Poll of the Day > I'm so tired of hearing Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg vie for president.

(+) Yeah! (+)

One of them has zero experience as a politician and is just a hedge fund manager, philanthropist, environmentalist, activist, and fundraiser.

The other was a three-time mayor of New York, businessman, and author (although anyone can be an author these days).

Both of them seem to be dumping a metric shit ton of money into their campaign. I can kind of see Bloomberg as president, but I dont think hell pass the primaries. Steyer just has a hard on for Trump and not in a good way.

its gonna be a long year

Bloomberg is the guy who banned big sodas.

---

Yellow posted...

Bloomberg is the guy who banned big sodas.

Whelp, he's banned in my book

---

Yellow posted...

Bloomberg is the guy who banned big sodas.

Sounds like a dumb thing to do.
---

Bloomberg ads all over youtube

---

Mead posted...

Bloomberg ads all over youtube

I'm glad I have three adblock programs installed.
---

Phantom_Nook posted...

I'm glad I have three adblock programs installed.

thats smart, but the devices I normally use dont have any kind of adblock as far as I know

so there has been a LOT of Bloomberg on my tv lately

---

Eh, neither one of them will make the cut

But to be fair, our current President had zero experience as a politician and the country's doing great

---

We have an offensive immature buffoon as president, and the Democrats seem to be in a fairy tale land where half the country isn't already heavily indoctrinated to despise all of their ideas. Do I think we should have national health care? Yes actually, but that's a fantasy in the short term and sticking to rhetoric that sounds exactly like what conservatives are trained to incessantly smugly ramble against isn't how to win an election.

I don't think Bloomberg is perfect, and I don't agree with his stupid soda nanny thing, but the last thing this country needs is a fairly far left candidate running against a raging far right candidate with most of the country left without representation.

These idiots, all of them, need to stop with their stupid hyperpartisan nonsense and govern sensibly.

You know what needs to happen? The center needs to rise. Bring on ranked choice voting please. That should give all the extremely polarized candidates something to be afraid of.

Political freedom in this country is in very real threat from Hungarian-style authoritarianism. President Donald Trump needs to have one term, and the more freedom-hating indoctrinated elements of the Republican party need to lose, and the Republicans that still have some principles need to stop bowing in terror to them.

If Bloomberg is the best shot to save this country's freedom and separation of powers, then bring him I say.

Voxwik posted...

If Bloomberg is the best shot to save this country's freedom and separation of powers, then bring him I say.

He's absolutely not.

The only reason he's doing so well is because he's received absolutely zero challenge from serious candidates on his shitty history.

Dude's got the charisma of a wet fart and the ideological conviction to match.

---

I'm reminded of a conservative telling me a story about what supposedly doomed Michael Dukakis when he ran. What they told me was that he was asked if he'd stick by his principles if his wife was murdered, or something along those lines. Apparently him sticking to his beliefs and not immaturely raging was somehow a negative factor. This conservative friend could not understand how his story gave me the opposite opinion he intended.

If only the center could rise vs. ideologues. I don't want a president for their "conviction" to whatever flavor polarized people are addicted to that day.

I don't know much about Bloomberg. I just know the more I hear the Democratic candidates talk that most of them could never hope to win a general election. Sometimes they sound loony even to me, and I'm definitely left of center. I fear if Trump-style authoritarians win much longer, freedom is over in this country.

Authoritarianism is defined by how you accomplish your goals, not having goals to begin with.

---

Blighboy posted...

Authoritarianism is defined by how you accomplish your goals, not having goals to begin with.

Let's see, massive waves of personal attacks mixing both childish insults with accusations of corruption and incompetence. In regimes were the authoritarian atmosphere is already established, this flags without direct command for thralls to intimidate if not outright kill the target. Trump did this, numerous times, to people serving our country that didn't exactly fall in step with his version of reality or plans. Where it's not bad enough to get thralls to do the dirty work; it's enough to ruin political careers of anyone that dares question what the ones in charge say. Look at how conservatives shamefully talk about someone like John McCain now, who is a man who stood up for what he believed in and what this country stands for and openly sounded the warning alarms.

Enthralling people so they get their news ONLY from "trusted" sources, ignoring the majority of others, and publicly vilifying even majorly complacent news sources, such as Fox News being called "too liberal" and a new, more obedient "news" network being founded.

Use of policy to punish those not loyal to the party in power. Some Republicans say this isn't even a problem even if Trump is guilty of it!

