Democrats 2020

[Jimmy Higgins]

That's just not important to the people who have been harmed by both types of administrations.

That is false equivalence. Republicans have acted to restrict access to voting (after their initial attempt to expand it didn't lead to good results). They continue to show up in the Supreme Court in cases to restrict Civil Rights of people. The Republicans are appointing wickedly conservative judges that will legislate from the bench.

To them, being discriminated against because of religion isn't that different from being kicked off health insurance by an employer, or being denied social services because of unpaid school lunches, or having no credit because of student loans.

In Akron, run by Democrats, there is no cost for breakfast or lunch. That comes out of the pockets of local taxpayers, not the Republicans in Columbus. You think Trump cares if kids can eat lunch at school? What was your point?

If Sanders is the nominee, I'll support him 100%. I'll also support Klobuchar 100%. She might not be as progressive, but we need to save what little is left of the Supreme Court. I'm not protesting a single Democrat for President because we've already lost too much.

The "we" in your sentence does not include the lion in that cartoon. There is a problem with non-Democrats running for President in the Democratic primary, and that problem comes down to policies and agendas, not affiliation. For a large portion of the population, Klobuchar, Bloomberg, or Biden would not be materially different than another four years of Trump, because like Trump, they have nothing to offer us that will improve our lives and no record of defending us against our actual enemies.

Yeah, that is just so wrong and one has to be terribly blind to think as such.

Instead, they have records of collaborating with our enemies and making our lives worse. They represent as much of what is wrong about the country and its direction as the Republicans who they placate and coddle at every turn, and we aren't listening anymore when you say we don't know what's good for us. Actions, principles, policy ideals, and class allegiances are paramount. Aesthetics, demeanor, temperament, identity, and party alignment are dispensable by comparison.

Yeah, just as bad... *citation foregone*

 

[ZiprHead]

View attachment 26122

Curious.

Could you enumerate democratic policies that have made voters suffer?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

On the domestic front, Biden and Klobuchar are decent. To be honest, I think the Dem movement that is very related to Bernie has pushed Dems left. This is good. Trump is terrible on domestic issues and destroying medicare.

Bloomberg is an unknown.

My two big concerns are environment and foreign policy, though. We are facing an existential environmental threat. Anything less than saying we need to get off fossil fuels is unacceptable. Not because of purity. It's about survival. Trump is terrible on the environment.

Likewise foreign policy. Debaters gave terrible answers. Terrible. A million people dead in Iraq from a war we were lied into. Bernie has the right idea. The value of human lives supersedes all other concerns. This is rational, not purity. Unfortunately, Trump's sabre-rattling not included, his almost non-interventionist policies seem closer to
what we need than many Dems.

 

[lpetrich]

Michael Bloomberg's racist past is coming out. He may not have worn a white hood and burned a cross, but he supported some very nasty policies.

Anand Giridharadas on Twitter: "This is appalling and disqualifying.
In resurfaced footage being reported tonight by the @AP, @MikeBloomberg describes redlining as a rational and prudent tactic -- and blames the end of that discriminatory practice against African-Americans for the 2008 crisis. https://t.co/dWCGOKdtpP" / Twitter
and
Bloomberg once blamed end of 'redlining' for 2008 collapse
then
Ida Bae Wells on Twitter: "Redlining was an explicitly racist policy that ensured that until 1968 98 % of federally insured loans went to white Americans. It created one of largest white affirmative action programs we’ve seen and is a direct cause of the devastating black/white wealth gap. https://t.co/P8WjFKyzZ2" / Twitter

Ida Bae Wells on Twitter: "Redlining entrenched housing segregation because it also discouraged lenders from loaning in racially mixed neighborhoods, meaning that even if white people did not mind living in integrated areas their property values went down and they could not get home loans." / Twitter

Ida Bae Wells on Twitter: "So, it was redlining that led to the racist belief that if black people move into an area property values decline because thanks to this government-initiated practice of denying home loans in black or mixed areas, black people did have negative impact on home prices." / Twitter

Ida Bae Wells on Twitter: "The impact of redlining is still felt, the harms still devastate, as identifical homes in black neighborhoods are worth less than those in white neighborhoods, black people were pushed into predatory loans, and entire communities face generational disinvestment. I’m disgusted." / Twitter

Lowering of property values often became a self-fulfilling prophecy. When black people started moving in to some neighborhoods, many white people in those neighborhoods got desperate to sell their property, thus lowering its value.

