Bloomberg: Let Old People Die

[HorusRa2 5,005]

7 minutes ago, Eighteen said:

i don't want to explain, i already did some in this thread. if you don't see it at this point you don't see it. why are you picking a fight with me, why don't you pick a bone with @that annoying guy. he said he'd vote bloomberg if it came down to a bloomberg v trump contest. 

 

all you have said is that trump would destroy america but there's no substance that actually proves that would happen. The fact that you're saying you explained anything is just not accurate. You're saying anybody but Trump. Bloomberg is worse than Trump. 

 

I would gladly vote for Trump over Bloomberg. (I would in practice vote Green or Write-In instead but if given only the 2 options, Trump is very clearly the better option). 

[PartySick 172,536]

20 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

Bloomberg is worse than Trump. 

Explain  not because I disagree, I just want to know.

I'd put them on a level field after what I've seen today but idk what's more dangerous - an unhinged lunatic or one with his ducks in a row.

Sure, Bloomberg's done worse stuff but he's held office for a while. The presidency was Trump's first opportunity to really cause damage.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

All the hand wringing about "Bernie's an Independent! Not a Democrat" obviously was in bad-faith it seems, who is shocked  

Let's make sure to nominate someone who is good with minorities they said! Someone who has a vision for our party and the future!

How about a Republican!?

The SECOND Republicans said "I'd vote for Michael Bloomberg" every single "Democrat" should have put him in the "do not consider" list  

"Anything but Trump" has always been a dangerous mentality, because we're now at the stage where MSM figures are propping up a literal racist sexist monster as "at least not as racist or sexist of a monster as Trump" - when that's not even true, in many ways he is WORSE than Trump. If you can't honestly look at his record  and see how they are on the same level or very close (with the exception being bloomberg is casual and malicious in his bigotry and not foolish like Trump is)

... and what is he meant to be the opponent of? Oh that's right, Bernie Sanders the guy with the values and policies that the majority of the Democratic party and I would say country agrees with  Y'all still think the Democrats aren't corrupt and acting in their self interest and maybe putting their party over the country like Republicans?  

/rant over 

[Kattys 4,319]

Capitalism at it's finest...

[Eighteen 5,430]

50 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

I would gladly vote for Trump over Bloomberg.  

for me, running a shadow gov't; putting children in cages; saying he takes the word of vladimir putin over US intelligence agencies; saying we should shoot immigrants and then bringing armed forces to the border to put up barbed wire; completely disregarding climate change; ripping up the iran deal; bringing the US to the brink of another unnecessary war out of sheer hubris then having the state department try to cover up the fallout; wanting to dismantle NATO; not reading intelligence briefings at all and then making presidential decisions on the fly; lying all the time so people have no idea what's what; brainwashing people to believe we shouldn't have a free press; saying US service people's brain injuries as a direct result of your actions are merely "headaches;" trying to get foreign governments to interfere in the US election, successfully pressuring the senate to kill bills regarding crucial election security so that you have a better chance at winning; having the justice department investigate political opponents; joking about not leaving the presidency on multiple occasions; flirting with the idea of a forever presidency; saying that the military and police would furthermore back you up on that; allowing pollutants to be poured into rivers; opening up protected lands for drilling; showing a strong disposition for pettiness and revenge and using the office of the presidency to bully private citizens; all that unfolded with puerto rico; having a very keen (and dangerous) sense of how to con people; and finally, but most importantly, having what i see as a strong bent toward fascism. 

the main difference between any of the candidates, policy aside, is that there is strong evidence in my opinion that trump is a fascist in the making. he got away with encouraging, in fact trying to facilitate, election interference. tell me you don't believe that the day after impeachment (just like the day after the mueller hearings when he called the ukraine to commit the very same crime that the mueller report had investigated), that trump got right back on that phone to the Ukraine, or perhaps russia now, or perhaps china now, to muddy the waters even more, to pressure foreign governments put their finger on the scale of american democracy, to have the russians interfere again, but perhaps this time to some greater degree? wait til the general election when russia spreads propaganda against bernie sanders that brands him a communist to help trump out. 

[Kattys 4,319]

2 hours ago, FentyGa said:

well they’re in their 40s but if they were 85+ thennn fair enough

they’re not helping society in any way, and those resources could be used to help people who have more than maximum 15 years left to live

Are you serious here?

Do you know anyone older? Not helping the society??????? The arrogance...

[HorusRa2 5,005]

17 minutes ago, PartySick said:

Explain  not because I disagree, I just want to know.

I'd put them on a level field after what I've seen today but idk what's more dangerous - an unhinged lunatic or one with his ducks in a row.

Sure, Bloomberg's done worse stuff but he's held office for a while. The presidency was Trump's first opportunity to really cause damage.

I mean there's a couple different ways to look at this or angles you can take on this one. I'll explain why I see Trump as the better option. 

