US Politics XIX: Just an Echo Chamber Living In Your Heads

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
By constantly attacking any request or criticism as FAKE NEWS

Except for Bernie it’s

RIGGED
ESTABLISHMENT
SMEAR CAMPAIGN
THIS IS LIKE BIRTHIRISM

He cannot handle being challenged. Neither can Trump.

He also said he was going to release his medical information.

Now he’s saying he isn’t going to. Why?

He’s lucky to have congress health coverage (plus Medicare) cause no insurance company would cover him for being such a high risk.

I’ll vote for him but i do not like him, his campaign at all.

And don’t think Trump won’t leak any confidential Bernie info in the run up to the election.

We’ll never see Trumps taxes, but you can bet we’ll see all of Bernie’s.

Hope he’s got nothing to hide




And if he’s the nominee, this is how he’s going to have to deal with Trump and it might be the most effective way to do so. Only Bernie can out Trump Trump.

If that’s what it will take to win, then that’s what he should do.
 
i love how bernie having a heart attack and not immediately revealing every detail to the public about it is just like trump it's a cult ohemgee he'll be dead by november, while the reveal over the last few days of bloomberg having had attitudes adjacent to "grab her by the pussy" for decades has been casually handwaved away or just ignored outright here.

literally two people besides me have mentioned it and one was "well he's not doing anything anti-trans on day one" and the other was "surprise surprise a a CEO treats his employees like shit, trump supporters can't talk about morality anymore".

think of the response here if it came out that sanders has spent decades making sexist comments about women like this, or a tape was revealed where he openly talked about black neighbourhoods being "where all the crime is". this place would crucify him relentlessly for a week.



That’s not at all accurate and quite frankly, overdramatic. When the Wisconsin primary comes up, as a voter, I’d like to at least have enough info at my disposal to know the risk level of Bernie having a major heart attack while in office. And if the answer from him is “nah, you have all the info you need”, I can’t help but be suspicious. And that counts for all candidates.
 
And if he’s the nominee, this is how he’s going to have to deal with Trump and it might be the most effective way to do so. Only Bernie can out Trump Trump.

If that’s what it will take to win, then that’s what he should do.

Yeah, this doesn't really bother me. Sure it's a bit hypocritical. But I think it's one of the bigger strengths Bernie has going up against Trump. Like I've said before. He plays a lot of the same games as Trump does. So it could work to his advantage.

I think what's starting to worry me about Bloomberg is that he has some things like Trump in the bad ways. How is it possible now for Bloomberg to make any hits on Trump when it comes to sexual harrassment, or racism, or LGBTQ? It's definitely a concern.
 
That’s not at all accurate and quite frankly, overdramatic. When the Wisconsin primary comes up, as a voter, I’d like to at least have enough info at my disposal to know the risk level of Bernie having a major heart attack while in office. And if the answer from him is “nah, you have all the info you need”, I can’t help but be suspicious. And that counts for all candidates.


your one vote is like literally worth 10,000 votes.
 
I think what's starting to worry me about Bloomberg is that he has some things like Trump in the bad ways. How is it possible now for Bloomberg to make any hits on Trump when it comes to sexual harrassment, or racism, or LGBTQ? It's definitely a concern.


over the past 3 days, i've seen my leftists friends whip themselves up into a frenzy and convince themselves that Bloomberg is an inhuman monster and would be worse than Trump.
 
Yeah, this doesn't really bother me. Sure it's a bit hypocritical. But I think it's one of the bigger strengths Bernie has going up against Trump. Like I've said before. He plays a lot of the same games as Trump does. So it could work to his advantage.



I think what's starting to worry me about Bloomberg is that he has some things like Trump in the bad ways. How is it possible now for Bloomberg to make any hits on Trump when it comes to sexual harrassment, or racism, or LGBTQ? It's definitely a concern.


Yeah I think tonight is going to be crucial for him. Everyone has a past. Everyone has made comments that they’d like back and supported questionable legislation. He’s an exciting candidate because he’s really committed to taking it to Trump whether he’s the nominee or not. For more centered folks like me, he’s an attractive option. But obviously, if things were to come out about him that would prove that he’s he’s a horrible person Lomé Trump, then he’s out for me.
 
'I like theater, dining and chasing women': Mike Bloomberg in his own words
He’s defended stop-and-frisk and made offensive remarks about minorities. What else has the 2020 contender said?

Adam Gabbatt
@adamgabbatt
Wed 19 Feb 2020 08.00 GMT
Last modified on Wed 19 Feb 2020 15.03 GMT

3600.jpg

Mike Bloomberg with Donald Trump and Jared Kushner at the New York Observer’s 25th anniversary in 2013. Photograph: Paul Bruinooge/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images

As Mike Bloomberg continues to surge in the race for the Democratic nomination, his past comments are increasingly coming back to haunt him.

From his defense of stop-and-frisk policing, to archaic, offensive statements about women, the former New York City mayor’s own words often serve to puncture the idea of him as the anti-Trump billionaire and have handed plenty of ammunition to his 2020 opponents.

Bloomberg’s rivals are likely to remind him – and those watching at home – of his past beliefs at the Democratic debate tonight.

Here are some that might get a mention:

“Ninety-five per cent of your murders – murderers and murder victims – fit one MO […] You can just take the description, Xerox it and pass it out to all the cops. They are male, minorities, 16 to 25. That’s true in New York, that’s true in virtually every city.”

Bloomberg was speaking at the Aspen Institute in 2015 when he offered this defense of stop-and-frisk, a policing practice he expanded as mayor which disproportionately affected black people.

“We put all the cops in minority neighborhoods. Yes. That’s true. Why do we do it? Because that’s where all the crime is.”

This is from the same Bloomberg speech. He continued: “The way you get the guns out of the kids’ hands is to throw them up against the wall and frisk them.”

“I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little. It’s exactly the reverse of what they say.”

That was Bloomberg speaking on his weekly radio show in 2013. The then mayor was responding to criticism of stop-and-frisk – a year earlier 87% of all people stopped and frisked were African Americans or Latino. Under Bloomberg the number of stops increased from 97,276 in 2002 to a high of 685,724 in 2011.

“There’s this enormous cohort of black and Latino males, age, let’s say, 16 to 25, that don’t have jobs, don’t have any prospects, don’t know how to find jobs, don’t know what their skillsets are, don’t know how to behave in the workplace where they have to work collaboratively and collectively.”

Bloomberg on job prospects for minorities in 2011.

“Class warfare and racist.”

This was Bloomberg’s assessment of Bill de Blasio’s campaign for mayor in 2013. “He’s making an appeal using his family to gain support,” Bloomberg said of De Blasio, whose wife and children are African American. “I think it’s pretty obvious to anyone watching what he’s been doing. I do not think he himself is racist. It’s comparable to me pointing out I’m Jewish in attracting the Jewish vote.”

“Kill it!”

Bloomberg’s reaction on learning an employee was pregnant, according to a 1997 sexual harassment lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged Bloomberg had made a series of sexist comments to female employees.

“If your conversation during a presidential election is about some guy wearing a dress and whether he, she, or it can go to the locker room with their daughter, that’s not a winning formula for most people.”

Bloomberg on transgender rights in 2019.

“They would make it harder and more costly for businesses to stay, harder and more costly for businesses to stay, and harder and more costly for businesses to thrive.”

That’s Bloomberg stating his opposition to a minimum wage in 2012, when New York city council hoped to introduce the measure.

“I, for example, am not in favor, have never been in favor, of raising the minimum wage.”

Bloomberg reiterated his distaste for the measure in 2015.

“As president, Mike will raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour to ensure that all employees are fairly compensated for the time they spend working.”

That’s according to a press release from Bloomberg released on Sunday.

“Congress got involved – local elected officials, as well – and said: ‘Oh that’s not fair, these people should be able to get credit.’ […] And once you started pushing in that direction, banks started making more and more loans where the credit of the person buying the house wasn’t as good as you would like.”

In 2008 Bloomberg claimed the end of “redlining” – a practice where banks would refuse to lend to people in certain neighborhoods – was a key factor in the 2008 financial crisis. The redlined neighborhoods were frequently made up of African American people, disproportionately preventing them from owning homes. Although the practice was technically made illegal in 1968, people of color are still more likely to be denied a mortgage than white people. Experts say African Americans and Latinos were deliberately sold predatory loans in the lead up to the 2008 crash.

“The royal family – what a bunch of misfits – a gay, an architect, that horsey-faced lesbian, and a kid who gave up Koo Stark for some fat broad.”

This is from The Portable Bloomberg, a book made by employees to celebrate Bloomberg’s 48th birthday in 1990. “Yes, these are all actual quotes,” wrote Elisabeth DeMarse, Bloomberg LP’s former chief marketing officer and the book’s publisher.

Bloomberg’s campaign has disputed, sort of, some of the quotes. “Mike simply did not say the things somebody wrote in this gag gift,” a campaign spokesman told the Washington Post. The spokesman added, however: “Mike openly admits that his words have not always aligned with his values and the way he has led his life and some of what he has said is disrespectful and wrong.”

“I could teach anybody – even people in this room, no offense intended – to be a farmer. It’s a [process]. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn.”

Bloomberg on agriculture, back in 2016. He was comparing farming to information technology, which he said is: “Fundamentally different because it’s built around replacing people with technology, and the skill sets that you have to learn are how to think and analyze.”

“Whenever my wife catches me eyeing some broad, she’s very careful to turn to me and say: ‘That’s the most expensive piece of ass in the world!’”

From The Portable Bloomberg.

“I know for a fact that any self-respecting woman who walks past a construction site [and] doesn’t get a whistle will turn around and walk past again and again until she does get one.”

The Portable Bloomberg again.

“I like theater, dining and chasing women. Let me put it this way: I am a single, straight billionaire in Manhattan. What do you think? It’s a wet dream.”

Bloomberg offered this insight in an interview with the Guardian in 1996.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/19/mike-bloomberg-2020-mayor-democratic-primary
 
For Bernie's campaign to come out on debate night and claim that Blooomberg had multiple heart attacks (when he hasn't had a single one) is a terrible look. And not instead of the news being focused on a billionaire spending hundreds of millions on ads to buy his way into 2nd place, it's back on the state of Bernie's heart. Just idiotic.

I know we discuss serious business mostly, but can somebody help a gal out and identify the misfits??

“The royal family – what a bunch of misfits – a gay, an architect, that horsey-faced lesbian, and a kid who gave up Koo Stark for some fat broad.”
 
over the past 3 days, i've seen my leftists friends whip themselves up into a frenzy and convince themselves that Bloomberg is an inhuman monster and would be worse than Trump.

Oh I'm sure. I in no way say he's worse. No, no. But pretty much ceding that sort of moral ground to Trump, when let's face it. His lack of morality is something that I think has been a key in turning the suburbs blue.
 
By constantly attacking any request or criticism as FAKE NEWS

Except for Bernie it’s

RIGGED
ESTABLISHMENT
SMEAR CAMPAIGN
THIS IS LIKE BIRTHIRISM

He cannot handle being challenged. Neither can Trump.

He also said he was going to release his medical information.

Now he’s saying he isn’t going to. Why?

He’s lucky to have congress health coverage (plus Medicare) cause no insurance company would cover him for being such a high risk.

I’ll vote for him but i do not like him, his campaign at all.

And don’t think Trump won’t leak any confidential Bernie info in the run up to the election.

We’ll never see Trumps taxes, but you can bet we’ll see all of Bernie’s.

Hope he’s got nothing to hide



Oh yes, discounting your opponent’s attempt at attacking you is the same as pedaling conspiracy theories and being a shadow racist/sexist pig.

Give me a break. Every campaign does this.
 
LOL. Bloomberg's campaign manager on MSNBC, says, that if the candidates go up on stage and go after each other, they just help Trump. Well... that would be nice for Bloomberg not to get attacked on stage, But that aint gonna happen.
 

This may shock you, but I completely agree with you on this. The deal is though , most of the posters on here don’t seem to really care about how the Democrats talk about women, minorities, etc, because they never respond to it.

It’s the same with the majority of Democrat politicians. They say what they need to say, and do what they need to do to get elected. That’s why “suddenly” all the Dems went from being anti gay marriage, to pro gay marriage, at the same time, what a coincidence! They go where the PC police send them, that’s liberalism.

That’s why guys like Biden, Bloomberg, Warren , etc make so many gaffes about the African American community, white privilege, how women are treated....because they don’t really know or care, they just want control and want to win.

I used to be a liberal, I know how it works. I just couldn’t in good conscience follow an ideology that lacked so much fact, and self awareness. Sorry for the overlong rant.

Anyway, that’s why no one cares that Bloomberg has made horribly sexist and racist comments
 
The deal is though , most of the posters on here don’t seem to really care about how the Democrats talk about women, minorities, etc, because they never respond to it.

You definitely caught us!

President Al Franken has really worked out great.
 
i love how bernie having a heart attack and not immediately revealing every detail to the public about it is just like trump it's a cult ohemgee he'll be dead by november, while the reveal over the last few days of bloomberg having had attitudes adjacent to "grab her by the pussy" for decades has been casually handwaved away or just ignored outright here.

literally two people besides me have mentioned it and one was "well he's not doing anything anti-trans on day one" and the other was "surprise surprise a a CEO treats his employees like shit, trump supporters can't talk about morality anymore".

think of the response here if it came out that sanders has spent decades making sexist comments about women like this, or a tape was revealed where he openly talked about black neighbourhoods being "where all the crime is". this place would crucify him relentlessly for a week.

i've posted about bernie's issues with his campaign before - be it the accusations of sexism or the laughable failure to live up to his own standards of hourly wage or equal pay (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/us/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign-sexism.html). guess what? it was dismissed by sanders supporters.

criticism of sanders or his campaign always gets shot down, the same way those who are in favor of other candidates downplay negative comments

the same way you're downplaying his heart attacks

the same way sanders supporters in here downplay the issues with the bernie very online crowd (we just watch too much cnn, it doesn't actually exist).

or how we can talk ad nauseam about stop and frisk or comments biden made in the past as being irreparable and disqualifying, but sanders voting record in favor of the crime bill, his gun record, etc. are glossed over because i guess he's allowed to change his mind or perspective but other candidates aren't.

or over how warren's campaign was torpedoed over bernie's comments about women not being able to win an election (oh, no, not bernie he could never say that - warren is a snake!)

or how warren actually put together a proposal for paying for all the shit, whereas bernie continues to just gloss over that without any sort of negative impact to his own campaign.

or shall we just go all in and dig into bernie's comments about cuba or the sandinistas when he was mayor of burlington? how breadlines are a good thing because some countries don't even have bread lines? (i'm sure there was (maybe) some context behind it but wooo wee just think about those commercials in the general)

what about his praise for castro? think he wants a mulligan there? shall we talk about that? (“The people we met had an almost religious affection for [Fidel Castro]. The revolution there is far deep and more profound than I understood it to be. It really is a revolution in terms of values.”)



it would appear that fans of all candidates are more willing to overlook faults in their chosen candidates than they are in others.


i don't throw away the things that mike bloomberg has done or said in his past. there are issues there that he needs to account for. there are issues with every candidate that they need to account for. many of these issues trouble me.

but i'm looking at two things...
1) does he have the ground game and organization that is capable of winning a national election?,
2) his actual record of governance for 12 years, managing one of the largest economies in the world in one of the most liberal cities in the US through not one but two enormous crises.


i don't push back against the spotty marks on his record. am i guilty of letting some things slide that i might not in another candidate? yea, probably. so are you. so is everyone.

I do, however, push back against the sanders stans go-to "he's just like trump" as this is a complete and utter line of bullshit. or "hey, here's a picture of trump with bloomberg. see? they're the same!

we have 3 years of donald trump governing.

we have 12 years of mike bloomberg governing.

anyone who can look at what has happened in this country in the past 3 years and line them up against bloomberg's record of governance and actually say that they are comparable is being disingenuous at best and laughably naive and dangerously selfish at worst.
 
Last edited:
It’s the same with the majority of Democrat politicians. They say what they need to say, and do what they need to do to get elected. That’s why “suddenly” all the Dems went from being anti gay marriage, to pro gay marriage, at the same time, what a coincidence! They go where the PC police send them, that’s liberalism.



honestly: what are you even talking about?

the whole reason i am a married gay man is because Barack Obama was elected president in 2008 and again in 2012 and he nominated two justices to the Supreme Court who ruled in favor of marriage equality in June of 2015. i am now married and, if you're talking about specific rights, able to get insurance through my husband's place of employment which was impossible up until June of 2015. i would not be married today if John McCain or Mitt Romney had won.

further, the SCOTUS case was made possible after nearly 2 decades of legal work by left-wing groups who slowly and persuasively made the arguments for SSM, even after suffering a string of big defeats in elections -- thanks to lovely, compassionate "Christians" such as yourself -- in the early and mid-00s. yes, politicians were cautious. we all knew Obama was pro-SSM even when he said he wasn't because we knew he had to play a long game because winning was more important than purity, or even total honesty.

i literally owe the life i know to Obama.

show me one thing the GOP has ever done to help LGBT people.
 
Last edited:
i haven't downplayed his heart attacks.

i don't like his voting record on guns but also do understand that his constituency is over 60% rural and that he was elected to represent them and he voted the way they wanted him to.

yes he voted for the crime bill but it's a little more complicated than that: https://www.vox.com/2016/2/26/11116412/bernie-sanders-mass-incarceration

no, the back-and-forth about the comments he is alleged to make did not singlehandedly torpedo the warren campaign. it doesn't seem in his character to have said something like that so bluntly which is why i'm skeptical that he said it exactly like that. maybe there was context or maybe he said something that wasn't that blunt but has been misrepresented. we can't know either way unless some other evidence that supports one side or the other emerges. and as far as "glossing over" the details of costs, why should he deliberately make the exact same blunder that killed warren's upward momentum? get back to us when republicans get asked for the first time ever how they plan to fund tax cuts and border walls and military interventions during a campaign.

expressing admiration for castro or the cuban revolution is not the same thing as repeatedly making flat-out racist and sexist comments, like at all. so don't even go there trying to paint those as equivalent things that sanders supporters equally don't care about.

i don't think he's anywhere near as bad morally as trump and that it's a silly thing to say that.

but i do sincerely think electing bloomberg would be nearly as bad for the health of american democracy as another four years of trump would. you're just opening the door at that point to bezos 2024 and zuckerberg 2028, and who's going to stop any of them if we clearly say this time around "yes if you have enough money to bury everyone else, you can purchase the most powerful office in the world, and become commander-in-chief of the most powerful military on earth"? how is that not inflicting a mortal wound on american democracy as we know it?
 
Last edited:
Bloomberg is a billionaire, but he also was the mayor of NYC for 12 years.

Trump, who is not a billionaire, was not. Same with the other billionaires you mentioned.

He’s as politically legitimate as DeBlasio, probably more so. He just has a lot more money.
 
At this point, I sure wish Bloomberg would have just endorsed Biden and spent hundreds of millions on ads for him. One can dream.
 
where did i question his legitimacy? he's clearly a legitimate candidate.

it's the way that he's going about his campaign (and the way a lot of people seem to be totally fine with it) that i have a massive problem with.
 
where did i question his legitimacy? he's clearly a legitimate candidate.

it's the way that he's going about his campaign (and the way a lot of people seem to be totally fine with it) that i have a massive problem with.



I don’t think he’s opening the door to Bezos or Zuckerberg. He’s not quite a “creeping oligarchy!” argument.
 
Bloomberg is a billionaire, but he also was the mayor of NYC for 12 years.

Trump, who is not a billionaire, was not. Same with the other billionaires you mentioned.

He’s as politically legitimate as DeBlasio, probably more so. He just has a lot more money.
This is the part that's so silly and misleading about the attacks on him - the ones that are more or less making him out to be just another bored rich guy.

This is absolutely not the same as Bezos or anyone else hoping in. It's not the same as Trump. It's much closer to Romney or Kerry - actual politicians who also happen to be wealthy.
 
i have no problem with a rich guy wanting to be president and campaigning for donations, knocking on doors, holding rallies and speaking to voters. romney and kerry did all of those things.

i have a problem with a campaign that just shovels unfathomable amounts of money into advertising that nobody else can hope to match and not bothering with nearly any of the hard work of earning votes, and people being like "that's fine because the other guy is a socialist".
 
At this point, I sure wish Bloomberg would have just endorsed Biden and spent hundreds of millions on ads for him. One can dream.

Money is not Biden's problem. I mean, his poor fundraising will catch up to him eventually but that's just a symptom of the larger problem - he's a bad campaigner, he seems half senile and doesn't appear to be exciting or motivating large swaths of any constituency. The mere fact that his famed AA firewall has given way to a billionaire who pushed Stop & Frisk but who has managed to get into better AA polling numbers than the other candidates by running on gun control tells you all you need to know about Biden.

The fundamental problem on the Democratic side is that despite what any one of us think about Bernie, it's undeniable that he has been a HARD SELL for more than 50% of the left, nevermind the right. And on the other side of the divide you have Biden who is basically in the process of a historic collapse, followed by Mayor Pete and Amy Klobuchar who are polling in the single digits nationally, do not have the infrastructure needed to keep competing (like say, Warren), much less win and cannot compete with Bloomberg on the money front either. Therefore something has to give - either the centrist Democrats unite behind Bloomberg because statistically/mathematically I believe that there are more of them and he makes it through. OR they get comfortable really quickly with the idea of Bernie Sanders being the nominee and cross over to vote for him. Bernie's hardcore voters are in a way irrelevant - they simply do not have the numbers on their own to dictate the outcome of the primaries.

A reasonable compromise, or so I thought, would have been Elizabeth Warren, but apparently she's unpalatable to the Bernie crowd, and the centrists have too many candidates that are courting them as it is. Plus you know, women have to be 10x as good as men at basically everything to succeed to the same level. Lather, rinse, repeat, the ladies here know what I'm talking about.
 
i have no problem with a rich guy wanting to be president and campaigning for donations, knocking on doors, holding rallies and speaking to voters. romney and kerry did all of those things.

i have a problem with a campaign that just shovels unfathomable amounts of money into advertising that nobody else can hope to match and not bothering with nearly any of the hard work of earning votes, and people being like "that's fine because the other guy is a socialist".



You’ve been putting a lot of words into people’s’ mouths lately. I haven’t seen one person say that. Actually, the one thing I admire about Bloomberg is that he’s said that no matter who the nominee is, he’ll pump as much money as possible to get Trump out.
 
i have no problem with a rich guy wanting to be president and campaigning for donations, knocking on doors, holding rallies and speaking to voters. romney and kerry did all of those things.

Except that he is specifically NOT fundraising and directing people to donate their $ to downticket elections. Is that not actually a favourable outcome, despite what we may personally feel about Bloomberg? Imagine if the $1 billion that would be spent in an ordinary election by a D nominee gets funneled into Senate and Congressional races?
 
i have no problem with a rich guy wanting to be president and campaigning for donations, knocking on doors, holding rallies and speaking to voters. romney and kerry did all of those things.

i have a problem with a campaign that just shovels unfathomable amounts of money into advertising that nobody else can hope to match and not bothering with nearly any of the hard work of earning votes, and people being like "that's fine because the other guy is a socialist".
What if John Kerry would have spent more of that sweet sweet ketchup money on his own campaign and let the donations be spent on down ticket campaigns to elect blue senators, congresspeople, governors and mayors? 11 states voted to ban same sex marriage in 2004.

And Mike Bloomberg has been holding rallies and speaking to voters. He's been doing it for months - just not in the first four states, and he's not asking any of them for their money. He is very much doing the hard work, just doing it without a hand out because he doesn't need it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom