Bloomberg humiliates disabled reporter

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

F*ck Bloomberg. 

 

[Whispering 18,865]

6 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Not really.

Democrats and Republicans have different core beliefs and to an extent values.

 Trump and Bloomberg's have always aligned with Republicans. Trump flipped his such as his previous pro-choice stance to fit the party, Bloomberg is going to run as a Democrat despite not changing his values or beliefs.  Both of them are united in a corporatist ideology, and just use political parties as a way of getting power.

Bernie has always been a friend of the Democratic party, and caucuses with them. He is a leader in the senate despite being an Independent because people in congress consider him part of them. More importantly, his values have been consistent, and his policies are aligned with Democrats, though throughout the years mainstream democrats have become increasing corporatist and have abandoned their roots in working class advocacy, union advocacy, etc.

If you only care about who has had a D by their name the longest, then what the D means is shallow and uncritical and that's how you get people who do NOT represent the Democratic party's beliefs able to run as Democrats.

Furthermore, it gives credence to the general idea that Democrats and Republicans are fundamentally both the same at the end of the day which is a belief held by most people - Independents outnumber Dems and Republicans. 

Nominating Bloomberg would destroy any sort of moral high ground or value system Dems claim to represent, which in practice reduces our 2 party system even further.

Not really.

Bloomberg is a Democrat.

Trump is a Republican.

 

True Independents are really are seven per cent. The rest say they are Independents, but vote one way or the other. They don’t actually go back and forth from election to election.

 

[Batwings 12,958]

The only reason Bloomberg has gotten as far as he has is because he has spent so much money on his campaign that you literally cannot turn on your TV without seeing one of his ads. It's gotten ridiculous. Warren DESTROYED him at the debate, and I'm hoping most left-leaning voters can see that he's just a slight variation of Trump.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

54 minutes ago, Whispering said:

Not really.

Bloomberg is a Democrat.

Trump is a Republican.

True Independents are really are seven per cent. The rest say they are Independents, but vote one way or the other. They don’t actually go back and forth from election to election.

 

Is there a point in responding if you don't address the points brought up that go against what you believe?  

Bloomberg is a blatant and unrepentant racist and sexist with a serious tendency for authoritarianism. If you believe that this is representative of Democratic beliefs, principles, policies, and moral values save us the time and say so. . 

I didn't say 40% of the country is apolitical, I said they are independent, and they are. You have made a good point though - Independents tend to vote one way or another, and thus they are included in projections from time to time politically.  Just like Bernie Sanders, the obviously left leaning independent who votes and caucuses with Democrats. If we ignore the truly apolitical and right leaning Independents, then we've still got almost half of all Independents who are what  Bernie is - Democrat adjacent, but who have problems with the party that prevent them from constantly identifying as such, despite voting for them. 

I repeat: nominating Bloomberg would be an abject admission that the establishment is the same between republican and democratic agendas at its core, and would cause a demoralizing effect on Democrats who proudly identify as such and believe their party is a party of moral high ground, anti-bigotry, justice, and democracy. It spits in the face of all of that, and would completely cripple Democrats in their ability to run any sort of moral case against Trump in 2020. Good luck differing to the economy against him when we've got a Billionaire Oligarch who has advocated against workers rights and proper trade deals and has a terrible record on China  

 

[Whispering 18,865]

8 hours ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Is there a point in responding if you don't address the points brought up that go against what you believe?  

Bloomberg is a blatant and unrepentant racist and sexist with a serious tendency for authoritarianism. If you believe that this is representative of Democratic beliefs, principles, policies, and moral values save us the time and say so. . 

I didn't say 40% of the country is apolitical, I said they are independent, and they are. You have made a good point though - Independents tend to vote one way or another, and thus they are included in projections from time to time politically.  Just like Bernie Sanders, the obviously left leaning independent who votes and caucuses with Democrats. If we ignore the truly apolitical and right leaning Independents, then we've still got almost half of all Independents who are what  Bernie is - Democrat adjacent, but who have problems with the party that prevent them from constantly identifying as such, despite voting for them. 