 

[lpetrich]

Bloomberg Politics on Twitter: "Michael Bloomberg seeks to move past "stop and frisk" controversy https://t.co/xVWgMItYzU" / Twitter - he is a former mayor of New York City.
and
cursed-dem wine cave on Twitter: "@bpolitics You don't get to move past this https://t.co/BmAa6dsc0d" / Twitter - saying that we know what those troublemakers look like.
then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Will people get their records expunged?
Will young people sucked into the spiderweb of incarceration get their lives back?
Unless there is restorative justice, there is no “moving on” from Stop & Frisk. It’s just a billionaire trying to cover up authoritarian & racist policy. https://t.co/2wv6KO9YJT" / Twitter
then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "New York City is about 60% people of color.
Stop and Frisk was an unconstitutional, devastating practice for the entire city that intentionally exempted White people from harm.
It was one of the most racist policies I’ve ever lived through that deeply impacted the entire city." / Twitter

Tuxedo Mask on Twitter: "@AOC Bloomberg doesn't get to terrorize Black and Brown people for a decade, only apologize once he needs votes, then tell everyone to move on. https://t.co/27rw6bH9x7" / Twitter
then
Tuxedo Mask on Twitter: "At the height of stop-and-frisk in 2011, over 685 000 ppl were stopped. 87% were Black or Latinx and almost 9 out of 10 were completely innocent.
White moderates may look the other way for the sake of political expediency, but they don't get to forgive Bloomberg on POC's behalf. https://t.co/1KIaJB6u5A" / Twitter

Benjamin Dixon on Twitter: "Audio of @MikeBloomberg’s 2015 @AspenInstitute speech where he explains that “you can just Xerox (copy)” the description of male, minorities 16-25 and hand to cops.
Bloomberg had video of speech blocked.
Perhaps because of the problematic explanation he gives for #StopAndFrisk https://t.co/Fm0YCi4ZRy" / Twitter
and
Benjamin Dixon on Twitter: "Bloomberg requested the video not be released.
Perhaps because of his explanation for #stopandfrisk, admitting that all the cops are sent to minority neighborhoods and, “yes we’re arresting minorities for marijuana” but “that’s where the crime is,” https://t.co/MptDeupSbi" / Twitter
then
Benjamin Dixon on Twitter: "Also in the audio you can hear @MikeBloomberg describe the cops throwing kids that fit the description up against the wall to frisk them. https://t.co/Fm0YCi4ZRy" / Twitter
then on how a NYC cop was punished for *not* doing enough racially-discriminatory profiling.

 

[PyramidHead]

Curious.

Could you enumerate democratic policies that have made voters suffer?

We could start with the last administration and work our way back. From Cornel West in 2017:

Pity the sad legacy of Barack Obama

 

[ZiprHead]

Curious.

Could you enumerate democratic policies that have made voters suffer?

We could start with the last administration and work our way back. From Cornel West in 2017:

Pity the sad legacy of Barack Obama

That's far from addressing "democratic policies that made voters suffer."

Those are your words, back them up. State the policies in your own words.

 

[Derec]

My two big concerns are environment and foreign policy, though. We are facing an existential environmental threat. Anything less than saying we need to get off fossil fuels is unacceptable. Not because of purity. It's about survival.

Getting rid of fossil fuels sounds good, but over what time? Cars last 15-20 years, power plants last decades - no reason to shut down newish and very efficient NGCCs prematurely. We will not get rid of most fossil fuels within 20 years - more like 30. Which is why demands to ban fracking are so idiotic, as we need that fracked oil and gas to have our economy function and we are able to afford developing and deploying alternatives so we can reduce fossil fuel consumption to a small fraction of present use by 2050.

Unfortunately, Trump's sabre-rattling not included, his almost non-interventionist policies seem closer to what we need than many Dems.

You are right. Trump has been a pussy on defense ...

 

[Derec]

Bloomberg Politics on Twitter: "Michael Bloomberg seeks to move past "stop and frisk" controversy https://t.co/xVWgMItYzU" / Twitter - he is a former mayor of New York City.

I still don't see what's wrong with stop, question and frisk. It allows police to search subjects they suspect of carrying illegal guns. Removing illegal guns from circulation, and arresting those illegally carrying, is a GOOD thing.
AOC saying that this is "terrorizing" black and brown people is ridiculous. But then again, being ridiculous is kind of AOC's brand!

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Will people get their records expunged?
Will young people sucked into the spiderweb of incarceration get their lives back?

Why should criminals convicted of illegally carrying firearms have their records expunged? It's funny how the Left is all for gun control - the more restrictive the better - but apparently not when it comes to New York thugs with guns.

Unless there is restorative justice, there is no “moving on” from Stop & Frisk. It’s just a billionaire trying to cover up authoritarian & racist policy.

What about justice for New Yorkers killed or hurt with those illegal guns carried and fired by the people whose records AOC wants expunged?

Stop and Frisk was an unconstitutional, devastating practice for the entire city that intentionally exempted White people from harm.
It was one of the most racist policies I’ve ever lived through that deeply impacted the entire city."

Bullshit!  Terry v. Ohio.

 

[Derec]

There is a new national poll by Morning Consult. Sanders leads with 29%, Bloomberg and Biden are neck-and-neck with 18 and 19% respectively and Pete and Warren are far behind with 11% and 10%. Klob barely registers at 5%.
So Bernie far ahead, then Biden/Bloomberg within MOE, then Pete/Warren within MOE but far behind. Bernie, Bloomberg and Klob all gained though, while Warren and Biden lost.

But what I really want to see is some fresh NV and SC polling.

 

[Derec]

In Akron, run by Democrats, there is no cost for breakfast or lunch.

TANSTAAFL!

 

[lpetrich]

The Big Roadblock For Bernie Sanders' Agenda | HuffPost - Medicare for All. It will be hard to get that through Congress, so it may be necessary for some compromise like a "public option". This would produce an Australia-like system, where both private and public insurance systems coexist.

One will need 218 votes on the House floor to pass it, then 60 votes in the Senate, unless it weakens or abolishes the filibuster.

A president can’t wave a magic wand and pass any legislation they want,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) told HuffPost this week.

Ocasio-Cortez ― one of the most outspoken advocates for Medicare for All ― said she thought voters understood there was an “inherent check” on the president’s ability to actually change things like our health care system. And she argued that the realities of governing were actually an argument for someone like Sanders, as he’d be able to push Democrats and resulting changes further left.

But Ocasio-Cortez is also realistic about how far even a President Sanders could actually move Congress.

“The worst-case scenario? We compromise deeply and we end up getting a public option. Is that a nightmare? I don’t think so,” she said.

Ocasio-Cortez stressed that just getting a public option for health care wasn’t the left’s ultimate goal. But she also said she wasn’t here to railroad other members with differing viewpoints on health care ― she just thinks it helps to have a president who has a more ambitious platform than Congress so that Democrats could stretch what’s possible.

The House's Medicare-for-All caucus currently has 70 out of 435, and some of them seem to want some buy-in system rather than eliminate private insurance entirely.

 

[lpetrich]

More:

As Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) put it, Democrats are still years away from reaching a critical mass on Medicare for All. And he noted that there would be “tremendous resistance” to enacting much of what Sanders and other progressives in Congress want.

“That’s just the nature of our political tapestry,” he said.

Alexandra Jaffe on Twitter: "AOC on likelihood of M4A getting passed: “The worst-case scenario? We compromise deeply and we end up getting a public option. Is that a nightmare? I don’t think so,” she said. (H/t @eschor) https://t.co/nbI4TBkgJI" / Twitter
then
Neera Tanden on Twitter: "The people who attacked Warren for her not taking the maximalist position on M4A owe her an apology
Because apparently intermediary steps are now ok. https://t.co/EL0V5SdQTV" / Twitter
A president isn't going to poof it in.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "@neeratanden FYI, I speak for myself as a member of Congress- if I were speaking on behalf of a campaign, I’d say so!
2nd I think there’s a legitimate convo btwn starting with what you want & starting w/ compromise. I believe a public option is worse than M4A, so we should fight for M4A 1st." / Twitter

So AOC regards a public option as a step in the road to M4A. I think that that is a reasonable position. It's better than Obama's compromising in advance.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "@neeratanden Ironically, the context of this quote is me pointing out how the failure of ACA negotiations resulted in killing the public option 10 years ago. I think it’s an important case study to examine, regardless of where one ultimately lands on the issue." / Twitter

 

[lpetrich]

I was posting on this because some Bernie Sanders supporters consider Elizabeth Warren a sellout for not supporting M4A right away. I think that phasing it in is a reasonable approach, and I also think that a public option is a reasonable compromise on the way to M4A.

EW isn't doing very well, and IMO she is likely to throw in the towel before long. If she does, then she may want to make nice to BS as an ideologically similar candidate.

 

[lpetrich]

In reference to Mike Bloomberg:

Anand Giridharadas on Twitter: "If your desire to beat Trump makes racism not a big deal for you while we are still in a primary with a chance to choose whom to run against Trump, then racism never was a big deal for you." / Twitter

If your desire to beat Trump makes racism not a big deal for you while we are still in a primary with a chance to choose whom to run against Trump, then racism never was a big deal for you.

I do not understand all the people telling me to pipe down about Biden's and Bloomberg's racism because Trump is in the White House.

I am aware. I was pretty early to sound the alarm on him.

But this is a primary. Which is exactly the perfect time to weed out racist candidates.

Also, how long have you followed me?

Pipe down for the sake of politeness?

Unfollowing me will be easier for you.

I don't think that Joe Biden is very racist. He's more like someone very short of clue. Like praising segregationist politicians for being very courteous without saying something like "They had horrible racial policies, but I've got to give them credit for being very courteous."

 

[lpetrich]

Naomi Klein on Twitter: "Read this whole thread. Please. What Bloomberg is doing is daylight robbery of an already profoundly precarious democracy. This is a moment for journalism to *step up.* It's a moral duty: Bloomberg's ad cash benefits our industry most. Use some of that dirty money to expose him. https://t.co/LOTO7WDxni" / Twitter
Then a series of tweets from Blake Zeff @blakezeff

The degree to which Michael Bloomberg is using his fortune to fundamentally alter & manipulate U.S. politics to his personal advantage extends way beyond ads. I've worked against him, covered him as a journalist & worked with his top aides. Here’s their playbook: (1/17)

Let’s start with endorsements. Background: Bloomberg was a GOP mayor & Rudy Giuliani ally, whose police stopped innocent black men so often his tactics were ruled unconstitutional. So how did he possibly get key Democratic endorsements in NYC? Here’s one way 2/17
(buying the support of Rev. Calvin O. Butts III)

But come on, it’s not like he can do that in *this* campaign. Sure he’s compiling a ton of random endorsements nationwide despite merely being a former mayor. But that’s because they loved his soda ban. Or his speaking style. Or... 3/17

Mike Bloomberg Spent Millions To Put Them In Congress. Now, They're Endorsing Him. | HuffPost - "Three House Democrats supporting the billionaire for president received a total of $8.9 million from his super PAC in the 2018 midterms." - Rep. Harley Rouda of CA, Rep. Mikie Sherrill of NJ, and Rep. Haley Stevens of MI.

In 2018, Mike spent $110 million to boost 24 candidates now in Congress. Turns out, giving people $2 million can be the start of a beautiful friendship. Then there are mayors: Want a grant from Bloomberg for new programs in your city...? 4/17

Bloomberg Philanthropies Selects Top 35 Innovative Urban Ideas as Finalists in 2018 Mayors Challenge | Bloomberg Philanthropies

You may also see “community groups” back Mike's candidacy. As mayor, non-profits supported him when he reversed a voter referendum on term limits & made a backroom deal to help himself get a 3rd term. How’d that happen, you ask? He applied himself. 5/17

Charity Backing 3rd Term Got Millions From Bloomberg - The New York Times

You may also see fewer critics bash Mike's candidacy than you’d expect. After changing parties from GOP to Independent in 2007 as mayor, the local GOP rarely attacked anything he did. How'd he pull that off? I’ll give you a million guesses... 6/17

Bloomberg Gives Record $1M to State Senate GOP | WNYC News | WNYC

 

[lpetrich]

More Blake Zeff:

Forget endorsements: This campaign has grassroots support! Mike held events in various states recently & got huge crowds. They were clearly inspired by that “Mike Will Get It Done” energy. But *this* probably didn’t hurt, either... 7/17

(Catering for a Mike Bloomberg rally)

Then there’s staff. Mike poaches talent away from other campaigns, by giving folks huge salaries & perks (catered meals, etc). His money also lets him hire more staff than all his opponents combined, while grassroots campaigns have to run on $18 checks from G’ma Millie. 8/17

(His campaign workers get a MacBook and an iPhone 11, and eat 3 catered meals / day - New York Post)

Mike's wealth even affects his rivals’ fundraising. Using his relationships with other rich donors, he’s personally asking them to sit the election out, so his rivals can't raise cash. Because having $61b to spend, versus $20mil for the other Dems, is too close for comfort 9/17

Bloomberg Pursues Wealthy Donors, but Not Their Checkbooks - The New York Times

This one I’ll just leave here. (10/17)

Mike Bloomberg will pay you $150 to say nice things about him | US news | The Guardian - What will Bloomberg try to buy next? His campaign is quietly hiring Instagram influencers to make him seem cool.

OK, let’s discuss the non-stop ads. Saturating the airwaves gives you the huge advantage of never needing media coverage - which means rarely having to submit to interviews or scrutiny. If they want, they can make sure this never happens again 11/17

Bloomberg 2020 manager confronted over racial profiling record on live TV

Let’s be honest: Ads also enable Mike to mislead voters without being corrected. One ad portrays him as Obama’s BFF, even though Mike didn’t back him in '08 & barely did in '12, when he scolded Obama for being partisan, divisive & populist. But few will see this pushback 12/17

(Because Joe Biden can't finance a lot of pushback, we see on TV a lot of ads of a Obama-Bloomberg team instead of the real Obama-Biden team)

 

[lpetrich]

Still more Blake Zeff:

The issue’s not just that Mike’s ads help him “get his story out more.” It’s that they enable him to *craft* whatever story he wants, blast it to every voter 1000 times, & bypass the media. And if the story takes creative licenses, oh well. How will viewers ever find out? 13/17

One reason it all works so well is that Mike & the team he was able to acquire, are smart. Other rich candidates have failed. But Mike's team has a combo that's rare - maybe even unprecedented - in U.S. politics: unlimited money, elite intelligence & Machiavellian ethics. 14/17

For example, they know Mike has real vulnerabilities in the primary on issues & his GOP past. But they also know Dems hate Trump. So, that’s where the campaign turns all its focus. This achieves several things. First, makes him seem “above” the internal primary bickering. 15/17

Also: Positions him as a general election candidate now, evades discussion of Dem primary issues where his record is toxic, & presents one of biggest GOP donors ever (Mike) as a loyal Dem who just wants to see Trump (his old golf pal) lose. So far, voters are lapping it up. 16/17

3 months ago, polls found Mike Bloomberg “widely disliked” with the highest negatives in the race. Now he’s a top 3 contender for the Democratic nomination. One of the richest humans ever is trying to upend every part of the process. And this is just the stuff we know about. /END

So he's the Democratic counterpart of Donald Trump. But he seems smarter and more level-headed and more politically savvy.

Bloomberg Ad Compares Trump Quotes To Past Presidents | Video | RealClearPolitics
Mike Bloomberg on Twitter: "Our country has a rich history of presidents who respected the power, decorum, and influence of their office.
Unfortunately, that rich history ended the day Trump became president. https://t.co/3QEncsTiNA" / Twitter

But a Trumpie might say that that shows how great Trump is, that he isn't willing to seem like some goody-goody weenie.

 

[Trausti]

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I was posting on this because some Bernie Sanders supporters consider Elizabeth Warren a sellout for not supporting M4A right away. I think that phasing it in is a reasonable approach, and I also think that a public option is a reasonable compromise on the way to M4A.

EW isn't doing very well, and IMO she is likely to throw in the towel before long. If she does, then she may want to make nice to BS as an ideologically similar candidate.

Problem was she DID support M4A and then backed off of this progressive position a little and that cut off a lot of her progressive support. She lacked centrist report from the start because she took the M4A position in the first place.