Have you looked at how many legs they have!?
2 Likes
Ok, rather than use the same kind of unhelpful language you chose, let’s break this down, shall we?
The next President of the United States is going to be the nominee from either the Democrats or the Republicans. There is, to date no 3rd party with even a teensy chance of becoming President. We can bemoan that fact, but it is a fact.
Any talk about removing the Electoral college is a dead letter for the foreseeable future, given the mechanics of amending the Constitution, so that plays no part in the current election.
So what we’re down to is voting for the lesser of two evils. Sounds bad, doesn’t it?
Well, I definitely considered HRC the lesser of two evils in the last election, so what would have been the result of her election vs. Trump? Would we have pulled out of the Paris Accords and made climate denial the official policy of our country while gutting the EPA? Would we have Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the bench and on the brink of overturning Roe? Would we have demonized immigrants and minorities to the point of making white nationalism mainstream? Would we have Russia in control of our Executive? Would we have tossed away the norms and expectations that actually make our system run as we knew it? Would we have given billionaires massive tax cuts while slashing assistance? Would she have done a lot of shit I disagreed with on foreign policy? Yeah, probably.
Same shit with these guys. Biden and/or Bloomberg are not even close to my first choice, and in a perfect world they be sitting at home having tea instead of running for President. But the world is not perfect, and doing anything else than voting for a Democrat against Trump in the fall is a statement that one is willing to let Trump have another 4 years to shape this country because one’s voting purity is more important.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
18 Likes
Oh man, was that ever frustrating. Like, if you’re using the same word to describe Stephen Miller, David Duke, and Pete Buttigieg, then you’ve leached all meaning from any point you’re trying to make.
2 Likes
Maybe you could, like, present a reason? Maybe I get this totally wrong, but are you saying you‘d rather have Trump for a second term than some of the Democrat candidates?
Because both are worse than Trump? Can you explain that? In layman’s terms?
3 Likes
In news that makes “earlier than the night before” sound like “way ahead of time”.
4 Likes
KLOBUCHAR is OUT, and that means I lived long enough to see another great sign for American Democracy: The only people who wanted Klobuchar’s brand of centrist cowardice were coward centrists, and now they’ll have to choose between their chamber-of-commerce Republican-lite principles (which aren’t winning regardless of messenger) and Sanders (who is winning regardless of how much money Bloomberg spends or how many diluted republicans they throw at him).
1 Like
we obviously did not watch the same debates. in the last one, it was clear buttigieg’s whole platform was about sanders being a socialist with policies that would divide the party and doom the election.
it seemed blinding obvious to me he chose his “medicare for those who want it” plan solely to distinguish himself in the race, without any analysis of whether or not it could work. it was a platform, not a plan. and sapped any idea that i would vote for him unless i had to.
few of his policies gave him room to argue for anything, so he seemed to focus entirely on being electable, which recently became “not sanders.”
no. we’re voting for a candidate who can do right by the country. if the party can’t nominate someone who reflects the needs of people, they don’t get my vote.
if bloomberg gets the nomination, i wont vote for him. i will however vote blue for the house and senate seats that im eligible to. and i will donate to good candidates in districts that are competitive.
that’s the only way to win long term.
giving either one of the two republican billionaires a mandate is not good for the long term health of this country or the people who live here.
3 Likes
Yep. fivethirtyeight were getting shit throughout the 2016 campaign because their model gave Trump such a good chance of winning. The NYT Upshot needle had HRC at >90% to win, and people were screaming at 538 that they had it way wrong. Meanwhile, they were dead-nuts on: high variance, high uncertainty, and skepticism of the “blue wall” narrative.
7 Likes
(Gif of some famous, trendy person pointing at the word THIS, as apparently saying “This is exactly correct!” is out of style.)
I voted Sanders primary Hillary general in '16
I will vote Sanders primary and any Democrat but Bloomberg in '20.
BECAUSE MICHAEL BLOOMBERG ISN’T A DEMOCRAT.
2 Likes
Ok, that literally means you’re OK with Donald Trump getting another 4 years rather than Bloomberg. As much as I dislike Bloomberg (Warren is my strong preference), that’s not a position I agree with either morally or practically. (but before we get too at each others’ throats about this, we can probably agree that Bloomberg is not going to win the nomination)
5 Likes
now Amy out too, wish this meant Warren had a chance but USA will never elect a woman until more boomers die off and maybe never someone as smart as Warren ever
don’t think Sanders can accomplish a single thing he promises but given how hard the corporate media is against him, I kinda wanna see him win just so they lose their damn minds
reddit has this great meme on old.reddit.com/r/PresidentialRaceMemes
2 Likes
Holy shit, I couldn’t disagree more. You only have to look as far as their respective philanthropic efforts to know there’s a real difference. The Trump Foundation is a pure grift, and the Bloomberg Philanthropies have donated billions to causes that matter. Bloomberg Philanthropies - Wikipedia
Like, Bloomberg has his issues, but “as bad as Trump” is fucking bonkers coo-coo-ville.
7 Likes
This is what’s pissing me off.
Saying “I can’t vote for Bernie, because he can’t get things through Congress.”
I would rather have a candidate who says we waste money on Nuclear Weapons out loud and cannot change the Military Budget than one who can blithely sign off on another trillion-dollar black budget for bombs.
If Bernie does not take the House or Senate, he will AT LEAST discuss things that are so far outside of the fucking Overton window for Biden or Warren that it’ll be worth it. Would you rather have shit corporate healthcare, or shit corporate healthcare with someone talking about how there’s a better way?
4 Likes
Philanthropy exists because we don’t tax the rich right. I don’t give a fuck how much stolen money Bloomberg can give away on things with his fucking name on them.
Saying Bloomberg ISN’T as bad as Trump is fucking bonkers coo-coo ville, sir or madam, and I can tell you why: No one with a Billion dollars should be allowed to have a fucking Billiion dollars, let alone abuse that theft to become president. FULL STOP.
2 Likes
im staking a line precisely because i don’t want bloomberg to win the nomination.
i can guarantee that large numbers of people will stay home rather than vote for bloomberg. he knows that, and that’s why he ( and amy, and somewhat pete ) were talking about ( white ) swing voters in the debates.
the only chance bloomberg has to win against trump is to swing voters who would otherwise vote… for trump.
it makes no sense.
so saying, blue no matter who is missing an important reality check. and it’s better for people to realize that now rather than later.
moreover, he’s not “blue”. and i wont give him my vote, because his money will corrupt - has already over the years corrupted - government in its own way.
he’s not an antidote to trump. he’s a whole new set of problems.
5 Likes
I think you give the media far too much credit for any intelligence, they won’t discuss his proposals, they will poison american minds against him for generations
and to be clear, if it’s Sanders vs Biden, I want Sanders but honestly I don’t want either 78 year old, dead by end of first term of office, white men
Warren would have been amazing
Biden is going to go with whatever conservative idea some adviser whispers in his ear, he’s gaff machine and will likely be as crazy as Regan by his last year
3 Likes
Vote for the real billionaire instead of the wannabe billionaire?
3 Likes
As I said:
To try to mark out a lane he was sanitizing his positions to the point of meaninglessness,
MFAWWI is just ACA+a public option, the same as Biden’s plan, and is a step forward from ACA as it was and two steps forward from ACA where Trump has crippled it. It is nowhere near as good as MFA, which itself is the dodgy little brother of a true NHS, but operationally it is hard to see much difference, given that anything needs to be passed by the legislature.
Basing campaign rhetoric on the assertion that that a candidate’s self-label, in this case Bernie’s self-label as a socialist, is a problem downticket is as legitimate as any other such assertion by a candidate about another, eg that billionaires won’t play well among the working classes, or that gays won’t do well in heavily Christian regions. The assertion might be right, or might be wrong, and might be believed or not, but it was a legit statement for Pete (and Amy and now Biden) to make. Bernie can choose to counter it or ignore it, and voters can choose to support it or not.
3 Likes
1 Like
it’s just smarter grift.
he supports hard right politicians, and has enacted blatantly racist policies. there’s no reason to think anything has changed.
so why philanthropy?
-
it buys compliance from people on the left, letting him get their blessing while still getting to do whatever the ¥€¢$ he wants.
-
it furthers the notion that charity is the best way to fund programs ( versus government and taxation. )
-
it makes him feel good about himself. ( pure speculation, granted. )
he’ll run the presidency exactly like this. he’ll dole out money so that oragnizations can fight the very austerity he’ll push.
it’s doom.
8 Likes
