2020 Democratic Party primary thread

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Michael Bloomberg helped Republican Pat Toomey win big in 2016. Now he wants the Democratic nomination for president.

Hey, funny that the same people that complain about Bernie not being a Democrat are willing to go to bat for someone who was helping to elect Republican Senators as recently as 2016. Talk about caring about nothing else but defeating Trump. Maybe Republicans will vote for him because they helped get them control of the Senate!

Also, keep in mind that the vote to hear witnesses at the impeachment trial fell by one or two votes. Who knows, maybe if it weren't for Bloomberg, Trump would no longer be President.

Oh well, at least Pat Toomey not being so anti-gun control in the election campaign helped get meaningful gun legislation passed. That happened, right?

 

[Nicodemus]

I do. I also want to get rid of Trump AND every vestige of neoliberalism that exists in America. That means the vast majority of the two parties, Trump is only one part of that. I want to work to create a true Labor Party in the US. But I'll be busy working in the gulags apparently, even though I actually work for a labor union smh.

How exactly does voting for Trump over Bloomberg ensure that outcome? To get to a better future, you first need to stop a dictatorship from being cemented.

Thread by [MENTION=6046]blake[/MENTION]zeff: The degree to which Michael Bloomberg is using his fortune to fundamentally alter & manipulate U.S. politics to his personal advantage e…

Interesting thread on Bloomberg by a former employee. Trump is so far below Bloomberg's level at being the Evil Oligarch.....

In that sense, he is a much better Republican than Trump, who really only likes his people because they willingly eat up whatever nonsense he serves them.

 

[ceecee]

How exactly does voting for Trump over Bloomberg ensure that outcome? To get to a better future, you first need to stop a dictatorship from being cemented.

Really? I think I've been pretty open about supporting Bernie since before he started running. Writing him in is also an option I have. My point is, Bloomberg is more dangerous than Trump. You don't have to believe that but that doesn't make it less true. Trump and Bloomberg are only part of a much bigger problem in the US - not electing either of them is not going to magically fix it. Electing Bernie is not going to fix it either. But it's a start in the right direction.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Really? I think I've been pretty open about supporting Bernie since before he started running. Writing him in is also an option I have. My point is, Bloomberg is more dangerous than Trump. You don't have to believe that but that doesn't make it less true. Trump and Bloomberg are only part of a much bigger problem in the US - not electing either of them is not going to magically fix it. Electing Bernie is not going to fix it either. But it's a start in the right direction.

I don't think he's a Bernie guy; seems more stubbornly liberal than left or left-curious to me. The comment about gulags was pretty telling. I think he's one of those people who doesn't realize that it's a whole other ballgame now. I've never heard him say something pro-Bernie, and he seems to support anyone who isn't Bernie or Trump.

Tangent:

I had a nightmare where John Kerry was at the top of the polls and on track to win the Democratic nomination again. I had a heated political discussion with me last night about how I respect Al Gore much more than John Kerry or Hillary Clinton because he's not weighing in on current primaries even though he lost. The climate change awareness stuff doesn't hurt either; even though he's more of a centrist, he seems to stand for things other than just not being a Republican or electing Republicans.

 

[ceecee]

I don't think he's a Bernie guy; seems more stubbornly liberal than left or left-curious to me. The comment about gulags was pretty telling. I think he's one of those people who doesn't realize that it's a whole other ballgame now. I've never heard him say something pro-Bernie, and he seems to support anyone who isn't Bernie or Trump.

I don't care who Nico is supporting, I don't think he cares who I would support in German elections either.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I don't care who Nico is supporting, I don't think he cares who I would support in German elections either.

Oh, I was just providing what I think the context is if it isn't already evident.

 

[Maou]

Bloomberg and Hillary? It's like they are trying to lose.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Bloomberg and Hillary? It's like they are trying to lose.

If he wins, I'm writing in Bloomberg's friend Pat Toomey. Maybe it's unfair, though, given all the recent Senate votes that he's served as a "moderate" voice on. Remember, scary rednecks with guns! Toomey will hold them in check.

 

[Nicodemus]

Really? I think I've been pretty open about supporting Bernie since before he started running. Writing him in is also an option I have. My point is, Bloomberg is more dangerous than Trump. You don't have to believe that but that doesn't make it less true. Trump and Bloomberg are only part of a much bigger problem in the US - not electing either of them is not going to magically fix it. Electing Bernie is not going to fix it either. But it's a start in the right direction.

How is Bloomberg more dangerous? Sure, he would be a continuation of everything that has been going wrong with the US pretty much since its founding, but he does not hunger for a crown and his own dynasty. Trump's disregard for the law, his evident ambition to stay president for as long as possible (if only to escape the law), combined with his colossal mismanagement as president, pose an existential threat to US democracy, such as it is, and a lot of danger to the rest of the world. Policy-wise, Bloomberg would be like a socially liberal Reagan; Trump is like Putin.

If it is a decision between Bloomberg and Trump, writing in Bernie is useless.

I don't think he's a Bernie guy; seems more stubbornly liberal than left or left-curious to me. The comment about gulags was pretty telling. I think he's one of those people who doesn't realize that it's a whole other ballgame now. I've never heard him say something pro-Bernie, and he seems to support anyone who isn't Bernie or Trump.

That is impressively inaccurate.

1. I don't want Bernie not because I disagree with him or because he is too left for me, but because I think he would have a very hard time getting things done in Washington.
2. I prefer Bernie to Klobuchar, Bloomberg, and Biden. To Klobuchar, because I think she would lose to Trump; to Bloomberg, because I fear he would rule for the rich instead of the many; and to Biden, because Biden is too old and a step backward.
3. Bernie is a social democrat. That is the norm in Germany. No need for curiosity there on my part.
4. I am keenly aware that it is 'a whole other ballgame now'. I have been telling the forum for years that business as usual is over since Trump. If he is not defeated, ideally in a landslide, anything can happen. Hitler, too, came to power through an election.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

How is Bloomberg more dangerous? Sure, he would be a continuation of everything that has been going wrong with the US pretty much since its founding, but he does not hunger for a crown and his own dynasty. Trump's disregard for the law, his evident ambition to stay president for as long as possible (if only to escape the law), combined with his colossal mismanagement as president, pose an existential threat to US democracy, such as it is, and a lot of danger to the rest of the world. Policy-wise, Bloomberg would be like a socially liberal Reagan; Trump is like Putin.

If it is a decision between Bloomberg and Trump, writing in Bernie is useless.


That is impressively inaccurate.

1. I don't want Bernie not because I disagree with him or because he is too left for me, but because I think he would have a very hard time getting things done in Washington.
2. I prefer Bernie to Klobuchar, Bloomberg, and Biden. To Klobuchar, because I think she would lose to Trump; to Bloomberg, because I fear he would rule for the rich instead of the many; and to Biden, because Biden is too old and a step backward.

1. 
   
   So you want somebody like Butiigieg who would probably get as much done as Obama (which I don't consider to be enough, and it would all get undone by the next administration, anyway). I'd vote for him in a general (hell, I'd even vote for Biden in the general), but I think he's too much in the Obama mold (and I never really bought into him, either).
   
   Bernie is someone who I think would know what to do with the opportunity he is given. He definitely would not get to do all of it, but I think he might be able to get enough done to make a long-needed long-lasting change in American politics. It's Change I Can Actually Believe In.
   
   Obama missed so many opportunities during the first two years when he had control of Congress (like, for instance, getting ANY type of climate change legislation passed). I fear Buttigieg would do the same.
   
   I'd like to be proven wrong on Buttigieg, but that's just my impression. I think he could win the general, though.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Bloomberg Campaign Shuts Down Report He’s Considering Hillary Clinton As Running Mate – Deadline

He doesn't actually deny it, though. I could certainly see them arranging something like that. The fact that they consider this a good idea, as though somebody who couldn't get elected last time will help him win the White House, is baffling. I didn't think I could dislike Bloomberg any more. If it is true, it makes Hillary as big of a baby as Donald Trump. She screwed it up last time and she wants a do-over?

I can say if this is the case and Bloomberg gets the nomination, I will certainly write in a candidate. There is no way I can bring myself to support this; it was bad enough i had the to vote for Hillary the first time. If this asshole thinks he can make me do it again, well.... I'd probably rather vote for a taco, even a taco that gives me diarrhea.

Everyone else, even Biden, I would vote for.... but a "hell no" to a Bloomberg-Clinton ticket.

