1. #7321
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    33,440
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    I feel its sad I have to tell you about picking someone based off their ideology, you deny that before all his scandals Clinton wasn't a popular President?
    Yes, politicians are popular until they are under a lot of investigation, it's almost as if being constantly under investigation creates this veil of suspicion within the public, you know, like... oh...

    Hillary was extremely popular during the Bush years. She started off popular during the Obama years. And the Republican party knew that she was popular AND that she would be running. Why do you think they set her up for the Benghazi scandal where literally no wrongdoing happened? And Republicans OPENLY ADMITTED they were milking it to make her look bad. Why do you think they launched a huge investigation over her emails, when there was nothing unlawful, wrong, or corrupt about that incident?

    They know that someone simply being under the veil of investigation will create a public perception that they're a bad person. It was an almost decade long smear campaign so they could destroy Hillary in 2020. And now we have an actual corrupt president in the white house as a result. It's quite funny that people are freaking out over Biden making some public gaffes, when Trump just openly talks about sexually harassing women. But hey, this is a timeline where Republicans care more about smearing opponents to gain power rather than trying to govern well. You know, their jobs.
    "Nazis are like cats. If they like you, it's probably because you're feeding them." -John Oliver
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    I don't care if he committed tax fraud. Scoring political victories and crushing the aspirations of your political opponents is more important than adhering to moral principles.
    Knadra finally just admitting Trumpkins care more about political victories than morals.

  2. #7322
    Banned Rochana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    St. Augustine, Florida
    Posts
    4,483
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    You know, exaclty what happened in 2016. The worst part was, most of those people bought that shit. They ate right out of the palms of the Trump crowd because they simply wanted to hate on Hillary some more. People seem to forget, but the right was railing on Bernie, calling him a communist and raking him over the coals early in the primary. But the moment they saw an opportunity to leverage the fanatical Bernie Cult against the moderates, the moderates took their pity, they took the propaganda, and swallowed it without chewing it a bit to think on where it was coming from.
    This is so wrong on so many levels.

    It is like claiming that if Bernie or Warren got the nomination that the 'moderate' democrats would be gobbling up the Trump camp propaganda.

    Truth is that progressives already strongly dislike Bloomberg and Buttigieg and wont need to wait for anyone to start shooting their ammunition. It was the progressives who found the stop and frisk Bloomberg scandal. It is progressives who found Buttigieg supporting the Breathe Easy police t-shirts.

    Is there a shared dislike for 'moderate democrats' between progressives and Trump supporters? Sure. But that doesn't mean anything. It just means that people who really want to get rid of Trump shouldn't support moderate candidates.

  3. #7323
    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker76 View Post
    Mind as well have fun now. The acrimony and gaslighting is only going to get worse.

    I mean it's like the little boys that cried wolf.
    The insisted that:
    Hillary is a republican.
    Harris is a republican and a cop.
    Warren is a republican.
    Even Joe Biden is a republican.

    Is Bloomberg really a republican? I mean being against the NRA, supporting climate change policy. Taking on Big Sugar one gulp at a time. These are peculiar positions for a republican to hold.
    Just asking rhetorically.

    Speaking of being a paid shill for the Sugar Lobby...
    Big Sugar: Sanders And Rubio Share A Sweet Tooth


    But on one issue, Sanders walks in lockstep with the political establishment on Capitol Hill—Uncle Sam’s sugar-buying scheme.

    The federal program that resembles a Soviet Union relic works as follows: the U.S. Department of Agriculture guarantees a price floor for American sugar, below which it spends hundreds of millions of dollars to buy up excess sugar and bump the price back up to the minimum. Uncle Sam then sells the sugar at a steep discount to ethanol producers. Limits on imports also artificially prop up the prices that domestic sugar producers can charge.

    American consumers get fleeced on two fronts. Not only must they foot the bill for the subsidy scheme, they also have to pay higher prices at the grocery store for sugar, cakes, and confections. The U.S. sugar regime is cronyism at its finest.

