All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[Superbat]

I'm assuming Sanders was the "Provable Hot Garbage" in 2016 given how badly Hillary beat him.

Interesting how you never apply your own logic to the candidates you support, especially when discussing winning an election.

What a silly way to look at things.

If someone who lost a primary is more garbage than the person who won, John Kasich would be worse than Trump.

[numberthirty]

I'm assuming Sanders was the "Provable Hot Garbage" in 2016 given how badly Hillary beat him.

Interesting how you never apply your own logic to the candidates you support.

In addition to that it seems like you must have missed the post that I quoted, you have made an incorrect assumption.

In the instance we were actually discussing, Bloomberg would be "Provable Garbage..."(sunk money into helping Republicans keep the Senate in 2016/called out former President Obama on not doing a better job of mending racial divides during his two terms). "Provable Hot Garbage..." would be Donald Trump. I don't believe I should have to lay out why he is "Hot Garbage..." as opposed to just "Garbage..."

[aja_christopher]

What a silly way to look at things.

If someone who lost a primary is more garbage than the person who won, John Kasich would be worse than Trump.

No -- it's an objective way to look at things.

Not everyone sees Sanders (or Bloomberg) as you do -- where you might think one candidate is "hot garbage" millions of other voters will feel the same way about your candidate.

You can argue all day about whether they are right are wrong, but the votes don't lie and -- at least in 2016 -- Sanders was the "Hot Garbage" candidate by said reasoning.

I'm not even agreeing with that logic -- just pointing out how blatantly subjective it is when discussing politics.

[numberthirty]

No -- it's an objective way to look at things.

Not everyone sees Sanders (or Bloomberg) as you do -- where you might think one candidate is "hot garbage" millions of other voters will feel the same way about your candidate.

You can argue all day about whether they are right are wrong, but the votes don't lie and -- at least in 2016 -- Sanders was the "Hot Garbage" candidate by said reasoning.

I'm not even agreeing with that logic -- just pointing out how blatantly subjective it is when discussing politics.

When almost everyone in this thread is on the same page when it comes to Bloomberg based on who he actually is and what he has actually done?

Who go more or less votes is simply not relevant.

If it was, Trump would somehow not be garbage based on that he won an election.

[aja_christopher]

When almost everyone in this thread is on the same page when it comes to Bloomberg based on who he actually is and what he has actually done?

Everyone on this thread is basically either liberal or moderate, with a few conservatives who have already said they won't vote for Sanders.

They didn't call him "hot garbage" but the sentiment is the same, and there are millions more like them out there waiting to vote in the general election.

As always, I don't expect you to be objective, but you could at least be honest about the fact that Sanders is not a deity, as proven by his 2016 bid.

[Superbat]

No -- it's an objective way to look at things.

Not everyone sees Sanders (or Bloomberg) as you do -- where you might think one candidate is "hot garbage" millions of other voters will feel the same way about your candidate.

You can argue all day about whether they are right are wrong, but the votes don't lie and -- at least in 2016 -- Sanders was the "Hot Garbage" candidate by said reasoning.

I'm not even agreeing with that logic -- just pointing out how blatantly subjective it is when discussing politics.

When Sanders wins the primary this year, you going to say every other nominee was hot garbage compared to him?

[SquirrelMan]

In addition to that it seems like you must have missed the post that I quoted, you have made an incorrect assumption.

In the instance we were actually discussing, Bloomberg would be "Provable Garbage..."(sunk money into helping Republicans keep the Senate in 2016/called out former President Obama on not doing a better job of mending racial divides during his two terms). "Provable Hot Garbage..." would be Donald Trump. I don't believe I should have to lay out why he is "Hot Garbage..." as opposed to just "Garbage..."

That still leaves us with:

- thinking all drug dealers are black
- accepting hostile work environments against women in his campaigns for a long time
- fantasizing about women fantasizing about rape
- glorifying the Soviet dictatorship
- dumping nuclear waste on a disadvantaged Hispanic community
- voting for the Crime Bill that caused mass incarceration, having it both ways by complaining about AND campaigning on it
- sugarcoating his serious heart attack, refusing to release medical records

It's hot enough garbage for me.

[aja_christopher]

When Sanders wins the primary this year, you going to say every other nominee was hot garbage compared to him?

No -- because that's 30's terminology, not mine, and I'm speaking of the general election and not just the primary.

I don't think Sanders is "hot garbage" at all -- my point is that others do, and will vote accordingly.

Whether more people think of him as "hot garbage" than the other candidates remains to be seen -- it has nothing to do with my opinion on the matter.

[Superbat]

No -- because that's 30's terminology, not mine, and I'm speaking of the general election and not just the primary.

I don't think Sanders is "hot garbage" at all -- my point is that others do, and will vote accordingly.

Whether more people think of him as "hot garbage" than the other candidates remains to be seen -- it has nothing to do with my opinion on the matter.

LMAO you just wanted to call Sanders hot garbage.

You can admit you don't like him. No one cares as long as you vote for him against Trump.

[PwrdOn]

Bloomberg's a piece of **** on multiple levels, but thinking he's identical to Trump is mind-blowing. Trump's incompetence is something that makes him worse, not blunting his damage to the country and the world. Electing Bloomberg would be a sign of how desperate the Democrats are to stop Trump, and when someone is desperate they'll do whatever it takes to get victories. Giving Trump 4 more years is not an option. Bloomberg succeeding would mean Sanders' wing failed to convince the Democrats they could do it, which should be motivation to get their own wing in order so the next presidential primary they'll be the ones who win. That's their responsibility to fulfill.

