banned (permanent): minimizing bigotry, previous ban for the same.
I think the Cenk issue is a really good litmus test if you care about progressive policies or are just in it for the purity tests.
Like do you think that Cenk being in that seat would not be a net positive vs. Christy Smith?
I'm sorry, I'm likely voting for Bernie in Texas, but this is false fear-mongering BS. That politico article is especially irresponsible because it's talking about a "half-dozen" people out of hundreds of officials. And 6 people is "many." And the other, much larger number of officials shut that down.No. Its a fact that the DNC has people in its ranks trying to get rid of the "unity commission"s work already to bring back superdelegates and outwardly hate Sanders and the progressive movement he represents.
DNC members discuss rules change to stop Sanders at convention
The talks reveal rising anxiety over the Vermont senator's momentum on the eve of voting.www.politico.com
Centrist Democrats Want to Stop Sanders. They’re Not Sure Who Can. (Published 2020)
Unless a moderate favorite soon emerges, party leaders may increasingly look to Michael R. Bloomberg as a potential savior.www.nytimes.com
And we dont need to go into the DCC.
There are elements with thumb on the scale, and to deny that is to deny reality. its like saying fox news doesnt have a bias against democrats or leftists or the GOP not having a bias against leftist or democrats.
NY Times I can't read as I'm at the paywall and will not subscribe to that publication. But from the preview, the Dem party is a big tent. It's full of centrists and conservatives too. The country itself is mostly centrist and leans conservative. So naturally, they're probably going to gravitate towards someone who is more like that than not.
Maybe, but if Sanders ends up with the most delegates via primaries and we end the convention with a Bloomberg nomination, as a black person, I have no issues not voting for president this election. Dumping someone who seems to actually care about regular people in favor of a multi-billionaire that bought his way in, is insanely racist, and is simply a competent Trump. Nope. Not getting my vote. And I think there are a lot of other people like that too.
This is literally straw mans that have been created to attack the concept of ID-Pol because you create a framework that ID-Pol is a product that has been created to prop up capitalism, or something.
The workforce should focus on diversity, it should focus on creating work envrionment that aren't toxic to people who aren't white straight dudes.
The fact you take that concept of focusing on social issues in the capitalist workplace... and then bring the CIA into the mix as some type of "well actually it doesn't matter because the CIA murders babies" is laughably ridiculous.
Your arguments essentially... don't try and work on any social issues cause it doesn't matter until we topple the status quo of capitalist society.
It's beyond reductionist and is the exact type of thing people are horrified about with such a wing taking over the party.
amazing what time, an unfathomable amount of cash, and trump exploding people heads can make you seem "presidential"
a bloomberg victory would be horrible on the sheer fact that he is a goddamn ghoul, make the dem party look like massive hypocrites on multiple fronts, and set any debate on getting money out of politics back even further somehow now the signal is out any billionaire can just walk in
a bloomberg victory would be horrible on the sheer fact that he is a goddamn ghoul, make the dem party look like massive hypocrites on multiple fronts, and set any debate on getting money out of politics back even further somehow now the signal is out any billionaire can just walk in
Bloomberg in the debates should scare every Dem candidate. If they attack him, and he deflects them well and survives this first debate, he will surge in the polls. IMO, I believe he's going to have a good counter for every argument and they will not be able to rattle him.
He's a self made billionaire and he got there winning arguments in some form.The media will celebrate because they think he's capable of beating Trump while maintaining a pro business agenda and thus the rise of President Bloomberg.
He's a self made billionaire and he got there winning arguments in some form.The media will celebrate because they think he's capable of beating Trump while maintaining a pro business agenda and thus the rise of President Bloomberg.
While I don't disagree that it's horrible, isn't the argument about money in politics about the influence it buys on politicians?
This seems to be a different bit of nonsense.
