The Democratic Primary is Upon Us! - Biden is the Presumptive Nominee

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Hey Dreiko
What's your thoughts on when YouTube cancelled groups like Al Qaeda beheading people? I'm assuming you think this is bad on Youtube's part as well because you're so against cancelling. What about the current crackdown on Pedophiles?

Never heard of a crackdown or canceling either of these things, honestly it sounds surprising this is something to ask because criminal behavior can't be promoted on sites like youtube or the site would be liable so it's just enforcing the law and not "cancelling" something.

This is something that the law decides, not unelected uneducated unidentified internet denizens, which is what makes it ok. Cancelling is what happens when a mob feels like the law failed or is ill-equipped to bring justice so they have to take it into their own hands. Situations like with creeps or terrorists are already being dealt with by the law so there's no need for them to be canceled.

That's great
Hey Dreiko. What do you think of a guy that fabricates evidence and lies about certain individuals and tells his peeps to take them out via social media?

He should be sued for defamation and made to apologize. This has already happened a bunch of times with Jones years before he was canceled in particular, a specific case involving the maker of a brand of turkish yogurt I enjoy (chobani, means shepherd haha), so the system is already working. No need for mobs to be involved.

Biden getting 5th and leaving the state before it was even over and only talking to his followers and people who worked on his campaign all this time on a video service for 5 minutes is embarrassing. Everyone who was claiming he was more electable than Bernie on tv should be fired and replaced by dogs who decide on candidates by popping balloons with their names inside of them. Would be at least just as accurate.

Biden's campaign is doing poorly for sure, but these are states where he was already reckoned to be weak, and he's still well in contention in national polls. If he can hold it together and perform in some favourable ones, it might steady the ship.

That said, his responses to Iowa and NH results make him seem very fragile and I won't be sorry to see him go if he melts away. I suspect Bloomberg's imminent arrival - a major candidate occupying the same ground - will break his campaign.

Honestly, Bloomberg is more in the Donald Trump lane than he is in the Biden lane, though I suppose those lanes are close enough together to be more or less the same in terms of the Democratic primary.

I don't see Bloomberg as being a populist, he's an oligarch so pretty much the exact opposite and he had a past as a mayor so he doesn't have the outsider thing going for him either. He's more like Romney, both in character and in policy. Also, he's an actual billionaire who spends his own money and is actually spending his own money for publicity while Trump just had to game the media into providing him billions worth of publicity for free. That won't play well for the same audience that liked Trump.

Donald Trump and Mike Bloomberg think very much alike about things like Stop and Frisk, spying on Muslims, tax policy, and so on. Mike Bloomberg is the professional, orderly fascist to Donald Trump's clown fascist.

I don't think Trump cares either way, he's just playing to his audience and his audience is the one that thinks like that so he projects that image. He was also talking about universal healthcare back in 2016 too.

Bloomberg actually probably does believe them, you have audio of him telling people they could xerox a profile of criminals as being black young kids and men and pass it off to every cop lol.

Trump is basically the uninterested noble who is too busy enjoying himself to have empathy while Bloomberg is more of a true believer.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Bloomberg actually probably does believe them, you have audio of him telling people they could xerox a profile of criminals as being black young kids and men and pass it off to every cop lol.

Mike "If they're brown, pat 'em down" Bloomberg has been spending too much time reading threads on /pol/ about FBI crime statistics.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Bloomberg actually probably does believe them, you have audio of him telling people they could xerox a profile of criminals as being black young kids and men and pass it off to every cop lol.

Mike "If they're brown, pat 'em down" Bloomberg has been spending too much time reading threads on /pol/ about FBI crime statistics.

How long until Mike's using Moonman in his ads?

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Mike "If they're brown, pat 'em down" Bloomberg has been spending too much time reading threads on /pol/ about FBI crime statistics.

That one? That one didn't actually phase me that much, that's a level of ambient racism I've come to expect. That's pretty much casual boomer racism in a nutshell right there. The clip where he said that, when you think about it, stop-and-frisk is really actually racist against white people? that one caused me to blow my stack a bit, that was my "this guy may actually be a whole-ass white supremacist" moment.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Mike "If they're brown, pat 'em down" Bloomberg has been spending too much time reading threads on /pol/ about FBI crime statistics.

That one? That one didn't actually phase me that much, that's a level of ambient racism I've come to expect. That's pretty much casual boomer racism in a nutshell right there. The clip where he said that, when you think about it, stop-and-frisk is really actually racist against white people? that one caused me to blow my stack a bit, that was my "this guy may actually be a whole-ass white supremacist" moment.