Democrats won't lose progressives, only Sanders' wing - who probably would lose a large chunk once Sanders leaves politics. It's be nice to be able to rely on them long term, but that's up to them to decide whether they want to keep the GOP from power again.

Edit: If your only priority is self righteousness over actual progress you're losing.

At the very least though, Trump doesn't try to hide the disdain that the billionaire class has for regular folks and is completely shameless about promoting policies that enrich him at our expense. The danger with Bloomberg is that he puts a somewhat friendlier face on that, but will continue to rob us blind behind our backs just the same. However, because most members of the media and political establishment, and sadly many voters as well, are so fixated on optics over actual policy, they will deem that getting rid of Trump means that everything is all better now, and drop any pretense of pushing for actual reform.

The reason most Bernie supporters find it tough to stomach voting for centrist Democrats is because this alliance between neoliberals and progressives has always been an awkward one and only continues because we have somehow allowed an insane quasi-fascist party to monopolize all of the power. In a sane world, the Democrats would be the primary right wing party, and a new left wing party in which Bernie would actually be considered quite moderate would emerge as the opposition, with the Republicans relegated to the same lunatic fringe as those ultranationalist European parties. This would also eliminate the rather ludicrous situation where one party claims to stand for all women, minorities, and LGBT of every stripe, and allow all of those people to align themselves with different parties that accurately reflect their diverse political views instead of being forced to uniformly support a party that doesn't really care about them. We deserve to have better choices than the likes of Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Andrew Yang, or Pete Buttigieg claiming to represent us.

[aja_christopher]

LMAO you just wanted to call Sanders hot garbage.

You can admit you don't like him. No one cares as long as you vote for him against Trump.

Stop lying -- I don't think a candidate who wants to end student debt and give everyone health care is "hot garbage".

You -- and many other Sanders supporters -- have a serious victim complex. You need to get over it and stop assuming everyone who points out the weaknesses in your "logic" does so just because they dislike Sanders.

What people dislike is losing a major election because certain "Democrats" are too stubborn to acknowledge the truth about their candidate. That said, Sanders could win, but don't ignore the fact that many conservatives here have already pointed out that they won't vote for him as they see him as the "Hot garbage" option.

30 is the one who brought up candidates being "hot garbage" -- specifically because he wanted to claim Bloomberg is garbage while not accepting that many also feel the same way about Sanders based on his comment regarding winning the election.

He's the one that called candidates "Hot Garbage" -- not me.

[numberthirty]

That still leaves us with:

- thinking all drug dealers are black
- accepting hostile work environments against women in his campaigns for a long time
- fantasizing about women fantasizing about rape
- glorifying the Soviet dictatorship
- dumping nuclear waste on a disadvantaged Hispanic community
- voting for the Crime Bill that caused mass incarceration, having it both ways by complaining about AND campaigning on it
- sugarcoating his serious heart attack, refusing to release medical records

It's hot enough garbage for me.

This is what "Legitimate Hot Garbage..." actually looks like -

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bloo...ry?id=68171036

Bloomberg won’t release women who sued him from secrecy agreements

Bloomberg was sued several times over the years. Three cases remain open.

Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg told ABC News this week he will not take any steps to release women who have signed confidentiality agreements with his company to speak publicly about past allegations that the former New York City mayor fostered a hostile work environment for some female employees.

“You can't just walk away from it,” Bloomberg said. “They're legal agreements, and for all I know the other side wouldn't want to get out of it.”

Last month, ABC News reported on several lawsuits in which Bloomberg was accused of making crude remarks in the 1990s and of allegedly fostering an uncomfortable environment for women to work -- allegations Bloomberg has denied. Three cases against the company remain active.

ABC News has spoken with several women who expressed interest in telling their stories who were subject to confidentiality agreements, but said they feared the prospect of facing retribution from the company for speaking out.

Funny just how familiar that bit in green sounds...

[SquirrelMan]

This is what "Legitimate Hot Garbage..." actually looks like -

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bloo...ry?id=68171036







Funny just how familiar that bit in green sounds...

I did not say I support Bloomberg.

You may not notice, but you're doing that thing again.

[aja_christopher]

Funny just how familiar that bit in green sounds...

All of this sounds familiar as this is exactly the same approach you used in 2016.

Except it was that Sanders' opponent was:

Racist -- due to her "superpredator" comment and the Crime Bill that Sanders signed
Corporate -- because she allegedly worked for "Wall Street"
Sexist -- because she allegedly thought she should win because she was a woman
Corrupt -- because of her "emails"

[numberthirty]

All of this sounds familiar as this is exactly the same approach you used in 2016.

Except it was that Sanders' opponent was:

Racist -- due to her "superpredator" comment and the Crime Bill that Sanders signed
Corporate -- because she allegedly worked for "Wall Street"
Sexist -- because she allegedly thought she should win because she was a woman
Corrupt -- because of her "emails"

Since everything there came right out of Bloomberg's mouth?

It's actually not.

There is no case for that he is not actually doing what he actually says he is doing there.