Redistricting to assure majorities or even supermajorities when winning the least or barely more votes than other political parties.

When losing popular vote elections, using those supermajorities to remove power from offices won by other political parties.

Doing everything possible make it more difficult for demographics that are least likely to vote for the party in power to do so. Funny how all the "liberal voters are stupid and shouldn't be allowed to vote" memes that were popular in the mid 2000s pretty much disappeared when Republicans actually went on the attack on that front.

The last example isn't for sure being done in a malicious matter, though I question the motives. Plus the outright lie that even conservative news used to debunk about imaginary mass voter fraud.

Republicans are being conditioned to accept an eventual "necessary" authoritarian state. The demographics are changing, and the frankly supremacist wing of the party will do anything to cling to power, because they live under racist delusions that anything diverse is fake.

Our country is in very real danger unless a combination of Republicans with a backbone stand up to the authoritarian wing of the party, and Republicans that are thralls to this movement lose elections.

Conservatives need to pledge that if Trump loses and tries to cling to his office, they will not be traitors to our constitution.

Voxwik posted...

I'm reminded of a conservative telling me a story about what supposedly doomed Michael Dukakis when he ran. What they told me was that he was asked if he'd stick by his principles if his wife was murdered, or something along those lines. Apparently him sticking to his beliefs and not immaturely raging was somehow a negative factor. This conservative friend could not understand how his story gave me the opposite opinion he intended.

If only the center could rise vs. ideologues. I don't want a president for their "conviction" to whatever flavor polarized people are addicted to that day.

I don't know much about Bloomberg. I just know the more I hear the Democratic candidates talk that most of them could never hope to win a general election. Sometimes they sound loony even to me, and I'm definitely left of center. I fear if Trump-style authoritarians win much longer, freedom is over in this country.

Basically he was anti-death penalty, and yeah, they asked him if he'd still be against the death penalty if his whole family was like, brutally murdered. It was pretty low.

Voxwik posted...

Our country is in very real danger

Yeah totally. We're all going to die.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Yeah totally. We're all going to die.

I said our country, as in its core principles of human rights and freedom, not our lives. The last few decades of painting liberals as an enemy, largely with straw man arguments in weird almost ritualistic hate discussions judging from my relatives, has a very real risk of having indoctrinated far right people convinced "the Marxists" (as in anyone that doesn't tow the far right line) are an enemy and somehow the aggressors. With that extreme hatred and obsession for guns, someone who actually tells people to pull the trigger against dissenters is a very real threat. All they have to do is continue the lie that elections are rigged, something that used to be a lie only in the most extremist wings of the Republican party, but our liar in chief has brought mainstream (thankfully some conservative commentators have the backbone to call out that lie, but more and more seem to be driven away if they question Trump).

Tom Steyer was always a really weird candidate. Not only does he lack political experience, but he lacks anything resembling a political platform and frequently hypes up other candidates' plans. He almost made Marianne Williamson look like a good candidate, since -- while she was personally weird -- she at least seemed to have platforms and sometimes ones not being discussed by others.

By contrast, had Bloomberg not waited so goddamn long to run, he probably would have been in the top4 candidates. As the former mayor of NYC, he was nationally known to a greater extent than somebody like Kamala Harris (who, in turn, was a bigger name than Mayor Pete at the outset). I don't knock him for using his own money and resources to run, he just did it incredibly poorly. That said, I'm okay with his campaign failing because he was pushing shit like a soda ban and I expect that he'd continue his authoritarian social controls over minor things as president. He's the kind of asshole who would put into place a plastic straw ban, tax plastic bags (like CT's asshole governor does and some city assholes in NY do now -- by the way, fuck you, Bedford, NY!), and so on.

Yellow posted...

Bloomberg is the guy who banned big sodas.

It got overturned, btw.

Voxwik posted...

where half the country isn't already heavily indoctrinated to despise all of their ideas

Remember, folks, if people don't think like you, they're the ones who have been indoctrinated!

Voxwik posted...

Political freedom in this country is in very real threat from Hungarian-style authoritarianism. President Donald Trump needs to have one term, and the more freedom-hating indoctrinated elements of the Republican party need to lose, and the Republicans that still have some principles need to stop bowing in terror to them.

There's almost zero threat of that. When freedoms do actually get rolled back, it's usually when there's some measure of popular support.

JixHedgehog posted...

Eh, neither one of them will make the cut

But to be fair, our current President had zero experience as a politician and the country's doing great

Trump had very visible political platforms -- including signature campaign promises -- that were well-established from the start, which is where he differs from Tom Steyer. He also had an international brand identity whereas Steyer is an unknown. As for Trump's lack of political expertise, I imagine his presidency will make it harder for people running for president who have never held a government post. From a technical standpoint, the candidate having government experience isn't always a huge issue (especially because you can be in government forever and fail basic foreign policy questions, as Bernie Sanders and others have shown) provided that he has a certain baseline knowledge and surrounds himself with the right people (especially because no matter your political expertise, there are going to be things you don't know)

And it's worth noting that -- when Hillary first ran -- her political experience was a mixed bag. She'd only ever held one office, but she had deep connections within politics thanks to being Bill's wife and she had some grasp on policy. It wasn't until after she served her somewhat problematic run as Secretary of State that I thought she could make thing work.

Voxwik posted...

I don't know much about Bloomberg.

Which is why probably why you support him.

Voxwik posted...

Let's see, massive waves of personal attacks mixing both childish insults with accusations of corruption and incompetence.

Which itself is a petty and stupid allegation. You're suggesting that a person be beholden to accusations (aka aspersions) made against his character.


---

Voxwik posted...

Let's see, massive waves of personal attacks mixing both childish insults with accusations of corruption and incompetence. In regimes were the authoritarian atmosphere is already established, this flags without direct command for thralls to intimidate if not outright kill the target. Trump did this, numerous times, to people serving our country that didn't exactly fall in step with his version of reality or plans. Where it's not bad enough to get thralls to do the dirty work; it's enough to ruin political careers of anyone that dares question what the ones in charge say. Look at how conservatives shamefully talk about someone like John McCain now, who is a man who stood up for what he believed in and what this country stands for and openly sounded the warning alarms.

Enthralling people so they get their news ONLY from "trusted" sources, ignoring the majority of others, and publicly vilifying even majorly complacent news sources, such as Fox News being called "too liberal" and a new, more obedient "news" network being founded.

Use of policy to punish those not loyal to the party in power. Some Republicans say this isn't even a problem even if Trump is guilty of it!

Redistricting to assure majorities or even supermajorities when winning the least or barely more votes than other political parties.

When losing popular vote elections, using those supermajorities to remove power from offices won by other political parties.

Doing everything possible make it more difficult for demographics that are least likely to vote for the party in power to do so. Funny how all the "liberal voters are stupid and shouldn't be allowed to vote" memes that were popular in the mid 2000s pretty much disappeared when Republicans actually went on the attack on that front.

The last example isn't for sure being done in a malicious matter, though I question the motives. Plus the outright lie that even conservative news used to debunk about imaginary mass voter fraud.

Republicans are being conditioned to accept an eventual "necessary" authoritarian state. The demographics are changing, and the frankly supremacist wing of the party will do anything to cling to power, because they live under racist delusions that anything diverse is fake.

Our country is in very real danger unless a combination of Republicans with a backbone stand up to the authoritarian wing of the party, and Republicans that are thralls to this movement lose elections.

Conservatives need to pledge that if Trump loses and tries to cling to his office, they will not be traitors to our constitution.

All of this is utter rot. Some of your charges are just politics as usual, others are things not really pertaining to Trump at all, many are unfounded, and your media remark is misguided considering that it ignores the number of manufactured controversies and falsehoods that have embroiled the media outlets Trump has often criticized. Keep in mind we see crap like this on a pretty regular basis:
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/358983-media-shows-why-its-so-mistrusted-after-falsified-trump-fish-feeding

---

Zeus posted...

tax plastic bags

Not as bad as outright banning it like California did. Taxing it is still shitty though. I hope more states don't ban them since the small plastic bags are perfect for cleaning litter boxes.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Not as bad as outright banning it like California did.

This is untrue.
---

Phantom_Nook posted...

This is untrue.

It is.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Phantom_Nook posted...

This is untrue.

It is.

That must be why I can go to the grocery store and ask for my purchases to be put in plastic bags.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Not as bad as outright banning it like California did. Taxing it is still shitty though. I hope more states don't ban them since the small plastic bags are perfect for cleaning litter boxes.

Yes, they're often multi-use and all this does is require people to buy dedicated plastic bags. Otherwise the plastic bag tax wouldn't be as onerous if retailers offered paper bags for free, but they often try to charge for those as well.

---

JixHedgehog posted...

the country's doing great

Maybe if you're super rich. But for 99% of us, shit still sucks ass.