I believe the direct quote is "I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little. It?s exactly the reverse of what they say."

 

[Silvanus]

The answer to that lies in how strong the people in question feel. So if he felt that he had to express it with equivalent conviction as someone feels they need to come out of the closet then sure.

He doesn't. His own lawyer argued in his defence that he's just playing a character for ratings.

You're acting like your sexuality is this sacred thing that surpasses all other values or beliefs or duties you can have. People can very easily have other things that they value just as much or more as others value their sexuality, I assure you. It's how for example you have monks be celibate; they value their religion and their convictions towards their faith more highly than acting out their sexual inclination. To pretend this is just all not part of reality is baffling. People can have callings in life, things they feel drawn to, sexuality isn't the ultimate in dedication or significance.

Jesus Christ, no, I'm not arguing that it "surpasses all other values". That's just ridiculous hyperbole.

I'm arguing that lying to yourself and everybody else in your life, forever, out of fear of physical retribution, takes a psychological and emotional toll. This has been borne out through hundreds of studies.

To equate that with the choice of whether or not to lie and defame others for money is detestable bullshit.

All we can do is make a personal value judgement, while being cognizant that that's not an actual fact but just our subjective opinion.

Uh-huh. And you've made a judgement, too-- you've made the judgement that he has it worse; that the fact he had to change his bank one time, he's had a worse time than those who've been abandoned by their parents or beaten in the street.

You've defended his right to lie and defame, while simultaneously saying that gay people have no right to be open without fear of violence. You've made these subjective value judgements yourself, and come exclusively down on one side.

Of course it's a value judgement. Almost anything is. That doesn't mean this isn't irrational, callous, and dismissive.

===

To be frank, if we've reached the territory where you're calling it a "life choice", saying people can just stay in the closet to avoid discrimination, saying someone doesn't have a "right" to live without violence or disownment... then yeah, we're in transparent homophobia territory. I've not used the word until now because I thought it might just be dismissiveness, but no, I don't really know how much more blatant it can be.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

He doesn't. His own lawyer argued in his defence that he's just playing a character for ratings.

Actually, that was just something he argued in a child custody situation I believe, it's more of a legal defense that is made for typical trickery purposes and not something he has defended. I'm pretty sure that's a lie. When he was on Rogan he just said that he was drinking a lot and maybe had some paranoid delusions or what have you when he was ranting about the school shootings, which to me sounds more plausible and is a lot more embarrassing to admit than merely being a very very very convincing actor.

Jesus Christ, no, I'm not arguing that it "surpasses all other values". That's just ridiculous hyperbole.

I'm arguing that lying to yourself and everybody else in your life, forever, out of fear of physical retribution, takes a psychological and emotional toll. This has been borne out through hundreds of studies.

To equate that with the choice of whether or not to lie and defame others for money is detestable bullshit.

All we can do is make a personal value judgement, while being cognizant that that's not an actual fact but just our subjective opinion.

Uh-huh. And you've made a judgement, too-- you've made the judgement that he has it worse; that the fact he had to change his bank one time, he's had a worse time than those who've been abandoned by their parents or beaten in the street.

You've defended his right to lie and defame, while simultaneously saying that gay people have no right to be open without fear of violence. You've made these subjective value judgements yourself, and come exclusively down on one side.

Of course it's a value judgement. Almost anything is. That doesn't mean this isn't irrational, callous, and dismissive.

===

To be frank, if we've reached the territory where you're calling it a "life choice", saying people can just stay in the closet to avoid discrimination, saying someone doesn't have a "right" to live without violence or disownment... then yeah, we're in transparent homophobia territory. I've not used the word until now because I thought it might just be dismissiveness, but no, I don't really know how much more blatant it can be.

My judgement isn't that he has it worse, my judgement is that you can't violate people's rights on such subjective grounds. That you can't have unelected and unacountable bodies of moderating teams that are controlled by corporations deciding people's fates when we already have a legal system that's supposed to be doing that.

Allowing these groups to usurp the power of the law in our society is definitely the greater harm, even if you end up helping people who don't need any help in the process of protecting these institutions.

You know of things like sex offender registries? Things that you get put on if you commit a heinous crime of a sexual nature that makes it much harder to find a place to live or a job etc.? Well, what we have here is like a civil version of that, that's kinda what cancelling is becoming. If you think random unelected unaccountable individuals having the power to do that to anyone that spurns them is worse than telling people that they don't have to act out their sexuality if they can't bear that some people are assholes and primitive in their thinking, we have a fundamental disagreement here and I don't think we can fix that. Now, my definition of not being homophobic is in recognizing that those attitudes are indeed ignorant and primitive and kinda ends there, maybe you're using a different one.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

So, I accidentally edited this post and deleted the old one, instead of quoting it like I meant. Let's just assume I said a bunch of really sarcastic crap about how dumb the news cycle was. Really, it boiled down to "Bloomberg's still an asshole" and "Culinary Union 226's leadership is corrupt".

 

[Seanchaidh]

Bernie Bros savagely attacked the union for its position and doxxed its leadership, by looking at its website and discovering ties to Podesta-created and establishment-supportive think tank Center for American Progress [https://www.culinaryunion226.org/union/officers/geoconda-arguello-kline] in board members' publicly-available biographies. Truly the darkest day, how can Democrats revive and operate Tammany Hall-styled political machines in current year with this pack of little incel monsters crawling out of their internet caves and making publicly-available information widely-known?

Truly, it is as dark a day as when the Hoarse Whisperer was outed as a consultant for banks and oil companies.

 

[Silvanus]

Actually, that was just something he argued in a child custody situation I believe, it's more of a legal defense that is made for typical trickery purposes and not something he has defended. I'm pretty sure that's a lie. When he was on Rogan he just said that he was drinking a lot and maybe had some paranoid delusions or what have you when he was ranting about the school shootings, which to me sounds more plausible and is a lot more embarrassing to admit than merely being a very very very convincing actor.

Ok, cool, so we're to assume he lied in court, but also simultaneously to believe that he believes so strongly that it would cause him significant emotional distress not to harass and threaten people?

My judgement isn't that he has it worse, my judgement is that you can't violate people's rights on such subjective grounds. That you can't have unelected and unacountable bodies of moderating teams that are controlled by corporations deciding people's fates when we already have a legal system that's supposed to be doing that.

Allowing these groups to usurp the power of the law in our society is definitely the greater harm, even if you end up helping people who don't need any help in the process of protecting these institutions.

I've already stated, twice now, that the bank account shouldn't have been closed.

But, yes, you did state that it's "worse for your life prospects" to be cancelled (the example you gave being Alex Jones) than to be discriminated against for your sexuality-- the latter of which includes the threat of death and child abandonment.

You know of things like sex offender registries? Things that you get put on if you commit a heinous crime of a sexual nature that makes it much harder to find a place to live or a job etc.? Well, what we have here is like a civil version of that, that's kinda what cancelling is becoming.

Sorry, where has "cancelling" resulted in someone being unable to find a place to live, a job etc? Alex Jones still has his job. It's scarcely impacted his quality of life.

If you think random unelected unaccountable individuals having the power to do that to anyone that spurns them is worse than telling people that they don't have to act out their sexuality if they can't bear that some people are assholes and primitive in their thinking, we have a fundamental disagreement here and I don't think we can fix that.

Once again, you're describing simply not being in the closet as "acting out their sexuality". You've described discrimination-- which, again, frequently includes child abandonment, assault and murder-- as "people being assholes".

I'd like you to actually acknowledge the severity of what you're saying here. You've consistently glossed over it, played it down.

Now, my definition of not being homophobic is in recognizing that those attitudes are indeed ignorant and primitive and kinda ends there, maybe you're using a different one.

Dreiko, I've been personally physically threatened and harassed for my sexuality multiple times.

Anybody who is willing to tell me that I should get back into the closet to avoid that, that I don't have a "right" to live free of that, and that it's my "life choice", is fitting my description of homophobia.

 

[Trunkage]

Hey Dreiko
What's your thoughts on when YouTube cancelled groups like Al Qaeda beheading people? I'm assuming you think this is bad on Youtube's part as well because you're so against cancelling. What about the current crackdown on Pedophiles?

Never heard of a crackdown or canceling either of these things, honestly it sounds surprising this is something to ask because criminal behavior can't be promoted on sites like youtube or the site would be liable so it's just enforcing the law and not "cancelling" something.

This is something that the law decides, not unelected uneducated unidentified internet denizens, which is what makes it ok. Cancelling is what happens when a mob feels like the law failed or is ill-equipped to bring justice so they have to take it into their own hands. Situations like with creeps or terrorists are already being dealt with by the law so there's no need for them to be canceled.

That's great
Hey Dreiko. What do you think of a guy that fabricates evidence and lies about certain individuals and tells his peeps to take them out via social media?

He should be sued for defamation and made to apologize. This has already happened a bunch of times with Jones years before he was canceled in particular, a specific case involving the maker of a brand of turkish yogurt I enjoy (chobani, means shepherd haha), so the system is already working. No need for mobs to be involved.

Do you think deformation or cancelling has stopped him? Because, IMO, all deformation did was promote him. How long between an incident and a deformation case? A few years? Last year the Sandy Hook case was settled - 7 years later. That sure didn't stop him. Why would you think deformation would help with anything?

Anyway, I got distracted, who do you see as doing this cancelling?

 

[Trunkage]

Mike "If they're brown, pat 'em down" Bloomberg has been spending too much time reading threads on /pol/ about FBI crime statistics.

That one? That one didn't actually phase me that much, that's a level of ambient racism I've come to expect. That's pretty much casual boomer racism in a nutshell right there. The clip where he said that, when you think about it, stop-and-frisk is really actually racist against white people? that one caused me to blow my stack a bit, that was my "this guy may actually be a whole-ass white supremacist" moment.

I believe the direct quote is "I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little. It?s exactly the reverse of what they say."

Yeah, I immediately stopped there because whatever was going come out if his mouth was going to be utter nonsense.

But, serious question, who did mayor worse: Bloomberg or Guiliani?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

How long until Mike's using Moonman in his ads?

He's going to recite the 14 words at the next debate, I'm sure of it.

That one? That one didn't actually phase me that much, that's a level of ambient racism I've come to expect. That's pretty much casual boomer racism in a nutshell right there. The clip where he said that, when you think about it, stop-and-frisk is really actually racist against white people? that one caused me to blow my stack a bit, that was my "this guy may actually be a whole-ass white supremacist" moment.

He would be the first Jewish white supremacist to run for president. #GlassCeiling

It's a very bold gambit.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Ok, cool, so we're to assume he lied in court, but also simultaneously to believe that he believes so strongly that it would cause him significant emotional distress not to harass and threaten people?

Don't most people embellish things in court because of the way the legal system works? Anyhow, how much you suffer if you don't do something isn't the penultimate barometer of how much significance something has to you, some people have a strong drive to discover the truth but they aren't as emotionally vulnerable to the inability to follow their drive. The strength of the conviction shows in the lengths they'll go and to the obstacles they'll stand up against in pursuit of that conviction, things that are actually more provable than just taking people's word on undefinable metrics of psychological factors.

Either way we can't know the answer to that and we shouldn't base things on just assumptions.

I've already stated, twice now, that the bank account shouldn't have been closed.

But, yes, you did state that it's "worse for your life prospects" to be cancelled (the example you gave being Alex Jones) than to be discriminated against for your sexuality-- the latter of which includes the threat of death and child abandonment.

Alex Jones can't go back in the closed and be a non-crazy journalist any more, that's a fact, it comes with a different set of challenges but the basic inability to avoid them is the key difference.

Sorry, where has "cancelling" resulted in someone being unable to find a place to live, a job etc? Alex Jones still has his job. It's scarcely impacted his quality of life.

Canceling hasn't quite yet manifested in a housing discrimination which is why I said that that's where it was heading (as opposed it already being there) but tons of people have lost their jobs over silly nosnesne. I remember this one lady made a joke about aids in africa while on a flight and she was already fired by the time her plane landed without being included in the deliberations because people on twitter were mad, stuff like this is actual tyranny. These people now can only find jobs by radicalizing themselves and becoming part of groups that genuinely believe in things like racism and homophobia when they themselves likely were just making a silly joke without much conviction or indeed venom behind it. But now they will have to double down on that sort of thing to be accepted in that side because that's the only path left open to them, that's a terrible thing for both them and the liberal movement in general.

Once again, you're describing simply not being in the closet as "acting out their sexuality". You've described discrimination-- which, again, frequently includes child abandonment, assault and murder-- as "people being assholes".

I'd like you to actually acknowledge the severity of what you're saying here. You've consistently glossed over it, played it down.



Dreiko, I've been personally physically threatened and harassed for my sexuality multiple times.

Anybody who is willing to tell me that I should get back into the closet to avoid that, that I don't have a "right" to live free of that, and that it's my "life choice", is fitting my description of homophobia.

So there's just no difference between someone who'd do that to you and someone who thinks that the person doing that to you is a primitive asshole with ignorant beliefs? Both are homophobic? Alrighty then.

I personally think that's insane and that you're alienating folks by likening the two attitudes. I think you are making people think "well, if the guy who is cool with gay folks is also homphobic because he's not 100% in alignment with all of their issues, then being homophobic can't be that bad!", it's kinda like what's happening when people call things like slavery and people not liking white superheroes turning black for no narrative reason to tick a box both racist. One thing is not like the other lol.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Evening primary news round-up...

So, Bloomberg continues to be "Trump for the Trump-deranged", as news broke late last evening which I missed until earlier today. State and local Democratic parties not only are still completely fiscally-screwed by the national party thanks to Obama and Hillary, but they're also critically deprived of necessary campaign staff [https://theintercept.com/2020/02/13/bloomberg-spending-local-state-campaigns/] because Bloomberg is dead-ass buying out qualified staff with offers of $6,000/month salaries, guaranteed employment until November, full benefits, and even singing bonuses that include iPads and MacBook Pros. And to think, Democrats said the wealth wouldn't trickle down!

Is this part of an ongoing hostile takeover of an entire national political party that lasted nearly 200 years, by a single billionaire? Is it an attempt to undermine the Democratic ground game leading to an inability to campaign effectively down-ticket? Is a conservative, racist Republican billionaire with favorable positions on not even a handful of wedge issues weaponizing Trump derangement to manipulate Democratic voters into acting against their self-interest? Is this deadass the 1870's all over again?

There seem to be two answers to these questions, "yes" and "ohmyfuckingGodhowisthishappening?".

With that being the only story I found of note, it's storytime!

Bernie Bros savagely attacked the union for its position and doxxed its leadership...

I absolutely, totally, no-bullshit should have kept my goddamn mouth shut, because that's exactly what happened. Chapos, fueled by the demonic instrument of societal destruction known as "a Google search", discovered the woman about whom I spoke earlier isn't just a CAP board member, she's a Nicaraguan whose family fled the country in '79 because they were Somoza allies. I mean, you just can't make this shit up. They posted a link to an interview in which she discussed this on CTH, and Warren and apparently a couple Pete, supporters sprung to action falsely claiming the Chapos doxxed her.

The reality is, it was a bunch of shitposting and no personal or private information was shared. If anything, Chapos were being nice compared to their usual fare, meaning the outrage on Twitter was over the one time CTH didn't actually do anything particularly untoward. Of course, as you do, this was quickly mutated into the "all Bernie Bros doxxed and harassed Culinary 226 for hours, brigading their offices and phone lines", not in the least exacerbated by a statement from the aforementioned CAP board member [https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/12/politics/culinary-union-flier-criticism/index.html].

Meanwhile, in this strange, establishment-unfriendly land of unfortunate developments we like to call "reality"...

News broke Culinary 226's health care plan is actually kinda shitty [https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2020/02/13/the-culinary-health-insurance-is-not-that-great/]. Bernie came to say Culinary 226's leadership could eat his ass like groceries, and brought receipts [https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/482939-sanders-says-he-supports-nevada-culinary-union-days-after-health-plan]. Organizers and negotiators from several other unions came out of the woodwork to state publicly how full of shit Culinary 226's leadership is. Culinary 226 members opened up a can of wildcat whoop-ass on their own leadership for attempting to ratfuck against the union's best interests [https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/1228003132766130176].

Culinary 226 leadership quite predictably backed down, releasing a statement they will not endorse any candidate for the NV caucus [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/13/us/politics/nevada-culinary-union-endorsement.html]. Which basically just means "we'll keep our ratfucking limited to smoke-filled rooms from now on".

Meanwhile, for me it as an afternoon of looking at the picture of the pig that pooped on its own balls way more than I care to admit, finding myself in the odd and ironic position of defending ChapoTrapHouse on other internet forums I occasionally visit.

 

[Trunkage]

Hey Dreiko
What's your thoughts on when YouTube cancelled groups like Al Qaeda beheading people? I'm assuming you think this is bad on Youtube's part as well because you're so against cancelling. What about the current crackdown on Pedophiles?

Never heard of a crackdown or canceling either of these things, honestly it sounds surprising this is something to ask because criminal behavior can't be promoted on sites like youtube or the site would be liable so it's just enforcing the law and not "cancelling" something.

This is something that the law decides, not unelected uneducated unidentified internet denizens, which is what makes it ok. Cancelling is what happens when a mob feels like the law failed or is ill-equipped to bring justice so they have to take it into their own hands. Situations like with creeps or terrorists are already being dealt with by the law so there's no need for them to be canceled.

That's great
Hey Dreiko. What do you think of a guy that fabricates evidence and lies about certain individuals and tells his peeps to take them out via social media?

He should be sued for defamation and made to apologize. This has already happened a bunch of times with Jones years before he was canceled in particular, a specific case involving the maker of a brand of turkish yogurt I enjoy (chobani, means shepherd haha), so the system is already working. No need for mobs to be involved.

Alrighty, since I can't gather the information I need, these next questions are going to have some assumptions in it

Here's some internet mob groups:
death threats to pretty much everyone and everything
doxing of political opponents
swatting
homophobic, racist, sexist etc attacks
cancelling

Most of those have threats on the victim. Only one of those doesn't include death threats. Can you pick the one? But apparently you think this is the worst thing ever and MUST BE DEALT WITH RIGHT NOW. How does this not come off as you not having your priorities straight? Yes, having your job attacked is not a nice feeling. Having you life threatened is worse. Deal with the latter before the former.

Let's talk about Freedom of Speech. Because here's what you should be saying through this whole thing Drieko. "I don't like what they say, but I defend their right to say it." Anything less is hypocritical.

Now, what you are doing right now is the exact same route as those talking about Hate Speech. I'm all for that. Put the word Cancel in along side offensive words that are banned (and I personally put even words like racist in there). That would cure all your ills

So, I am assuming that you think Cancelling is only a Leftie thing. There's a massive cottage industry that are all about cancelling people on YouTube. Literally creating accounts so they can review bomb people. Send the mob it to DESTROY other's and attack their job. All to suit a political agenda. But sure, if you add the word Cancel, that's when we need to stop it. This has been going on for years, but once the Leftie do it, it must be the worst thing ever.

What about that thread I created a few weeks ago Dreiko? Sam Harris said he'd never talk to a political opponent. What about last week when Rogan say he wouldn't have people on again because their message is dangerous? Because, if you don't think this is cancelling, (which I don't) how far are they really from this Cancel culture you're against? They don't like talking to a person based on their political views. So... they just need a mob? I've seen Harris' and Rogan comments, there is definitely an attack mob ready to go. So... they just need to attack someone's job? But attacking someone is absolutely fine because 'Free Speech'.

But then, the cheery picking of Free Speechers has always fascinated me. Deriding people because of their political views but defending people who are allies by shouting Free Speech... without thinking about why they really aren't Free Speechers by breaking their own rules

 

[crimson5pheonix]

https://theintercept.com/2020/02/13/bloomberg-spending-local-state-campaigns/

In more fun news, Bloomberg is hoovering up talent from other campaigns (presidential or otherwise) all in his bid for president. Ensuring that no matter who wins, congress is hung?

 

[SupahEwok]

https://theintercept.com/2020/02/13/bloomberg-spending-local-state-campaigns/

In more fun news, Bloomberg is hoovering up talent from other campaigns (presidential or otherwise) all in his bid for president. Ensuring that no matter who wins, congress is hung?

Or he's basically just buying enough of the election that he gets to decide the presidential nominee at the convention. Which is a nice way of saying he's trying to put the whole DNC in his pocket.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

https://theintercept.com/2020/02/13/bloomberg-spending-local-state-campaigns/

In more fun news, Bloomberg is hoovering up talent from other campaigns (presidential or otherwise) all in his bid for president. Ensuring that no matter who wins, congress is hung?

Or he's basically just buying enough of the election that he gets to decide the presidential nominee at the convention. Which is a nice way of saying he's trying to put the whole DNC in his pocket.

It's not just the presidential election though, he's pulling talent away from senate and house races, such that Dems are losing in the other elections because of him.

 

[Agema]

In more fun news, Bloomberg is hoovering up talent from other campaigns (presidential or otherwise) all in his bid for president. Ensuring that no matter who wins, congress is hung?

Somewhat tangentially, I'd heard that was partly why plenty of Democrats were wary of Sanders. They're concerned that he may worry moderates, who will back him to remove Trump but vote Republican in Congressional races to ensure his power is limited. This may leave him borderline powerless against a Republican-controlled legislature and in a worst, 2016-like case scenario, find Trump winning the electoral college with a Republican-controlled legislature.

Although at this point, I think the Democrats should just play Trump's game, and bend every rule to breaking point. Do stuff like increase the size of SCOTUS to 11 with two ultra-liberals, for instance, grotesquely fiddle the voting rolls, etc. Make sure everyone in the country knows the USA's pretty much become an unusually wealthy banana republic and then ask if they want to do something about it.