    Yes Bloomberg was at some point registered republican and democrat.
    Second, the likes of Clinton and Biden are put in Republican ''light'' camp because that is who they. Biden sells himself as a centrist and moderate but honestly from my pov being a centrist kind of lost it's meaning because the current batch of centrist consider it working towards the opposition (right-wing).

  4. #7324
    So, Bloomberg's name and personal numbers repeatedly in Epstein's black book. Probably just there because of business connections. Not because Bloomberg, who has had many sexual harassment cases against him, spends his free time bangin' kids right?
    Last edited by Martymark; 2020-02-18 at 12:47 AM.

  5. #7325
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Quarantine and Chill
    Posts
    47,247
    Quote Originally Posted by Martymark View Post
    So, Bloomberg's name and personal numbers repeatedly in Epstein's black book. Probably just there because of business connections. Not because Bloomberg, who has had many rape and sexual assault cases against him, spends his free time bangin' kids right?
    Might just be easier to compile a list of who isn't apparently in the guestbook on Rape Island. Christ.

    Between this and being unable to find a single Virginian Democratic Party member who hasn't done blackface, we have our unicorn.
    = Masc4Mask =

  6. #7326
    Quote Originally Posted by Martymark View Post
    So, Bloomberg's name and personal numbers repeatedly in Epstein's black book. Probably just there because of business connections. Not because Bloomberg, who has had many rape and sexual assault cases against him, spends his free time bangin' kids right?
    So, he is just like Trump? Except richer?

  7. #7327
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    62,363
    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker76 View Post
    Mind as well have fun now. The acrimony and gaslighting is only going to get worse.

    I mean it's like the little boys that cried wolf.
    The insisted that:
    Hillary is a republican.
    Harris is a republican and a cop.
    Warren is a republican.
    Even Joe Biden is a republican.

    Is Bloomberg really a republican? I mean being against the NRA, supporting climate change policy. Taking on Big Sugar one gulp at a time. These are peculiar positions for a republican to hold.
    Just asking rhetorically.
    He was a Democrat.

    And then objectively, overtly switched his party allegiance to run for NYC Mayor as a Republican. And won, as a Republican.

    And now he claims to be a Democrat again.

    So there's a question that needs to be answered, in there; why did he switch, to run as Mayor? And why did he switch back, to run for President?
    Is it because he's picking the Party with the best opportunity for him to win? This makes him an exploitative manipulator without an ideological grounding for his candidacy.
    Is it because his views legitimately swung that significantly? Then A> I expect him to admit his mistakes in holding his prior views, dismiss those views as "bad", and B> I question whether his views might swing again, since he doesn't seem to have a firm ideological grounding.

    The first is reason to not support him, all by itself. The second requires explanation and a disavowal of his own Mayoral legacy, which he has not really done.

    This isn't like the bullshit "Warren used to be Republican" nonsense. Yeah, she used to. And then she changed. And she has admitted that her older views weren't great and that she's got a firm belief in the ideological underpinnings of what she supports now. She meets that second option's expectations, where Bloomberg does not.

    Biden, Hillary, and Harris aren't "republican", but they are center/center-right leaning, on the right-leaning edge of the Democratic Party. They would've been among the group with which there was ideological overlap with Republicans, if we went back to the '90s with them. This is valid reason to not support them for the primary.

  8. #7328
    Quote Originally Posted by Orbitus View Post
    So, he is just like Trump? Except richer?
    He has more money than Trump.
    He's won more elections as a Republican than Trump.
    He has more sexual harassment cases against him than Trump.

    So he's like Trump+++
    Last edited by Martymark; 2020-02-18 at 12:47 AM.