1. A Bloomberg nomination by the democratic party by use of all his money sends a message that anybody with enough money can buy the presidency. This is more dangerous than when Trump ran because Trump at least participated in the primary. He did rally people together. People are watching bloomberg ads and choosing him because of commercials and the fearmongering the media has campaigned on for years about Bernie Sanders. 

2. Foreign Policy - yes, Trump is erratic and yes his foreign policy has ruined many relationships with our allies; however, Trump up until this point despite having many, many people in his administration who have pushing him to go into war has so far avoiding doing so. Bloomberg to this day does not have any regret about his support for Iraq war and will almost definitely listen to the military industrial complex with regard to war with Iran should he win the presidency. The kind of microcosm and long-term effects that brings isn't something a 1 term democrat is going to be able to reverse. In fact, the results would be catastrophic. Trump, at some level, when he listens to his political instincts has avoided going to war--and actively campaigned on getting us out. He has not done so but he has not exacerbated the situation beyond repair at this point. 

3. Beyond the usual sexual harassment, racism and all the other things the two have in common, Bloomberg is all for surveillance of our people. He was supportive of the NSA spying on everyone but especially muslims. That kind of viewpoint is very dangerous and is a huge infringement upon our civil liberties. Albeit, Trump did reapply to reauthorize the spying program, and the democrats let it get passed. The difference here is that Bloomberg has been very open with his support on this whereas the Trump administration were much more quiet in how they got this through. You could argue that they are the same here but the open support for it is what bothers me more because he doesn't see anything wrong with infringing upon civil liberties of americans. 

4.  He's totally on board with raising taxes on the poor instead of the rich. He basically is of the viewpoint that by exploiting poor people that somehow the people who don't want to die in poverty will rise up out of poverty. It's really about control in my view. Bloomberg is much more authoritarian than Trump has ever expressed. 

https://www.atr.org/flashback-bloomberg-says-raising-taxes-poor-people-good-thing

Michael Bloomberg: “Some people say, well, taxes are regressive. But in this case, yes they are. That's the good thing about them because the problem is in people that don't have a lot of money. And so, higher taxes should have a bigger impact on their behavior and how they deal with themselves. So, I listen to people saying 'oh we don't want to tax the poor.’ Well, we want the poor to live longer so that they can get an education and enjoy life. And that's why you do want to do exactly what a lot of people say you don't want to do. 

The question is do you want to pander to those people? Or do you want to get them to live longer? There's just no question. If you raise taxes on full sugary drinks, for example, they will drink less and there's just no question that full sugar drinks are one of the major contributors to obesity and obesity is one of the major contributors to heart disease and cancer and a variety of other things. 

So, it's like saying, ‘I don't want to stop using coal because coal miners will go out of work, will lose their jobs.’ We have a lot of soldiers in the United States in the US Army, but we don't want to go start a war just to give them something to do and that's exactly what you're saying when you say 'well, let's keep coal killing people because we don't want coal miners to lose their jobs.' The truth of the matter is that there aren't very many coal miners left anyways and we can find other things for them to do. But the comparison is: a life or a job. Or, taxes or life? Which do you want to do? Take your poison.”

Christine Lagarde: “So its regressive, it is good. There are lots of tax experts in the room. And fiscal experts, and I’m very pleased that they hear you say that. And they all say that two things in life which are absolutely certain. One is death, the other one is tax. So you use one to defer the other one.”

Bloomberg: “That’s correct. That is exactly right. Well said.”

5. He blamed congress for trying to ban redlining for the financial crisis and not the banks. He obviously is very racist, by extension as well as stop and frisk. You combine this with all the other items above, you will see that Bloomberg does not have an agenda to uplift or benefit working people, poor people or minorities. 

 

With Trump, even after he's reelected, there's still the possibility of the democrats to say that he was an aberration, to flip the tables with someone completely different but if they nominate Bloomberg they will alienate an entire generation of people who will not participate in the political process, will prove to everybody that both parties are the same, that both parties do not work to benefit the people and pushes us further and further into an oligarchic society. There's just no way around it. We can't let Trump win but we can't let Bloomberg win in exchange for Trump losing. 

 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

10 minutes ago, Eighteen said:

for me, running a shadow gov't; putting children in cages; saying he takes the word of vladimir putin over US intelligence agencies; saying we should shoot immigrants and then bringing armed forces to the border to put up barbed wire; completely disregarding climate change; ripping up the iran deal; bringing the US to the brink of another unnecessary war out of sheer hubris then having the state department try to cover up the fallout; wanting to dismantle NATO; not reading intelligence briefings at all and then making presidential decisions on the fly; lying all the time so people have no idea what's what; brainwashing people to believe we shouldn't have a free press; saying US service people's brain injuries as a direct result of your actions are merely "headaches;" trying to get foreign governments to interfere in the US election, successfully pressuring the senate to kill bills regarding crucial election security so that you have a better chance at winning; having the justice department investigate political opponents; joking about not leaving the presidency on multiple occasions; flirting with the idea of a forever presidency; saying that the military and police would furthermore back you up on that; allowing pollutants to be poured into rivers; opening up protected lands for drilling; showing a strong disposition for pettiness and revenge and using the office of the presidency to bully private citizens; all that unfolded with puerto rico; having a very keen (and dangerous) sense of how to con people; and finally, but most importantly, having what i see as a strong bent toward fascism. 

