The Politics Thread

[DRW50]

 

I don't even think Bernie wants Democrats to have the Senate. Or the House. I think he'd rather just have rallies, like Trump.

 

I can't really speak on Bloomberg as I haven't lived in New York. All I know is he can't be as bad as Bernie.

[Khan]

 

Yup.  So he can keep telling everyone about the revolution.  Like the grimy old man who stands at the subway station and warns everyone of the Second Coming.

 

Three other good points, courtesy of Carville:

 

[Buttigieg] has to demonstrate over the course of a campaign that he can excite and motivate arguably the most important constituents in the Democratic Party: African Americans. These voters are a hell of a lot more important than a bunch of 25-year-olds shouting everyone down on Twitter.

 

1. Yes, African-Americans (and African-American women, in particular) have become the very backbone of the Democratic Party.  The other candidates wouldn't even address it at the New Hampshire debate until Tom Steyer did.

 

2. Yes, how we vote is way more important than "a bunch of 25-year-olds shouting everyone down on Twitter."  And if you don't believe it now, believe it if/when their guy becomes the nominee and loses the election, because African-Americans wouldn't come out strong for him.

 

3. Yes, that (appealing to African-Americans) is the one blindspot Pete Buttigieg will have to overcome if he wants to defeat Trump and take the WH.  As I've said in the past, I don't believe Buttigieg is flagrantly racist.  But, he's a limousine liberal.  He doesn't know how to put himself inside our shoes and view this country the way we do.

 

 

Well, no one is as bad as Bernie Sanders (or Donald Trump).

 

The one thing I remember most about Mike Bloomberg from my time in NYC was the implementation of stop-and-frisk, as well as the outrage and grief it stirred up among many communities.  Of course, Bloomberg has since apologized for signing off on the policy.  Nevertheless, things like that can leave a bad taste in voters' mouths.

 

I also remember people accusing Bloomberg of creating a "nanny state" with the reduction or elimination of many sugary beverages, and the demand for fast-food and other restaurants to begin printing the number of calories in each dish for consumers.  (There was also some brouhaha over the passage of some ordinance that outlawed smoking outside public buildings?  I didn't pay close enough attention, so I might have that wrong).  Even today, that type of legislation seems a bit...intrusive.  But, I get where Bloomberg was coming from.  Obesity, and the diseases that stem from it, isn't just an epidemic.  It's a public health crisis that continues to put enormous strains on our hospitals and healthcare industries, among other places; and it needs to be treated as such.

Edited February 11, 2020 by Khan

[Juliajms]

That did annoy me at first, but I have to admit it changed the way I eat at restaurants.  When you see those numbers staring back at you it can be hard to justify eating some of that stuff. Some of the soup at Panera is nearly 800 calories for pity's sake.

 

None of that is here nor there though. I would absolutely vote for Bloomberg if he's the nominee. It would disgust me to have another billionaire president, but so be it, I'll take him over Bernie.

Edited February 11, 2020 by Juliajms

[Khan]

 

As I see it, only a billionaire like Mike Bloomberg can take on Donald Trump and conceivably win.  Not that he would be GUARANTEED to win, but I think he'd stand a much better chance of doing so than even Joe Biden. 

 

I can't say this often enough: when it comes to politics or anything else in this country, the only way to fight money is WITH money.  (To put it another way: "Outwit, Outlast, OUTSPEND.")  All those catchy messages and finely tuned agendas don't mean squat if you don't have the financial means to put them into the voters' consciousness.  Even Pete Buttigieg understands that!

 

Now, there are those who insist that all Bloomberg's doing is buying the nomination.  To them, I say:

 

1. I think the rules stopped applying the day the DNC decided to allow Bernie Sanders, who has never identified himself as a Democrat, to run within their party.

 

2. WHO. CARES.  We HAVE to get rid of Trump.  Like James Carville said, this is our moral imperative.  The fate of the world rests on the Democrats beating him and the rest of the GOP this November.  If that means allowing Mike Bloomberg to parachute his way in like GL's Alan-Michael Spaulding at the Bauer BBQ, so be it.

Edited February 11, 2020 by Khan

[Wendy]

 

This. SO. MUCH. FREAKING. THIS.

[marceline]

Joe is my guy but I'm fine with Bloomberg spending the money. The purity progs are obsessed with trying to police everybody's funding. What Bloomberg is doing is showing us what would be possible if we had the cash that Republicans do.

[JaneAusten]

In the meantime talking about money, Bernies  Our Revolution behaves like one and seems to fall under the radar. Who knows who donates including foreign influence.

 

https://apnews.com/345bbd1af529cfb1e41305fa3ab1e604

 

Could you imagine what Bernie Sanders supporters would have done to FDR who was himself a rich elitist or the Kennedy family?

 

Edited February 11, 2020 by JaneAusten

[Khan]

 

Exactly.

 

When I complained on FB that Mike Bloomberg was wasting money on a "vanity campaign" that should go toward boosting another, more viable, Democratic candidate, a friend of a friend and former high school classmate of mine made an excellent point that ultimately made me rethink Bloomberg's value to the race.  (I'm so easily persuadable).

 

He wrote:

 

[His friend] thinks Bloomberg is trying to get enough Super Tuesday delegates so that if we go into the convention without a single candidate having enough delegates to win, he can throw his delegates to whichever establishment candidate [...] is in the lead so they can get the nomination.

 

I'm with my friend/former high school classmate.  It isn't a bad theory.

 

Nor is THIS theory from his identical twin brother, who chimed in with this later that day:

 

I think [Bloomberg] is running just so he can more easily spend his money where he wants to in attacking Trump. As a candidate, he can spend his own money however he likes. There are still limits for individual giving, so he couldn’t just give a blank check to another campaign. Now, he could form a Super PAC, but then he wouldn’t get the earned media opportunities he does as a candidate.

He has committed to paying his staff through the general election to work for whomever gets the nomination. I have to think he is sincere in his desire to make [Donald] Trump a one-term president. Also consider that a lot of his ads are attacking Trump. This early, you would normally be focused on winning primaries, but his ads seem more general election focused to me.

 

Whether or not Bloomberg gets the nomination, I have to believe he (and his money) can be a valuable asset toward beating Trump in the election.  To suggest we can do this without Bloomberg's kind of money -- as if all we need are a few, good, well-organized bake sales or something -- is foolish.

 

 

If FDR or JFK were running today for president, the Berners and other far-left progressives would eat them for lunch.  Heck, even Abe Lincoln would've been toast on Twitter.  That's the "magic" of social media in the 21st century, I guess, lol.

 

On the other hand, if the Berners had been around in the 1930's, they wouldn't get very far with their "REVOLUTION NOW!" jive, because the media of the day would have dismissed them as the fringe group they truly are.  They wouldn't pose anywhere near the kind of threat to the Democratic Party that they do today.

 

You know, at some point, we're all going to have to sit down and have a real conversation about what to do about the use of the internet and social media in this country.

Edited February 11, 2020 by Khan

[rlj]

Is it me, or whoever told Biden to remain quiet on the whole Ukraine mess, should be fired? Where is fighting Joe? I mean if you’re not going to defend your family name, or your only son what makes people think you will defend us? Shame I was going to vote for Biden but........!  Voters are wary and prolly don't wanna deja vu of the Clinton emails!

 

[Soapsuds]

That's what my folks have been saying too. Biden is very weak. Bloomberg is already running ads with him and Obama in my state for super Tuesday. Biden has fallen asleep at the wheel. 

Edited February 11, 2020 by Soapsuds

[marceline]

 

Ukraine is Russian propaganda. Clinton's emails were Russian propaganda. When are Democrats going to stop falling for propaganda? Trump wants the conversation to be about Hunter Biden.

[Gray Bunny]

 

Agreed 1000% 

 

I love me some Michelle Obama, but the whole "when they go low, we go high" approach is not working! We are living in a different era now, and by going the high road in the political field, we are getting our asses raped day in and day out. It's time to fight dirty or else we'll drown. 

[DramatistDreamer]

Bloomberg is racist is currently the #2 trending topic on Twitter. Can't say that I'm surprised, it was bound to happen.

Oh yeah, NH totally deserves their place as holding the first primary in the nation. (*sarcasm*)

 

 

[rlj]

I know that, and I'm not saying he should respond to all the bs, but say something!  I can't say his complete silence on the matter hasn't hurt him in Iowa and prolly NH!

[Khan]

 

Precisely.

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the Republicans are in power, not because they're so smart, but because the Democrats are so gullible.  I figured that out when the "pure" ones from within the Democratic Party drove Al Franken out of the Senate, thereby costing us an important ally in the pushback against the Trump administration.

 

But, on the other hand...

 

I'm not sure anymore whether Ukraine matters all that much to potential voters, @rlj, but your comments above articulate Joe Biden's no-win situation in regards to Hunter and Hunter's connection to Burisma.  If Biden addresses the issue at all, then he's just giving more oxygen to all the (debunked) conspiracies and conspiracy theories.  But, if he doesn't, then he's seen as weak for not defending himself AND his son against accusations of corruption.  Again, a no-win situation.

 

I'll admit I was worried that the Senate would convince Hunter and/or Joe Biden to testify during the impeachment hearings, because I believed no good would come from it.  Joe, in particular, has a tendency to shoot himself in the proverbial foot.  I was worried the GOP would exploit that weakness, using his own words against him, and killing whatever chance he still has of winning the nomination.

 

In the end, I guess, it really doesn't matter: by bringing it up at all, the GOP has made Ukraine an issue for Joe Biden, regardless of its' validity.  My advice to all Democratic and Independent voters?  Whether or not Biden addresses the matter, realize it's precisely that kind of propaganda that has brought us to this moment.  Learn from our mistakes of four years ago.  Look past what is clearly another smear tactic on the part of the GOP, and vote for Biden (should he land the nomination).  The very fate of this nation rests on our ability NOT to make the same, stupid mistakes twice.

Edited February 11, 2020 by Khan