  9. #7329
    The Lightbringer downnola's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Cleveland, OH (Hometown: Philadelphia, PA)
    Posts
    3,380
    Bloomberg doesn't have any delegates yet and doesn't seem very popular in polls (Even NY hates the guy). Why is everyone talking about him all of a sudden? Is the media pushing him as a realistic candidate or something?
    I don't know what word in the language—I can’t find one—that applies to people of that kind, who are willing to sacrifice the literal—the existence of organized human life, not in the distant future, so they can put a few more dollars in highly overstuffed pockets. The word “evil” doesn’t begin to approach it.
    - Noam Chomsky

  10. #7330
    Quote Originally Posted by Martymark View Post
    So, Bloomberg's name and personal numbers repeatedly in Epstein's black book. Probably just there because of business connections. Not because Bloomberg, who has had many rape and sexual assault cases against him, spends his free time bangin' kids right?
    I don't doubt that his name is in there really, but could you link a source for it?

  11. #7331
    Quote Originally Posted by bmjclark View Post
    I don't doubt that his name is in there really, but could you link a source for it?
    Here you go buddy, because you haven't heard of a small website called google:

    https://www.truthorfiction.com/mods-...ns-black-book/
    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019...ial-black-book
    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...-contacts.html

  12. #7332
    Quote Originally Posted by downnola View Post
    Bloomberg doesn't have any delegates yet and doesn't seem very popular in polls (Even NY hates the guy). Why is everyone talking about him all of a sudden? Is the media pushing him as a realistic candidate or something?
    Basically because for low info voters bloomberg is carpet bombing tv ads in states that are not even going to have their primary for a couple more months. His stuff is on all the time in wisconsin and our primary is not till april. He is spending enough in states to really hurt other candidates ability to put their own ads out because he is jacking the prices up because he has infinity bucks. People are taking him seriously because a lot of people recognize that the US is really close to an oligarchy if it is not already there so just are throwing up their hands and figure may as well have the richest oligarch theoretically on our side.

  13. #7333
    Quote Originally Posted by xChurch View Post
    I know its a time of hyper-partisanship in America right now, but can't both sides agree to speed this shit up?
    Waaaaay too much money to be made yet.

    Drawback of America turning everything into a business.

  14. #7334
    Quote Originally Posted by Martymark View Post
    So, Bloomberg's name and personal numbers repeatedly in Epstein's black book. Probably just there because of business connections. Not because Bloomberg, who has had many rape and sexual assault cases against him, spends his free time bangin' kids right?
    Not to be THAT guy but there are literally zero rape and sexual assault cases against him. The company has some which is a different topic.

    The dude is deffo guilty of fostering an environment tho
    Your problem is that you’re more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.

  15. #7335
    Quote Originally Posted by Martymark View Post
    So, Bloomberg's name and personal numbers repeatedly in Epstein's black book. Probably just there because of business connections. Not because Bloomberg, who has had many rape and sexual assault cases against him, spends his free time bangin' kids right?
    I understand that people do not like Bloomberg. However, lets keep the facts straight. There are cases of sexual harassment against him because of sexist remarks against his female employees. There are cases of gender discrimination against Bloomberg LP and even rape against one of Bloomberg’s executive.

    However, there are no sexual assault or rape charges against him personally. At least not yet. Also, although he did have a lot of girlfriends when he was single, there is not a hint of infidelity while he was married to his first wife and with his current live-in partner.

  16. #7336
    Quote Originally Posted by downnola View Post
    Bloomberg doesn't have any delegates yet and doesn't seem very popular in polls (Even NY hates the guy). Why is everyone talking about him all of a sudden? Is the media pushing him as a realistic candidate or something?
    AFAIK he was third in national polls last week or so. Dunno much about current polls tho so it might have changed
    Your problem is that you’re more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.

  17. #7337
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    He was a Democrat.

    And then objectively, overtly switched his party allegiance to run for NYC Mayor as a Republican. And won, as a Republican.

    And now he claims to be a Democrat again.

    So there's a question that needs to be answered, in there; why did he switch, to run as Mayor? And why did he switch back, to run for President?
    Is it because he's picking the Party with the best opportunity for him to win? This makes him an exploitative manipulator without an ideological grounding for his candidacy.
    Is it because his views legitimately swung that significantly? Then A> I expect him to admit his mistakes in holding his prior views, dismiss those views as "bad", and B> I question whether his views might swing again, since he doesn't seem to have a firm ideological grounding.