the main difference between any of the candidates, policy aside, is that there is strong evidence in my opinion that trump is a fascist in the making. he got away with encouraging, in fact trying to facilitate, election interference. tell me you don't believe that the day after impeachment (just like the day after the mueller hearings when he called the ukraine to commit the very same crime that the mueller report had investigated), that trump got right back on that phone to the Ukraine, or perhaps russia now, or perhaps china now, to muddy the waters even more, to pressure foreign governments put their finger on the scale of american democracy, to have the russians interfere again, but perhaps this time to some greater degree? wait til the general election when russia spreads propaganda against bernie sanders that brands him a communist to help trump out. 

Putting children in cages happened with Obama just as much as it happened with Trump. 

I would argue that both the US intelligence agencies and vladmir putin aren't satisfactory sources of information. 

mike bloomberg isn't going to do anything about climate change, isn't going to soothe tensions with Iran, will definitely put us into a costly war with Iran. 

Democrats do not support a free press either considering their stance with regard to Assange, Snowden and others. 

With regard to the fascist leanings of Trump, I'm not saying that you're wrong but what I am saying is that you're not accepting the fact that Bloomberg and Trump are the same in this regard. 

No need to worry about the russians trying to paint bernie as a communist. The media is going to do that for them, but to be sure they will also do that. 

All I'm trying to say is that the reactionary judgement that Bloomberg is somehow better for our country than Trump is misguided. I really don't see how either one of them as president is going to benefit this country. I think both are dangerous and there's no reason to believe that Bloomberg will actually win beyond the fact he has a lot of money. Trump will not lose against Bloomberg anyway--even if moderates decide to jump on the bloomberg train, you can guarantee progressives aren't going to vote for Bloomberg. 

[Eighteen 5,430]

i made a thread apologizing to morphine prince but it got taken down (i did it because he blocked me). if someone could tell him i'm sorry for what i did and that i don't expect him to forgive me. i just want that user to know i'm really sorry! 

[Bt1 5,213]

I cant with Bernie supporters always liking more the moderates who are losing. You guys  had the chance to say nice things about Pete or Biden. U never did when they were next to Bernie. 

For me, most of his problems come from his age. Bernie and Biden have similar problems. The difference is that Bloomberg has  lived in the real world, where he had to deliver results and solving controversial issues, not only getting votes.

The real question is if voters will understand that side of his story or if they will accept it in order to win and get things done. 

We will see how he will do in the debates.

[HorusRa2 5,005]

20 minutes ago, Florin said:

I cant with Bernie supporters always liking more the moderates who are losing. You guys  had the chance to say nice things about Pete or Biden. U never did when they were next to Bernie. 

For me, most of his problems come from his age. Bernie and Biden have similar problems. The difference is that Bloomberg has  lived in the real world, where he had to deliver results and solving controversial issues, not only getting votes.

The real question is if voters will understand that side of his story or if they will accept it in order to win and get things done. 

We will see how he will do in the debates.

what are you even ranting about

 

It seems like you're saying bloomberg is being unfairly treated because of his record and statements, that there is a 'different side of the story.' 

 

I also want to point out that 'getting things done' does not necessarily mean a good thing. The Trump administration got a lot of stuff 'done' but I think we can both agree most of what has been done is terrible. 

[Bt1 5,213]

7 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

what are you even ranting about

 

It seems like you're saying bloomberg is being unfairly treated because of his record and statements, that there is a 'different side of the story.' 

 

I also want to point out that 'getting things done' does not necessarily mean a good thing. The Trump administration got a lot of stuff 'done' but I think we can both agree most of what has been done is terrible. 

Yea. Because his record isnt only the negative statements he made x years ago. He has made a lot of good things. 

Considering the things he is promising right now, it will be very  different if Bloomberg or Trump gets the things "done" after November. If u dont see it, that's your problem. 

[HorusRa2 5,005]

4 minutes ago, Florin said:

Yea. Because his record isnt only the negative statements he made x years ago. He has made a lot of good things. 

Considering the things he is promising right now, it will be very  different if Bloomberg or Trump gets the things "done" after November. If u dont see it, that's your problem. 

Ok. I'm going to go back to ignoring you because this comment is absurd and I can't engage with you politely. 

[Bt1 5,213]

3 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

Ok. I'm going to go back to ignoring you because this comment is absurd and I can't engage with you politely. 

Thats the right thing to do. Let's not act like your ability to see the good sides of other candidates than Bernie exists. 

[ALGAYDO 35,109]

6 minutes ago, Florin said:

Thats the right thing to do. Let's not act like your ability to see the good sides of other candidates than Bernie exists. 

I feel like it’s more that you have such low standards when it comes to politicians that you always see the “good” in them, even when the bad outweighs the good