 

[21%]

As someone not from the US, I can say that what Trump has achieved in my region is to completely hand SEA over to China. I think Bernie is the best choice for the state of the world right now. I'm not sure he will get elected, and I'm not sure if he can get anything done, but at least the voices of the people will be heard -- that we want equality and we want to save the planet. Part of Bernie's attraction is that he represents hope and honesty, and people want to believe that they still mean something in this world.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

As someone not from the US, I can say that what Trump has achieved in my region is to completely hand SEA over to China. I think Bernie is the best choice for the state of the world right now. I'm not sure he will get elected, and I'm not sure if he can get anything done, but at least the voices of the people will be heard -- that we want equality and we want to save the planet. Part of Bernie's attraction is that he represents hope and honesty, and people want to believe that they still mean something in this world.

I like him because he sees the big picture, and that he represents a positive vision beyond just not voting for Republicans (which is something we won't even hae if Bloomberg gets the nomination). He can't do it all, but he can push things in the right direction. I think the other Democratic candidates don't think big enough to be able to really do that.

 

[Tellenbach]

Bernie is someone who I think would know what to do with the opportunity he is given. He definitely would not get to do all of it, but I think he might be able to get enough done to make a long-needed long-lasting change in American politics. It's Change I Can Actually Believe In.

Which Bernie policy do you think will pass a divided Congress?

Banning cows, banning fossil fuels, national $15 minimum wage, open borders, Medicare for all (including illegal immigrants)

Bernie wants to add about $100 trillion in spending over the next 10 years. Do you think a GOP controlled House and/or Senate would pass any Bernie legislation?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Bernie wants to add about $100 trillion in spending over the next 10 years. Do you think a GOP controlled House and/or Senate would pass any Bernie legislation?

It's the same as any other Democratic candidate, then. They've proven that they won't support anything if it comes from a Democrat. We can see that with Obamacare, for instance, which was really an old GOP scheme. It's also the way Mitch McConnell has been running things in general.

 

[Tellenbach]

It's the same as any other Democratic candidate, then.

Biden doesn't support Medicare for all; Bloomberg is actually reasonable when he's not pandering to the Dem base. Yang (too bad he's gone) understands that some Dem ideas like the Green Deal is stupid.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Biden doesn't support Medicare for all; Bloomberg is actually reasonable when he's not pandering to the Dem base. Yang (too bad he's gone) understands that some Dem ideas like the Green Deal is stupid.

Bloomberg is actually a Republican, he just doesn't like guns (which I don't even care about all that much). I don't know if I could vote for him in a general since I don't vote for Republicans. If he picks Hillary as VP, there is no way in hell I am voting for him. I didn't really want to vote for Hillary the first time but I did what I was supposed to, especially because I loathed Trump. I really don't think even Trump could make me do it a second time, especially since I see her political incompetence as being partially responsible for giving us Trump in the first place. I just think I'll find it really hard to back her and watch as she loses a second time; I think it would require me to kill my soul or create a horcrux or something.

As for everyone else, the sole fact that it's pushed by a Democratic politician is all that is necessary for the GOP to reject it. The actual content of the policies is irrelevant. We can see this with the fit they threw over Obamacare which was really an old GOP scheme, and we can see this with the way Mitch McConnell continues to run the Senate. Republicans have shown how they will react, hence, seeking Republican approval for such things is a waste of a time.

 

[Tellenbach]

We can see this with the fit they threw over Obamacare which was really an old GOP scheme, and we can see this with the way Mitch McConnell continues to run the Senate.

The GOP was right to oppose Obamacare. It did nothing to improve health outcomes. It resulted in increased premiums, people losing their favorite doctors, healthcare plans, and increased paperwork for doctors.

As for everyone else, the sole fact that it's pushed by a Democratic politician is all that is necessary for the GOP to reject it.

If you remember, the Dems, when they had a near super majority, rejected every Republican idea on improving healthcare such as buying health insurance across state lines or private health savings accounts. If you completely shut out the opposition party and refuse to compromise, of course, they're going to reject it.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

My nightmare is watching something like this in August:

Bloomberg could really deliver the goods there.

"I'm wealthy in civillity too!"

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

The GOP was right to oppose Obamacare. It did nothing to improve health outcomes. It resulted in increased premiums, people losing their favorite doctors, healthcare plans, and increased paperwork for doctors.

It was an idea from the Heritage foundation concocted in response to Clinton's attempt at universal healthcare. If it was a shit idea, it was a shit idea dreamed up by conservative think tanks.

Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993 - Wikipedia