I don't support people who are blatantly attacking inclusion of all people, but there's a legitimate section of the Democratic party that is more focused on identity politics as a device rather than as a legitimate issue and place considerably less value on the economic equality many minority groups would benefit substantially from. I don't have any issue pointing out that support of identity politics without the willingness to make substantial economic reforms to benefit minority groups is, at best, a little bit hypocritical. I mean, you have to be willing to address the root causes of systemic racism and sexism, and not just put on the face of "socially progressive, fiscally conservative" at a certain point.
The coalition of vulnerable populations is also because there is literally no other choice. In the US, it's a dichotomy between Democrat and Republican. You basically have to choose which group fucks you the least even if they both fuck you (which, again, historically has tons of nuance and it's not like they've always been absolutely screwed over by Democratics, but it's also not really that much of a choice either). And, the Democratic party has a wide history that needs to be reckoned with too in terms of disappointing minority communities and avoiding lots of meaningful change when they've had more opportunities to do so. A lot of traditional liberal policy has been deeply problematic, and I don't begrudge anyone for finally exhausting themselves of the traditional Democratic party. Sure, they have been the party of progress, but on average it has been social progress while still operating in center-right policy for decades. They're better than the alternative, that's certainly true (Unless you're Bloomberg, in which case fuck him), but being the better party in an uncompromising dichotomy doesn't inherently make them the "good guys" either. And obviously, there's a lot more nuance to the actual realities of the situation than "liberals" bad, but it's well past time we held the establishment's feet to the fire to help shift the overton window back left and also work towards economic equality in more meaningful ways. Economic populism and economic human rights is how we make social equality an easier to obtain reality.
I do think it's important to keep trying to bring in people, even if their social politics are not the best. Economic equality is going to help open up more lanes to work on those social issues with voters that aren't just intrinsically hateful, but programmed by years of propaganda from conservatives. People tend to be more receptive of and willing to assist in social justice fights when their basic needs as a human being are also being met and they can actually work as activists when they're not worried about losing their healthcare from losing a job by attending such an event for example. And I think it's important to believe in the "redemption" if you will of the electorate because the alternative is horribly grim.
If Bloomberg is able to have a strong debate performance, then that is a failure of the other candidates. And it would be very disappointing on their part.
No, but your deflection and defense of what Sanders does without acknowledging how people can be hurt and taken aback by his actions speaks volumes to why some people are horrified of the potential implications of a Sanders nomination and defacto leader of the party when from the outside, Sanders can't do anything wrong and is infallible.
Like, you can't even say Cenk is a shitty person? Cenk is literally the epitome of the left ignoring real, horrifying views from people who are populists... simply because that are populists.
You will take anyone who has populist economics and ignore the literal trash views they have, because the ends of economic populism justify the means... no matter the potential consequences.
That's what scares me, there are so many people who share views like yours who are willing to bring in the absolute worst into the fold because you get what you want with no regard of the potential blowback on every single other issue they bring into the party.
Look at it this way:
Pelosi and Schumer had no problem funding Trump's concentration camps.
Why would they have a problem with funding Bloomberg's?
sorry, i do not understand what you are getting at.
are you saying he hasn't? (injected a lot of his money into politics to buy influence)
You can get a sense of how a Bloomberg administration would work by looking at his record at NYC mayor, which is why people are vehemently opposed to his candidacy.
OP
OP
Eh, the thing is, the Dems have been making decisions that're bad for their funding base for a while now. Just being against climate change has cost them more money than Bloomberg could conceivably give them.
(Just to argue the point at hand. Bloomberg is a garbage person who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the white house, no question)
Exactly, its also true that if the dems go unchallenged on this front, it absolutely becomes a situation where the democratic party becomes the party of bloomberg and there is no resistance to what is essentially two republican parties and a population which has no choice literally anywhere.
That is why leftist fight so hard against the democratic machine slowly bringing things further to the right through the overton window
There's a widespread problem understanding power dynamics. As if some random gamer posting anonymously on Twitter is the same as a corporate consultant who gets quoted by mainstream news.
It reminds me of people who think there's some hypocrisy between supporting wikileaks material and opposing selective leaking by "anonymous intelligence officials" in the Washington Post.
User Banned (1 Week): Downplaying Concerns and Whataboutism
Also, since Cenk was a horrible person and has apparently apologized and all is forgiven, I'm quite interested in why said logic doesn't extend to the piece of shit who is Bloom?
Someone who was a Republican, said horrible shit, but apologized and is now running as a Democrat.
Funny how that works I guess
This will be the first debates that I watch this year - it will be a good one. The political machine is very very happy.
User Banned (2 weeks): misrepresenting prior ban
Careful, I got banned for making a similar argument.
yep, same here. a bloomberg v. trump is one im not touching at all. the country is fucked at that point
Great post. Feel like Tim Scott and Nikki Haley are a victory lap for IDPOL. Yay minorities, we got rid of that awful flag! Pay no mind to all else we do!
To add on this :
Was Martin Luther King a Socialist?
Brandon Terry writes that it might be better to stop asking whether King was a socialist, and instead ask what King the public philosopher can teach socialists today. The iconic public philosopher has much to teach today’s radicals and visionaries, whatever their politics.
www.plough.com
Sorry, Bloomberg has not apologized for anything. He still currently holds his views. Also, Bloomberg didn't just say shit. He, as an executive, was in power instituting some of the most racist policies since the Jim Crow era. He has done nothing to atone for that. He has proposed no policies that would prevent that or make up for anything he has done. If anything, he's proposed policies that will fuck people even more. From education to healthcare.
I don't like Cenk at all. But let's not use that as a way to somehow claim Bloomberg has apologized for any of the heinous and racist stuff he has a very clear record on. Because he hasn't.
And after all of that, if Bloomberg just said "I've had a change of heart, and want to spend a billion dollars running ads for Warren", I think we'd all be damn excited. Everyone from the drop has said that if he wants to get rid of Trump, then back someone, don't run. It doesn't mean that a candidate that takes him up on that help has now failed the purity test.
I don't watch TYT on a regular basis, but I've watched enough to know that Cenk isn't faking it for da views. My biggest criticism of him is he can be very "too sure" about what he is saying, and he gets agitated way too fast.
unlike Bloomberg, Cenk changed his views. Bloomberg is just an opportunist. It's not that hard but I guess nuance only extends one way.
Being on the other side of the country, and having no say in that election, I'm not versed on the issues that could impact his run. That said, running for a lower office than the POTUS is a good start on trying to prove that you've changed before being trusted with the most powerful position in our country.
Unlike Cenk, who has a history of sexism and decides to run in a district where the previous representive resigned due to the threat of revenge porn from her ex.
Def not an opportunist!
A lot of people in here i feel are well meaning people. So i dont want to say that, no.
To add on this :
Was Martin Luther King a Socialist?
Brandon Terry writes that it might be better to stop asking whether King was a socialist, and instead ask what King the public philosopher can teach socialists today. The iconic public philosopher has much to teach today’s radicals and visionaries, whatever their politics.
Yep.
It fits right into the radical socioeconomic views of people who followed him at that.
Yeah he's super passionate and that can bite him in the ass, but he is not faking his commitment to progressive social and economic values. Even if his history gets him blacklisted into controversy more often than not.
UNLIKE CENK BLOOMBERG DOESN'T HAVE A HISTORY OF SEXISM? Are you out of your mind?
Also what does Cenk have to do with the revenge porn?
You should watch this.
Bloomberg and The Legacy of Stop-and-Frisk - Between the Scenes | The Daily Show
Unpacking the legacy of stop-and-frisk in New York under Mike Bloomberg. #BetweenTheScenes #TheDailyShow Subscribe to The Daily Show: https://www.youtube.com...
youtu.be
- Status