I repeat: nominating Bloomberg would be an abject admission that the establishment is the same between republican and democratic agendas at its core, and would cause a demoralizing effect on Democrats who proudly identify as such and believe their party is a party of moral high ground, anti-bigotry, justice, and democracy. It spits in the face of all of that, and would completely cripple Democrats in their ability to run any sort of moral case against Trump in 2020. Good luck differing to the economy against him when we've got a Billionaire Oligarch who has advocated against workers rights and proper trade deals and has a terrible record on China  

 

I don’t know where you are going with all this. You go so far off topic. I was never advocating for Bloomberg as a candidate. Just stating a general fact. 

[Lord Temptation 11,209]

15 minutes ago, Whispering said:

I don’t know where you are going with all this. You go so far off topic. I was never advocating for Bloomberg as a candidate. Just stating a general fact. 

So he’s not good enough to be the Democratic candidate yet you’d still vote for him as President? Seems hypocritical?

[Whispering 18,865]

28 minutes ago, Lord Temptation said:

So he’s not good enough to be the Democratic candidate yet you’d still vote for him as President? Seems hypocritical?

I have no idea how you got this from my comment. 

[Lord Temptation 11,209]

On 2/23/2020 at 6:14 AM, Whispering said:

Democrat is a wide range. There are moderates and more conservative Democrats. 

I’m not voting for him, unless he’s the last person between Trump and a second term, but Bloomberg is a Democrat. 

You said that you would only vote for Bloomberg to make Trump lose, even though you don’t advocate him as the Democratic nominee. How is that not hypocrisy?

[Whispering 18,865]

1 hour ago, Lord Temptation said:

You said that you would only vote for Bloomberg to make Trump lose, even though you don’t advocate him as the Democratic nominee. How is that not hypocrisy?

He’s my last choice, but I would vote for him over Trump. I’m voting for the Democratic Nominee, and I have been stating this for three years now. I’m not sure what is hard to understand about that. 

[Lord Temptation 11,209]

1 hour ago, Whispering said:

He’s my last choice, but I would vote for him over Trump. I’m voting for the Democratic Nominee, and I have been stating this for three years now. I’m not sure what is hard to understand about that. 

It’s obvious you don’t understand your own contradiction. You’re saying that Bloomberg is not good enough to be leader of your party but he is good enough to be the President of the entire country??? That not only is hypocritical, it also just sounds spiteful. But I don’t expect you to understand thaT.

[Whispering 18,865]

4 hours ago, Lord Temptation said:

It’s obvious you don’t understand your own contradiction. You’re saying that Bloomberg is not good enough to be leader of your party but he is good enough to be the President of the entire country??? That not only is hypocritical, it also just sounds spiteful. But I don’t expect you to understand thaT.

I’m saying that Bloomberg would be my last choice, but I would vote for him over Trump. I would vote for anyone running on the Democratic ticket, even the ones who have dropped out, over Trump. I’ve stated this all along. 

This really isn’t a complex concept to understand. 

[Lord Temptation 11,209]

4 hours ago, Whispering said:

I’m saying that Bloomberg would be my last choice, but I would vote for him over Trump. I would vote for anyone running on the Democratic ticket, even the ones who have dropped out, over Trump. I’ve stated this all along. 

This really isn’t a complex concept to understand. 

No, actually I do get it hun. It’s just kind of sad. You would vote for anyone that isn’t Trump, even if they think, speak and behave exactly like him- such as Bloomberg. Maybe your intuition is trying to telling you Trump is gonna win no matter who he is up against, because you seem to be solely focused on winning at all costs, rather than on policy or leadership.

[Whispering 18,865]

12 hours ago, Lord Temptation said:

No, actually I do get it hun. It’s just kind of sad. You would vote for anyone that isn’t Trump, even if they think, speak and behave exactly like him- such as Bloomberg. Maybe your intuition is trying to telling you Trump is gonna win no matter who he is up against, because you seem to be solely focused on winning at all costs, rather than on policy or leadership.

I would vote for any Democratic Nominee over Trump. It’s easy to understand.

I’m not your hun.