Bloomberg for President?

theprestige said:
"False pretense of democracy."

Apparently democracy doesn't count if you don't like any of the people who volunteered to put themselves up for consideration as an elected representative.

Maybe our democracy would be less fake if Elizabeth Bruenig had volunteered herself, instead of crossing her fingers and hoping some better citizen would step forward? Or if the state had forced her to run, for the greater good?
Click to expand...

To be fair, this is a hypothetical. I think Bloomberg has a pretty low ceiling for support. Super Tuesday will tell.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
A vote between a plutocrat and a kleptocrat is not one I would personally grant legitimacy.
Click to expand...
Agreed, at least in spirit.

I believe Bloomberg would roll back many of Trump's more harmful executive branch initiatives regardless of who holds Congress (e.g. wall-building on the southern border, dismantling DACA, weaponizing DOJ, appointing FedSoc judges, etc.) it is difficult to argue those payoffs are worth selling the soul of the Democratic Party to the highest bidder and thereby creating a new bipartisan consensus around who gets to rule.

Then again, in the face of a rising global pandemic, I would be tempted to vote for whomever seems more competent as a manager and most capable of heeding scientific experts. Iit can be comforting to know I live in such a deeply red state that my vote cannot possibly tip the balance. :(
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
To be fair, this is a hypothetical. I think Bloomberg has a pretty low ceiling for support. Super Tuesday will tell.
Click to expand...

That doesn't seem fair at all. It seems like a non sequitur.

I don't think Bloomberg v Trump would be a "false pretense of democracy". I wonder if Elizabeth Bruenig believes what she's saying. Or even understands it.
 
theprestige said:
That doesn't seem fair at all. It seems like a non sequitur.

I don't think Bloomberg v Trump would be a "false pretense of democracy". I wonder if Elizabeth Bruenig believes what she's saying. Or even understands it.
Click to expand...

She strikes me as very thoughtful. She's an opinion writer at the New York Times and regularly appears on podcasts I listen too. She always strikes me as very deliberate and sincere. Whether you agree with her views or not, she doesn't strike me as a flippant person.

In a two party system, voters often engage in a bit of gamesmanship. People vote for candidates they don't like that much all the time. Lesser of two evils and all that.

Some choices are so absurdly bad that it violates the conscience to participate.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Curious about Bloomberg's debate performance tonight. I fully expect the entire stage will take turns just beating him bloody once again, but maybe he's developed a strategy since his bad performance in NV.
Click to expand...

I hate to break this news to you, but Sanders is going to be the pinata tonight.
 
Loss Leader said:
Okay, I've decided. I'm an absolute no on Bloomberg.

If he wins the nomination, I'll vote for him. But I won't vote for him in the primaries. I'd vote for a BLT over Trump but, you know, don't overcook the bacon. Because then it's like eating glass. And you get a shard right in the roof of your mouth. And don't even talk to me about mayo. Why do they put on so much mayo? And why is it always on the lettuce side so the lettuce is sliding around and the mayo is everywhere, and I've got a shard of bacon lodged in my eye and all I wanted was a cup of soup but everyone was having sandwiches so I don't want to be the schmuck that breaks that up, the bill comes and everybody's got an eight dollar sandwich and my soup is three ninety-nine. I don't see why I should suddenly have to subsidize everybody's goddamn sandwich and I'm the poor guy at the table. You have any idea what these other fakakte goyim make in an hour. They shtup the waitress a hundred dollars. And I'm not doing bad, I got a bissell gelt. But I'm not earning more interest eating a sandwich than most menchen make in a year. And the shvartzes, don't tell me about the shvartzes. Do you know what they pay just because they're shwoogies? Banks, the hair salons, the car dealers. Give the nebish a shot is all I'm asking. And I got this shiksa over here taking credit for my medicare program, and this fegulah with his centerest mishpuchah, and the Grand Rebbie of Brooklyn spending four hundred million to tell people I didn't put in for the sandwiches. Nicht mit der ads, already.
Click to expand...

Agree on Bloomberg, but I like crisp bacon.
 
Trebuchet said:
Agree on Bloomberg, but I like crisp bacon.
Click to expand...

That was the first time I've ever seen "fakakte" in written form. I had to double-check that it was the word I was thinking of. My yiddish-by-osmosis is all from listening to New York people.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You can't be serious. Or you are only looking at one kind of dirt.

This is from the Should we fear the burn thread:


Add to that his honeymoon in Russia and his comments favoring Castro...

https://www.politico.com/blogs/2016...985-praise-of-fidel-castro-sandinistas-220550


And the part we didn't see yet:

We should not fear Bernie, we should fear him losing to Trump.


And everyone on Medicare has to be scratching their heads: One pays a monthly premium and copays and deductibles. In addition a lot of people have additional "advantage plans" which are essentially private insurance supplements because Medicare doesn't cover enough.

I don't understand why none of these debate moderators ask about that.
Click to expand...



If that's all there is, that's some weak, weak sauce. If that's all there is, then he's pretty safe.

Like I say, squeaky clean. therefore people have to go: "LOOK AT ALL THIS NOTHING" in the hope others don't notice it's nothing.


The establishment is getting collective lack of bowel control over the prospect of an actual man of the people in the white house. It seems that sort of thing is contagious.


Here's an idea, follow the rules, let the bloke with the most nominations stand and see where that ends up.

Or is that too radical?? Has the window not shifted far enough to allow, you know, the actual process to happen?
 
If it's Bloomberg v Trump then that's final and absolute confirmation that the USA is owned, lock, stock and barrel, by private interests.

Those that formed the country would cry.
 
3point14 said:
If it's Bloomberg v Trump then that's final and absolute confirmation that the USA is owned, lock, stock and barrel, by private interests.

Those that formed the country would cry.
Click to expand...

They'd probably be ok with. The founders were aristocrats. They didn't have high opinions of the common rabble.
 
3point14 said:
If it's Bloomberg v Trump then that's final and absolute confirmation that the USA is owned, lock, stock and barrel, by private interests.
Click to expand...
If you thought that the militia movement was strong under Clinton or Obama, just wait 'til we get a Jewish billionaire in office.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
They'd probably be ok with. The founders were aristocrats. They didn't have high opinions of the common rabble.
Click to expand...


I don't think so.

Of course, it's an impossible question, but I think they intended something better than that which they'd come from and better than what there is now.

I'm pretty sure that, from their point of view, this counts as 'totally ******' rather than 'entirely what we intended'.
 
Belz... said:
Then why did they trust them to choose their own government wisely?
Click to expand...

They didn't. Voting rights are noticeably absent from the constitution. The concept of universal suffrage is something that came well after the founders. Originally only property owning white men could vote.
 
Last edited:
You're right. The definitely didn't trust them! And we're talking only about the people without property, not the ones who were property!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom