Political Discussion

I will vote for whomever the nomination is. Because what we have now is dangerous. And if he is re-elected, it is going to become even more dangerous. And I'm talking on a micro level here. I have already felt extremely unsafe leaving my house with the hatred that this administration has unearthed. I shudder to think how much worse it is going to get for minorities if that monster is re-elected. I do not have the luxury or the privilege to just not vote. It means too much for too many people to opt out. I loathe Bloomberg but I would vote for him.
 
dbarila said:
If I had to pick one of the moderates he would be it though info worry about how we would fare in the general election. Mainly because of almost zero minority support. I think his Medicare for all who want it is just a way to toe the line. I mean, who would actually choose their current private insurance?
Click to expand...

I think he would do better in the general election than most. He does well in young/old voters, urban/rural, etc...from what we've seen so far.
Also, Trump doesn't have a "thing/angle" to dig into him yet and would probably be the strongest debater.

I feel that Pete's lack of minority support is because he's new and doesn't have the name recognition yet. South Bend is basically 50/50 white and black from what I remember. He won re-election with 80 percent of the vote. He has a plan for black communities with the Douglas plan.
I think it just takes time. He came from nothing and rightfully had to spend most time in Iowa and NH to prove he could win first. but obviously when spending most time in those states it cuts down on time you can spend in other communities. I think he's going to do better in time. Also find it weird that the media talks about Pete's poiling with black voters and not Amy; she's even lower.

Medicare for All who want it, evaluate, and then make a way for Medicare for All. Wouldn't it be good to test the system before everyone goes onto it? What if it's a disaster but everyone has already been moved off their private plans? Also unsure how likely it is to get passed and what the true cost will be.
 
Teeeee said:
I will vote for whomever the nomination is. Because what we have now is dangerous. And if he is re-elected, it is going to become even more dangerous. And I'm talking on a micro level here. I have already felt extremely unsafe leaving my house with the hatred that this administration has unearthed. I shudder to think how much worse it is going to get for minorities if that monster is re-elected. I do not have the luxury or the privilege to just not vote. It means too much for too many people to opt out. I loathe Bloomberg but I would vote for him.
Click to expand...

exactly
all of this

also sorry this is your experience
 
I'm going to stop the buck here, because it's exhausting and depressing and we all obviously have similar goals in the end. If I come across as angry, it's because I am, but not at any of you all. Sorry for being so inflammatory.

Ideally, the primary process will provide us with the best candidate, and we won't be forced to choose between two wretched, egomaniacal billionaires and be stuck with the precedent that people can just buy their way into the presidency. It's hard to be optimistic when the last four years have proven that the country wasn't built to withstand the most dire of circumstances, and when the worst among us are rewarding for being awful.
 
as poor as some of the alternative choices can seem, their loss would not appear as an indictment against them to the world at large, but as tacit support of Trump and all he stands for. even if you can equate a DNC candidate with him, that is not what the world or his supporters see unfortunately- if Trump wins over anyone, they will think his values stand in this country.

if you omit your vote to stay true to a message, you could possibly endorse the wrong one.
 
Barry Lird said:
Ya, that's how I've been ever since the Dr swindled me into getting my flu shot at the Dr's office and insurance sent me a bill for $200 cause I didn't get it at CVS (where it would have apparently been free).... like what?
Click to expand...
we switched my wife to my insurance last year for similar reasons. We thought she had broken her foot so we went to urgent care to get it checked out and also to avoid high ER costs. It ended up costing us over $3000 when it was all done. Her insurance (Aetna) has the policy for her company written in such a way that going to the Urgent Care was the exact same as going to the ER on mine. Instead she was supposed to go to Minute Clinic (which is owned by CVS who the government let be purchased by..... Aetna. Fuck you government.)
 
bfly said:
as poor as some of the alternative choices can seem, their loss would not appear as an indictment against them to the world at large, but as tacit support of Trump and all he stands for. even if you can equate a DNC candidate with him, that is not what the world or his supporters see unfortunately- if Trump wins over anyone, they will think his values stand in this country.

if you omit your vote to stay true to a message, you could possibly endorse the wrong one.
Click to expand...
I get exactly what you're saying. But in my opinion, the mere act of selecting Bloomberg as the candidate would be message enough to the rest of the world where our values stand.
 
Last edited:
ayayrawn said:
Would never in my life vote for a piece of shit scumbag like Bloomberg, and if he's the canididate, the presidential race is a lost cause. That so many liberals/dems would consider a sexist, racist oligarch for the purpose of outing the other racist, sexist oligarch is absolutely insane to me. 'He may have 60+ rape/assault allegations against him, ruined the lives of countless minorites, and bought his way to the presidentancy completely unaccountable in terms of finance, but at least he's not Trump.'

"Blue no matter who" is a disengagement campaign meant to turn enthusiastic voters into resigned box checkers, and I refuse to fall for it.
Click to expand...

I’m voting blue no matter who for no reason other than RBG isn’t going to make it 4 more years. The Republican Party are stacking the courts and another 4 more years of this shit, it might not matter who gets elected next time. With that said I’ll be voting Bernie in the primary, and for anyone not named Trump, McConnell, Barr or Pence.
 
Trump/Bloomberg’s casual racism and sexism might be comparable (I don’t think they’re the same, but they’re comparable in the most literal sense of that word — they can be compared), but that isn’t the stuff that capital-W Worries me about Trump. I worry about DJT’s

Lawlessness
Weaponization of the DOJ
Verbalized approval of war crimes
Gutting of our diplomatic corps
Deregulation of environmental protections
Embrace of political adversaries
Alienation of our closest allies
Degradation of trust in public institutions
Seduction by the likes of Bannon/Miller
Use of government for personal enrichment
Politicizing the professional military
Refusal to acknowledge the powers of coequal branches of government
Mental and emotional health as a functioning adult human

Is Bloomberg a piece of shit? Maybe. Is the very idea of his candidacy gross? Absolutely. Would his election signal the beginning of a new era of money in politics? Yeah. Would I worry that he’s accidentally going to tweet classified military intelligence while praising his own missile strikes? No.

Boiling it down to “but he’s not Trump” is to me both facile, in that it’s more than that, and adequate, in that virtually anyone is improvement from where we stand today.

I still hope to have the chance to vote for Elizabeth Warren. I don’t get a chance to vote until the very end, in May, and I hope she’s still in it by then. She’s not a perfect person but her message is the one that resonates with me the most.
 
ayayrawn said:
I get exactly what you're saying. But in my opinion, the mere act of selecting Bloomberg as the candidate would be message enough to the rest of the world where our values stand.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I get the frustration over Bloomberg as a potential nominee. Obviously it isn't what anybody who can see and truly wants to better American society wants BUT when you say things like this you are saying that because you didn't get your way you are willing to accept leaving a known white supremacist and autocrat in power of the military, economic policy, foreign policy...

I hope the people that I talk to who are outright supporting Bloomberg, most often out of one fear or another, make a different choice, but saying you won't vote for someone against Trump is accepting what Trump means to POC, people who are economically disadvantage, women, people who don't identify as straight or male, people without the tailwind of being a white male.

It's a terrible situation to be in. It's terrible to choose someone as terrible as BlOomberg but not voting.... where this whole thing started out... is a cop-out and I maintain that people who choose to not vote because their candidate or policy of choice isn't represented are either grossly misinformed or have the privilege of not really having to deal with the atrocities and pain being inflicted by Trump.

It's a really convenient thing to say. I've felt the same way in the past. Hell I feel like the prospect of even having to vote for Pete makes me want to vomit, but I will because its slightly less dangerous for the most vulnerable people in our society with Trump out of the presidency.

I hope that you can see that your vote is about far more than what you want for yourself or what you think is the best path for the country. It's about giving some defense, no matter how minimal, for the people that need it most.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
If Bernie wins California on Saturday then this race has a huge problem.
Click to expand...

What's the problem? That Bernie will have a clear path to the most delegates? Because he IS winning Neveda. And he is probably finishing 2nd in SC. I'm almost rooting for Biden to finish in first.

This has never been about winning for Bloomberg. It's been about driving up costs for Warren and Sanders and aiming for a contested convention. Unfortunately, too many people over 50 don't see what millenials view as crystal clear (that wealth inequality is linked directly to $$$ in politics) and still worship rich people. So now he is realizing he has an actual path.

I'll vote for Amy if I have too. I'll vote for Pete. I'd gladly vote for Warren. If the choice is Bloomberg versus Trump it's going to be very, very difficult for me scribble in the circle next to D. And I presume the same will be true for most young people / Sanders supporters.

That said, if the centrist do wimp out and hand the mic to Bloomberg (which I don't think happens until after the debate either way) than Bloomberg is gong to make the ultimate warm up act for Bernie.

 
Last edited:
Indymisanthrope said:
That...the CA primary isn’t until March 3?
Click to expand...

Lol. I was so confused by the initial interaction that it went straight over my head. Yeah, I'm not looking forward to Super Tuesday at all. I've been on my new job for 2 months and it's going very well, but I'll at a big trade show on the 3rd and meeting the CEO of the company for the first time-- yet, I'm going to be completely in my head and distracted. ;)
 
jaycee said:
Sorry. I get the frustration over Bloomberg as a potential nominee. Obviously it isn't what anybody who can see and truly wants to better American society wants BUT when you say things like this you are saying that because you didn't get your way you are willing to accept leaving a known white supremacist and autocrat in power of the military, economic policy, foreign policy...

I hope the people that I talk to who are outright supporting Bloomberg, most often out of one fear or another, make a different choice, but saying you won't vote for someone against Trump is accepting what Trump means to POC, people who are economically disadvantage, women, people who don't identify as straight or male, people without the tailwind of being a white male.

It's a terrible situation to be in. It's terrible to choose someone as terrible as BlOomberg but not voting.... where this whole thing started out... is a cop-out and I maintain that people who choose to not vote because their candidate or policy of choice isn't represented are either grossly misinformed or have the privilege of not really having to deal with the atrocities and pain being inflicted by Trump.

It's a really convenient thing to say. I've felt the same way in the past. Hell I feel like the prospect of even having to vote for Pete makes me want to vomit, but I will because its slightly less dangerous for the most vulnerable people in our society with Trump out of the presidency.

I hope that you can see that your vote is about far more than what you want for yourself or what you think is the best path for the country. It's about giving some defense, no matter how minimal, for the people that need it most.
Click to expand...
You say these things like I'm being spiteful and petty for not getting my candidate when that simply is not the case. Bloomberg vs Trump is not a lesser of two evils situation to me, it's evil vs. evil.

Bloomberg is ALSO, very nakedly, a white supremacist. He's on video saying black and Latino people aged 15-25 don't know how to behave. During his stop and frisk terror as NYC mayor, there were more police stops of black people than there were black people living in NYC. He justified it by saying that 95% of murders were committed by young black people. He's suggested adding fingerprint scanners to social security cards so undocumented immigrants can't get jobs. NYC had to pay millions in settlement fees for violating Muslims civil rights by surveilling mosques. What I'm getting at is, saying that I would be doing POC a disservice by NOT voting for Bloomberg feels insulting.

Apart from all that he's a gleeful authoritarian who locked up thousands of protestors during the 2004 RNC while he congratulated Bush on starting the war in Iraq. He has MORE rape and assault allegations against him than Trump does. He donated 12 million to Toomey's campaign in 2016, and is one of the main people responsible for Mitch McConnell's senate majority.

There is zero (0) evidence that would suggest to me that we would be better off with him. Bloomberg doesn't give a shit about anybody but himself. His democratic turn is so full of shit that vast swaths of his platform are plagiarized. He wouldn't be able to make a dent against Trump anyway debate-wise because he too is a rich, racist, rapist sack of shit and he would lose handily.

Trading an authoritarian white supremacist for an authoritarian white supremacist is where i draw the line. This isn't an "easy" or "convenient" thought like you seem to think it is.

Thankfully there is still plenty of time to avoid this catastrophic situation in the first place.
 
KenKaniff said:
I think he would do better in the general election than most. He does well in young/old voters, urban/rural, etc...from what we've seen so far.
Also, Trump doesn't have a "thing/angle" to dig into him yet and would probably be the strongest debater.

I feel that Pete's lack of minority support is because he's new and doesn't have the name recognition yet. South Bend is basically 50/50 white and black from what I remember. He won re-election with 80 percent of the vote. He has a plan for black communities with the Douglas plan.
I think it just takes time. He came from nothing and rightfully had to spend most time in Iowa and NH to prove he could win first. but obviously when spending most time in those states it cuts down on time you can spend in other communities. I think he's going to do better in time. Also find it weird that the media talks about Pete's poiling with black voters and not Amy; she's even lower.

Medicare for All who want it, evaluate, and then make a way for Medicare for All. Wouldn't it be good to test the system before everyone goes onto it? What if it's a disaster but everyone has already been moved off their private plans? Also unsure how likely it is to get passed and what the true cost will be.
Click to expand...

I'll be brief because most people here know my feelings (on part B) but:

A) I think you are oversimplifying. Most of my black friends are activists in their late 20's / early 30's. And they all have a deep dislike for Pete due to his relationship with his police department. They also have a deep skepticism of how gentrification was handled by Pete. That said, I think all of them would turn out to vote for him because Trump. That said, Latino and Blacks over the age of 45 tend to still be very homophobic. It took my best friend, who is a 32 year old Mexican, until he was 30 to come out of the closet even though his older sister has been an out-of-the-closet lesbian for 10 years. I worry deeply that some of those people would stay home.

B) If you leave the private sector in place, it maintains its political power. If that power is left in place, they will use it to ensure the "option for people who want it" is as low functioning as possible. They've already done it with the ACA (especially in Red States). In other words, it'd be an experiment that was doomed to fail.
 
Last edited:
ayayrawn said:
Bloomberg is ALSO, very nakedly, a white supremacist.
Click to expand...
ayayrawn said:
Trading an authoritarian white supremacist for an authoritarian white supremacist is where i draw the line.
Click to expand...
Again, not here to defend Bloomberg in any way, but I do think it’s worth mentioning that as a Jewish man, his racism and whiteness are markedly different from Trump’s in a few significant ways. Not better, not worse, necessarily (that’s another conversation) but different in substance and in tone.
DownIsTheNewUp said:
B) If you live the private sector in place, it maintains its political power.
Click to expand...
And increases the remaining risk in the public option pool, meaning that the collective costs go up, driving the whole debate about the individual mandate all over again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top