Now this is some fine, hard-hitting, unbiased reporting of the kind we’ve come to expect from CNN.
3 Likes
Um… Yeah. You do realize that the content of the video remains the same (and is provably true), no matter whom the source is, correct? Ad hominem isn’t going to erase THIS stink, sorry.
3 Likes
8 Likes
It might as well have literally two names, though. Teddy Roosevelt did pretty good in 1912 with his Progressive (“Bull Moose”) Party, getting 27% of the vote (the same year when Socialist Eugene Debs also got 6%), but that was literally the only US election since the formation of the current party system in the mid 19th century where third (and indeed fourth) candidates were anything more than distractions.
1 Like
Bloomberg can’t be fixed. In 2004, after thousands had died in Iraq based on lies, after it had become public that there were no WMDs in Iraq, after Abu Ghraib / use of torture had become public, after Bush / Cheney had weaponized the no fly list, and myriad other abuses, Bloomberg supported Bush / Cheney.
Even Trump knew that the Bush / Cheney gang were beyond the pale.
And in any event Bloomberg cant beat Trump. So it would be a lose-lose all around.
Democrats will be positioned for decades as the party so intimidated by Trump that it asked a Republican oligarch from NY to fight the other Republican oligarch from NY. And lost to Trump again.
7 Likes
spent more money than obama did for the whole goddam race
Accusing the 1% of being the source of society’s woes is the kind of profiling I can support.
5 Likes
Both sides, both sides. Yes, Bloomberg is just as bad as Trump.
NO HE’S NOT.
2 Likes
Yep.
Capital letters notwithstanding, is that something on which people in good faith can disagree?
From New Hampshire: Buttigieg+Klobuchar+Biden = 53%, Sanders+Warren = 35%. The time may come when the many posters here who are for “Sanders or Warren” will have to put on their thinking caps.
1 Like
Maybe not. But we don’t have to go crawling to the first billionaire ex-republican that isn’t trump who offers. There are literally a wealth of better options.
I listened to this yesterday and I’m still trying to figure out how being young and black is an MO.
4 Likes
I get the obvious meaning of the rhyme, but I’m fixated on what accent or pronunciation makes “woman” rhyme with “common”.
I am seriously wavering in my faith that anyone would be better than Trump. I mean, people often say they’d vote for a rotten turnip or a rabid raccoon over Trump, but that’s kind of beside the point. Like, of course the absence of a president is better than Trump. But suppose it was Jeffrey Dahmer? Dahmer is obviously also worse than nothing. I think I might vote for Dahmer over Trump, but it’s a tough call, and I wouldn’t want to be making it.
A few months ago Bloomberg over Trump would have been a slam dunk. I sort of assumed Bloomberg was out-of-touch racist or neoliberal-race-blind racist (ETA: both of which are awful, but both of which would probably rank Bloomberg in a big tie for second or third least racist president ever). Now I’m starting to worry Bloomberg is salivating-at-the-thought-of-dark-people-suffering racist. I also wonder if Bloomberg isn’t so much running because Bloomberg thinks that Trump needs to be defeated, but because Bloomberg knows an opportunity when they see it. If Bloomberg beats Trump and takes the white house then they can go on the most egregious wholesale profiteering spree ever seen in the history of the world and there will be literally zero chance the Democrats will participate in an impeachment.
The president is above the law and above any oversight. Bloomberg is probably smart enough to make billions off that without even going to prison after the fact.
9 Likes
Citation needed that there is any evidence that “we” are doing this. By all means…please show us any data, polls, primary results that show Bloomberg as a leader in the Dem primaries.
Please show me any evidence that I claimed that Bloomberg was a leader in the dem primaries.
I don’t trust billionaires in general, and him in particular. My mistrust is well founded on his past actions and statements. You are free to believe what you like.
From what I read, stop and frisk targeted both. And Bloomberg is now using Stop and Frisk as an example that is is tough on gun control.
But yes, in general, the whole point of the War on Drugs was to over-police the “dangerous minorities on marijuana”. IMO illicit drugs should all be legal, or at the very least decriminalized to the point of a small fine. Their application and enforcement is used as a racist tool even more so. Prohibition doesn’t work and all it has done is fund a multi-billion dollar industry that is surrounded by violence.
Drugs aren’t GOOD for you, but neither is the oppression the laws cause.
2 Likes
you can count on this - the DNC is. Bernie had to get 51% to prevent this. Or Bernie plus one ally.
I have sometimes felt that Trump was America’s Yeltsin. And it leads me to worry about who would follow as America’s Putin. Bloomberg gives off some authoritarian vibes.
1 Like
Oh absolutely. T has made, from his standpoint, a smashing success of it just by being willing to break every law, rule or tradition he finds inconvenient. Other ambitious plutocrats no doubt look at him and think “Look what that asshole gets away with, and he’s so much dumber than me…”
1 Like
I heard it on good authority from Brit Hume that it’s an unfounded conspiracy theory that billionaires exert undue influence in America, so it must be Bloomberg’s amazing charisma pulling him ahead.
/s in case it wasn’t obvious.
4 Likes
Yeah, but that’s because they don’t understand we built a society around promoting egotism. If they did understand that it would presumably lead to some kind of personal crisis.
It’s certainly unfounded as a conspiracy theory. As an obvious fact of reality that is happening in front of our eyes and is reported on in the mainstream news it holds up pretty well!
4 Likes