    The first is reason to not support him, all by itself. The second requires explanation and a disavowal of his own Mayoral legacy, which he has not really done.

    This isn't like the bullshit "Warren used to be Republican" nonsense. Yeah, she used to. And then she changed. And she has admitted that her older views weren't great and that she's got a firm belief in the ideological underpinnings of what she supports now. She meets that second option's expectations, where Bloomberg does not.

    Biden, Hillary, and Harris aren't "republican", but they are center/center-right leaning, on the right-leaning edge of the Democratic Party. They would've been among the group with which there was ideological overlap with Republicans, if we went back to the '90s with them. This is valid reason to not support them for the primary.
    It was actually counterintuitive. He was lifelong Democrats. Ran for New York Mayor as Republicans which is not an advantage in New York city. He ran as Independent for his third term, after convincing an all Democratic city council to waive term limits, after two highly criticized terms, and won (51% to 46%) in an overwhelmingly Democratic city against a very popular Democratic candidate (Bill Thompson). How? The estimate was that the third term cost him $180 per vote.

  18. #7338
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    He was a Democrat.

    And then objectively, overtly switched his party allegiance to run for NYC Mayor as a Republican. And won, as a Republican.

    And now he claims to be a Democrat again.

    So there's a question that needs to be answered, in there; why did he switch, to run as Mayor? And why did he switch back, to run for President?
    Is it because he's picking the Party with the best opportunity for him to win? This makes him an exploitative manipulator without an ideological grounding for his candidacy.
    Is it because his views legitimately swung that significantly? Then A> I expect him to admit his mistakes in holding his prior views, dismiss those views as "bad", and B> I question whether his views might swing again, since he doesn't seem to have a firm ideological grounding.
    Looking him up briefly, he did apparently state once he regretted instituting Stop n' Frisk in New York, saying it didn't work (not necessarily that it was morally wrong). The date for that, however, was November of last year... 4 months ago. Conveniently right on the eve of him starting his presidential bid.

    For me, the problem with him is we have seen him in political action when he was mayor - and his actions were always went towards Traitorpublican desires, never Democrat. He's done little to disavow his previous actions, and indeed some of his current policies are aligned with Traitorpublican Views, particularly healthcare.

    And lets not forget he was a 1-term mayor, who immediately got his ass booted out of office for being an awful mayor. For most companies I've known, when you get fired - you don't get promoted to CEO. >_<
    Last edited by mvaliz; 2020-02-17 at 06:22 PM.

  19. #7339
    Quote Originally Posted by mvaliz View Post
    Looking him up briefly, he did apparently state once he regretted instituting Stop n' Frisk in New York, saying it didn't work (not necessarily that it was morally wrong). The date for that, however, was November of last year... 4 months ago. Conveniently right on the eve of him starting his presidential bid.

    For me, the problem with him is we have seen him in political action when he was mayor - and his actions were always went towards Traitorpublican desires, never Democrat. He's done little to disavow his previous actions, and indeed some of his current policies are aligned with Traitorpublican Views, particularly healthcare.

    And lets not forget he was a 1-term mayor, who immediately got his ass booted out of office for being an awful mayor. For most companies I've known, when you get fired - you don't get promoted to CEO. >_<
    He was NY mayor for 3 terms. Stop n' frisk was and is controversial. However, NY crime rate went down a lot under his terms. He also pulled NY out of a 6b dollar budget deficit courtesy of Giuliani.
    Last edited by Rasulis; 2020-02-17 at 06:32 PM.

  20. #7340
    I absolutely despise Bloomberg but his team did an excellent job on making a compilation showing the toxicity of Bernie Bros

    https://twitter.com/MikeBloomberg/st...69357471551488

    There are worse offenders out there that should've been included but I'm glad they bothered collecting all of it
    Your problem is that you’re more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •