Bloomberg vs Trump. Who's worse?
DaveSchmidt said:
drummerboy said:
meanwhile, here's more of Bloomberg's imbecility. Say goodbye to the farm vote Mikey.
Even I have enough gray matter to understand that Bloomberg wasn’t talking about modern farming when he mentioned farmers — that he was talking in sweeping terms about the Age of Agriculture and the Information Age (of which modern farming is a part).
Keep those tweets that appeal to you coming, DB. They increase my gratitude for the more thoughtful material that comes my way.
I love the way you impart such noble intentions to every one of Bloomberg's examples of asininity. Of which there are many. And of which there will be many, many more.
He has yet to impress me with his acumen about any subject so far.
Do you have any comment on his thoughts about his blaming the cause of the financial crisis on the lessening of restrictions around red-lining?
Or how about letting old people die as his solution for our rising medical costs?
And of course he wasn't talking about modern farming - because he probably knows jack sh!t about modern farming, as it's not the purview of the "intelligentsia".
drummerboy said:
I love the way you impart such noble intentions to every one of Bloomberg's examples of asininity. Of which there are many. And of which there will be many, many more.
He has yet to impress me with his acumen about any subject so far.
Do you have any comment on his thoughts about his blaming the cause of the financial crisis on the lessening of restrictions around red-lining?
Or how about letting old people die as his solution for our rising medical costs?
And of course he wasn't talking about modern farming - because he probably knows jack sh!t about modern farming, as it's not the purview of the "intelligentsia".
The only noble intention I’m calling attention to is a commitment to honestly understand what someone else is saying. If you don’t grasp that — and your tweeters don’t — then you cripple your ability to attack that person’s position. You’ve shot a hole in yourself from the get-go.
If you and your tweeters want to hit those marks you mention, it helps (me, anyway) if your aim is true.
I see - your take is honest, but mine is not.
How does that work exactly?
drummerboy said:
I see - your take is honest, but mine is not.
How does that work exactly?
Honest commitments to understand what other people are saying are pretty easy to spot. This is how it tends to work: Everyone who reads our comments gets to put the accuracy of your representation of Bloomberg’s statements against mine. It’s as easy as that.
Since I skipped it earlier and didn’t comment on it, they can also watch the health care video and judge for themselves whether Bloomberg’s brief discussion of the difficult questions raised when a 95-year-old man has prostate cancer is fairly characterized as “letting old people die as his solution for our rising medical costs.”
(Here’s an excerpt from a 2018 article in the journal Oncology: “Thus, the initial approach to the care of an older patient with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer should include an estimate of the patient’s age-matched life expectancy with an adjustment for health status, and how this compares with prognosis due to cancer.”)
DaveSchmidt said:
drummerboy said:
I see - your take is honest, but mine is not.
How does that work exactly?
Honest commitments to understand what other people are saying are pretty easy to spot. This is how it tends to work: Everyone who reads our comments gets to put the accuracy of your representation of Bloomberg’s statements against mine. It’s as easy as that.
Since I skipped it earlier and didn’t comment on it, they can also watch the health care video and judge for themselves whether Bloomberg’s brief discussion of the difficult questions raised when a 95-year-old man has prostate cancer is fairly characterized as “letting old people die as his solution for our rising medical costs.”
(Here’s an excerpt from a 2018 article in the journal Oncology: “Thus, the initial approach to the care of an older patient with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer should include an estimate of the patient’s age-matched life expectancy with an adjustment for health status, and how this compares with prognosis due to cancer.”)
regarding Bloomberg on health care - his lack of acumen on the subject is indicated by the fact that what he is proposing is already being done. By the doctor and the patient/family.
But instead of knowing this, he chooses to focus on the issue as something that is apparently paramount in his mind as we hurtle into insolvency. His primary solution to the looming crisis of ever increasing heath care costs is to not treat old people.
Get it?
He has said in the past that we can't afford universal health care. Somehow we can't but every other country can. So that's obviously not true. So he's either lying or stupid.
It's not that we can't, it's because he thinks it's a bad thing.
Like his not wanting to raise the minimum wage. I mean, how effed up is that?
Do you see how he thinks? He's giving you enough examples. He's an oligarch and insufferable elitist with authoritarian tendencies.
He's freaking Arthur Jensen.
Am I getting through to you Mr Schmidt?
drummerboy said:
Am I getting through to you Mr Schmidt?
Don’t worry, DB. You’ve gotten through to me quite clearly for years here.
On the topic of Bloomberg, Douthat’s column gave me what you’d like me to get. He played it straight. He hit his target.
drummerboy said:
I said no such thing. But I'll tell you, I'd actually have to think about it. Luckily, I don't think it will come down to that.
So you would gamble on overturning Roe v Wade?
I have heard people say that they don't think it will be overturned. OK. Many women are still wary. But the question still remains would you gamble your vote on it?
Morganna said:
drummerboy said:
I said no such thing. But I'll tell you, I'd actually have to think about it. Luckily, I don't think it will come down to that.
So you would gamble on overturning Roe v Wade?
I have heard people say that they don't think it will be overturned. OK. Many women are still wary. But the question still remains would you gamble your vote on it?
2016 was the consequential election for that.
Another strong column on Bloomberg, this one from Charles Blow in The Times:
This is the kind of thing that hampers the Democrats. Looking for perfection in just about everything. The only candidate right now Trump can't label a "socialist" is Bloomberg. To me that's a good thing.
Jaytee said:
The only candidate right now Trump can't label a "socialist" is Bloomberg.
You may be wrong about that.
Bloomberg's Nannyville: Do Big Soda Ban's Benefits Exceed its Costs? (Forbes)
But if Republican Socialist Bloomberg gets his way, he'll add the right to commit suicide-by-sugary-soda to the list of precious freedoms he's stolen from New York City residents.
Jaytee said:
This is the kind of thing that hampers the Democrats. Looking for perfection in just about everything.
You read the Douthat and Blow columns, not to mention drummerboy’s comments, and your conclusion is that they’re “looking for perfection”?
Morganna said:
drummerboy said:
I said no such thing. But I'll tell you, I'd actually have to think about it. Luckily, I don't think it will come down to that.
So you would gamble on overturning Roe v Wade?
I have heard people say that they don't think it will be overturned. OK. Many women are still wary. But the question still remains would you gamble your vote on it?
Bloomberg will have no effect on Roe V Wade. It's fate is foregone at this point.
DaveSchmidt said:
You read the Douthat and Blow columns, not to mention drummerboy’s comments, and your conclusion is that they’re “looking for perfection”?
No one in particular, just in general.
drummerboy said:
Morganna said:
drummerboy said:
I said no such thing. But I'll tell you, I'd actually have to think about it. Luckily, I don't think it will come down to that.
So you would gamble on overturning Roe v Wade?
I have heard people say that they don't think it will be overturned. OK. Many women are still wary. But the question still remains would you gamble your vote on it?
Bloomberg will have no effect on Roe V Wade. It's fate is foregone at this point.
Not necessarily. States can allow abortions.
Should Trump be reelected and Row v Wade is overturned then expect a Federal criminalization of abortions. Possibly making abortions a civil rights violation against a fetus. Then it doesn't matter what states allow.
BG9 said:
drummerboy said:
Morganna said:
drummerboy said:
I said no such thing. But I'll tell you, I'd actually have to think about it. Luckily, I don't think it will come down to that.
So you would gamble on overturning Roe v Wade?
I have heard people say that they don't think it will be overturned. OK. Many women are still wary. But the question still remains would you gamble your vote on it?
Bloomberg will have no effect on Roe V Wade. It's fate is foregone at this point.
Not necessarily. States can allow abortions.
Should Trump be reelected and Row v Wade is overturned then expect a Federal criminalization of abortions. Possibly making abortions a civil rights violation against a fetus. Then it doesn't matter what states allow.
Well, I was just talking about Roe being overturned or not. I didn't say abortions would be outlawed.
And as nutty as the Repubs are, I don't think there's much chance in making abortions a federal crime.
drummerboy said:
Morganna said:
drummerboy said:
I said no such thing. But I'll tell you, I'd actually have to think about it. Luckily, I don't think it will come down to that.
So you would gamble on overturning Roe v Wade?
I have heard people say that they don't think it will be overturned. OK. Many women are still wary. But the question still remains would you gamble your vote on it?
Bloomberg will have no effect on Roe V Wade. It's fate is foregone at this point.
I don't think we've reached that point. If they get one more, then yes. Otherwise I think Roberts will hold the line.
I agree @nohero that 2016 was crucial and I was making noise about it then. I don't think @drummerboy that it is a foregone conclusion. I agree with @Red_Barchetta that Robert's might hold the line but who knows.
As for your thinking @drummerboy that the GOP would not vote to criminalize, Alabama made it illegal to perform an abortion with no exceptions. It is being challenged but several other states have passed trigger laws that set restrictions, and they will go into effect the minute the get an overturn of Roe.
This was sent recently:
Over 200 members of Congress asked the Supreme Court to consider overturning Roe v. Wade, which guarantees the right to an abortion, in a brief urging the court to uphold a Louisiana law severely restricting abortion.
The 39 senators and 168 House members submitted the amicus brief in the case of June Medical Services LLC v. Gee, which the Supreme Court will consider this spring.
June Medical Services challenged a Louisiana law, passed in 2014 and currently not in effect, which required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital within 30 miles of the facility where the abortion is performed. If the law is allowed to be implemented, all of Louisiana's abortion clinics would close, as first reported in October by CBS News.
Morganna said:
I agree @nohero that 2016 was crucial and I was making noise about it then. I don't think @drummerboy that it is a foregone conclusion. I agree with @Red_Barchetta that Robert's might hold the line but who knows.
As for your thinking @drummerboy that the GOP would not vote to criminalize, Alabama made it illegal to perform an abortion with no exceptions. It is being challenged but several other states have passed trigger laws that set restrictions, and they will go into effect the minute the get an overturn of Roe.
This was sent recently:
Over 200 members of Congress asked the Supreme Court to consider overturning Roe v. Wade, which guarantees the right to an abortion, in a brief urging the court to uphold a Louisiana law severely restricting abortion.
The 39 senators and 168 House members submitted the amicus brief in the case of June Medical Services LLC v. Gee, which the Supreme Court will consider this spring.
June Medical Services challenged a Louisiana law, passed in 2014 and currently not in effect, which required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital within 30 miles of the facility where the abortion is performed. If the law is allowed to be implemented, all of Louisiana's abortion clinics would close, as first reported in October by CBS News.
Making it a crime at the state level is far different than doing it at the national level, is all I'm saying.
And after Roberts joined in the evisceration of the Voting Rights Act, I wouldn't put too much faith in him upholding Roe. He's a wildcard, but a conservative one.
Trump has turned the Republican Party into a neo-fascist cult.
Bloomberg might turn the Democratic Party into a Liberal Republican Party. What is the difference between the positions and policies of Mike and those of Tom Kean or Chris Whitman?
That would likely end the Democratic Party as a vehicle for pro-working class Progressive Politics. The possibility of a Sanders or Warren nomination gives Progressives hope that the system can work. A Bloomberg victory dashes those hopes. That might not be so bad. Progressives might finally decide that a true "Left" third-party is necessary. Or a non-electoral movement.
But the bottom line is that the reelection of Trump is a serious threat to the Nation. The nomination and election of Bloomberg is just a threat to the Democratic Party.
STANV said:
Trump has turned the Republican Party into a neo-fascist cult.
Bloomberg might turn the Democratic Party into a Liberal Republican Party. What is the difference between the positions and policies of Mike and those of Tom Kean or Chris Whitman?
I see a difference. I see how Trump governs. I saw how Bloomberg governed. Enough said.
STANV said:
But the bottom line is that the reelection of Trump is a serious threat to the Nation. The nomination and election of Bloomberg is just a threat to the Democratic Party.
Bloomberg is just a threat to the progressive wing of the Democratic party, not the entire Democratic Party. Many moderate Democrats support his candidacy and think he'd make a good president.
My current position.
1 Warren
2 Klobuchar
3 Any guy of any age, race or sexual persuasion who makes it to the top.
Smedley said:
Bloomberg is just a threat to the progressive wing of the Democratic party, not the entire Democratic Party. Many moderate Democrats support his candidacy and think he'd make a good president.
How do you win without the "progressive wing", but more importantly what is the Democratic Party without the "Progressive Wing"?
STANV said:
Smedley said:
Bloomberg is just a threat to the progressive wing of the Democratic party, not the entire Democratic Party. Many moderate Democrats support his candidacy and think he'd make a good president.
How do you win without the "progressive wing", but more importantly what is the Democratic Party without the "Progressive Wing"?
The Democratic Party and Dem-leaners include voters whose views range from very conservative to very liberal. Liberalism is growing within the party but for now, Very Conservative + Conservative + Moderate > Liberal + Very Liberal. 52-47.
To answer your first question, you probably don't win a general election without the progressive wing. But you have even less chance of winning without the moderate wing.
Bernie Sanders has spent his political career as an Independent. Mike Bloomberg has jumped from one Party to another and back again.
If Democrats want to elect a Democrat as President perhaps they ought to start by nominating a Democrat.
ml1 said:
drummerboy said:
The point is that they would both be disasters, but in different ways. I think Bloomberg would deeply damage the Democratic Party in ways that Trump would not.
I already wrote this in another thread. Nominating Bloomberg could kill the Democratic Party or at the very least turn it into the old Republican Party of Kean and Rockefeller. I can't see all the women and young people who have been organizing and volunteering across the country for the past three years not being demoralized if a billionaire buys his way into the nomination.
I've also written that in the end I don't think he can beat Trump. All the things that are horrible about Trump are things that the Donald can turn back on Bloomberg -- narcissistic, authoritarian, racist, misogynist. And what's the response? Yes, but Trump is a lot worse? Hardly a strategy to feel confident about.
it's starting already:
Kellyanne Conway: Bloomberg’s sexist comments ‘far worse’ than Trump’s
She was responding to a Washington Post report on Bloomberg.
“The way Michael Bloomberg treated female employees … to have created that kind of culture, that unsafe workplace, to feel that you're being harassed because of your gender, that is problematic,” Conway said. “I think you're going to hear more of it.”
STANV said:
Bernie Sanders has spent his political career as an Independent. Mike Bloomberg has jumped from one Party to another and back again.
If Democrats want to elect a Democrat as President perhaps they ought to start by nominating a Democrat.
It is odd that the two leaders (as per Marist national poll this morning) aren't true Democrats. I guess it's just that the true Dem candidates haven't inspired great confidence to date. I think MOL is a microcosm of that. At one point several months ago Biden had some tepid support (including from me) on here, but I don't think he even has that anymore. For Pete and Amy it's like if they're the nominee I'll vote for them, but I don't see much support beyond that. There seems to be a lot of Warren supporters here but that group has been fairly taciturn recently. So Bloomberg has dominated the MOL airwaves, though sentiment on him is running about 75% negative I reckon.
I do miss Nan. Her videos were execrable but she was passionate for her candidate.
Smedley said:
It is odd that the two leaders (as per Marist national poll this morning) aren't true Democrats. I guess it's just that the true Dem candidates haven't inspired great confidence to date. I think MOL is a microcosm of that. At one point several months ago Biden had some tepid support (including from me) on here, but I don't think he even has that anymore. For Pete and Amy it's like if they're the nominee I'll vote for them, but I don't see much support beyond that. There seems to be a lot of Warren supporters here but that group has been fairly taciturn recently. So Bloomberg has dominated the MOL airwaves, though sentiment on him is running about 75% negative I reckon.
I do miss Nan. Her videos were execrable but she was passionate for her candidate.
I think the Warren crowd, including me, is still here, but it's a watch and wait game. She was eclipsed in the first 2 states by Bernie and Buttigieg, so I'm guessing most of us are hopeful that she will rally by Super Tuesday which is only 2 weeks away.
In my case I picked a candidate from another lane. hedging my bets. For me that's Amy and I watched her as a possible centrist pick from the start but got really excited after her recent Town Hall, debate performance and interview.
If you want to take another look, tune in to CNN tonight at 10 for a Town Hall, I think you might like some of her solutions on Social Security, college tuitions and health care.
Either woman makes me feel that there would be no drama or scandal and obsessive amounts of work with no time outs for golf outings. Not exciting stuff but an administration that would require less of the back seat politicking that we all feel required to do.
I'd be 100% ready to vote for Bloomberg over Trump because of where he'll be on climate change, reproductive freedom and LGBTQ rights.
But he's by far the worst of the Democratic hopefuls. Biden would be better and he'd be terrible.