3 ms·

You know, I strongly disagree with Bloomberg, having lived through his reign of terror in NYC personally. But I just don't see the point in focusing on this kin

You know, I strongly disagree with Bloomberg, having lived through his reign of terror in NYC personally. But I just don't see the point in focusing on this kind of attack. The Democratic party is really not required to have any sort of fair process for deciding their candidate for president. It can be as transparently crooked and disgusting as this and really that's just how he chose to operate within the legal frameworks established by folks like him. Sure, there's the huge personality flaws that Bloomberg displays by taking this strategy, but those don't seem to be of major concern to most American voters. Our current president is a daily salient reminder of this fact. If we want to focus on Bloomberg's personality, why not start with all the horrific policies he enacted as mayor? There are far more visible character flaws in those decisions than this decision to buy his way towards the Democratic party. If you supported his policies, after all, you'd have no problem with this strategy being undertaken - right?

CydeWeys 7y ago
"The Democratic party is really not required to have any sort of fair process for deciding their candidate for president. It can be as transparently crooked and disgusting as this and really that's just how he chose to operate within the legal frameworks established by folks like him." So what though? What point is this rebutting? If a process is crooked and disgusting then damn straight you're gonna have people complaining about it and demanding they do better, as you see here.
- AndrewUnmuted 7y ago
  My point is rebutting the point made by the poster before me, who said there was a real story here. I disagree. This is somewhat par for the course. For many people, this could be the first time they experience the disappointment of how corrupt folks like Bloomberg operate within the political sphere. However, these people would be incorrect to chalk this up as historically or even politically noteworthy, for many of us this is rather unsurprising and the story has already been told many times. Why rehash these tired tropes when Bloomberg presents so many new, unique, and significant issues that we now must address?
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    That the process is crooked and disgusting is absolutely the realest story that there is here. Again, I don't understand your point. You're just being dismissive and accepting of a bad status quo for no reason other than that you (but not others!) are resigned to it. In other words, just because you don't care doesn't mean that others don't. And the news isn't writing stories catering to solely your interests; there's millions of other readers to consider.
asdfqwer234 7y ago
No, some people still stand by ethical principles, and appreciate the irony of the process taken by the "Democratic" party
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  In the US the Democratic and Republican parties are both democratic and republican - the names don't mean much taken literally.
humblebee 7y ago
I wouldn't say its an attack on Bloomberg, it was the DNC who choose to changed their policy to allow him on their debate stage. They didn't have to do that.
- beepboopbeep 7y ago
  No and bloomberg would continue to skate by with no challenges if they didn't, where as the other candidates are going through a meat grinder. Pick your lesser evil
free652 7y ago
His reign of terror? Which specific policies did he enact? How about the current racist with his reign of corruption and racism?
- mAEStro-paNDa 7y ago
  Stop & frisk.
  - free652 7y ago
    He didn't enact and he stopped it. I assume you aren't from NYC, stop & frisk pre dates Bloomberg by a decade.
    - mAEStro-paNDa 7y ago
      > and he stopped it. Assume what you want, but that claim is just false. He also defended it for years even after it was ruled unconstitutional. Stop and frisk is only the tip of the iceberg, by the way.
    - huebomont 7y ago
      Lol he greatly expanded it, what are you talking about.
    - morelisp 7y ago
      He didn't enact it, but it was a signature policy of his, and he pushed it hard. There were twice as many stops his final year in office as there were his first year. It is only a reduction if you compare it to his penultimate year, when there were 7x as many stops as his first year. This claim he reduced it is a key talking point of his campaign, and an outright lie. He was defending it literally up until the moment he decided to run for president (defending it publicly for years until October 2019, then apologizing in November 2019 when he announced his campaign).
Seenso 7y ago
>> He'll be on the debate stage tonight as a legitimized candidate -- having not participated in the competitive process at all, and without a single donor (doesn't need 'em), and levering his billions to flood media. > You know, I strongly disagree with Bloomberg, having lived through his reign of terror in NYC personally. But I just don't see the point in focusing on this kind of attack. I think there are two issues here: 1) candidate Bloomberg himself, and 2) systemic flaws that are offensive to small-d democratic sensibilities, of which Bloomberg is a representative and symbol. The point of that kind of attack is to bring focus on the systemic flaws. Also, at this point, many more people are probably attuned to those flaws than they are to the candidate himself (as only New Yorkers have really had to care about him, previously). > The Democratic party is really not required to have any sort of fair process for deciding their candidate for president. It can be as transparently crooked and disgusting as this... It can be, but not having a fair process turns off a lot of voters, and makes others angry. Doubly so if that lack of fair process means they'll be forced to choose between two bad options.

CydeWeys 7y ago

"The Democratic party is really not required to have any sort of fair process for deciding their candidate for president. It can be as transparently crooked and disgusting as this and really that's just how he chose to operate within the legal frameworks established by folks like him." So what though? What point is this rebutting? If a process is crooked and disgusting then damn straight you're gonna have people complaining about it and demanding they do better, as you see here.

AndrewUnmuted 7y ago
My point is rebutting the point made by the poster before me, who said there was a real story here. I disagree. This is somewhat par for the course. For many people, this could be the first time they experience the disappointment of how corrupt folks like Bloomberg operate within the political sphere. However, these people would be incorrect to chalk this up as historically or even politically noteworthy, for many of us this is rather unsurprising and the story has already been told many times. Why rehash these tired tropes when Bloomberg presents so many new, unique, and significant issues that we now must address?
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  That the process is crooked and disgusting is absolutely the realest story that there is here. Again, I don't understand your point. You're just being dismissive and accepting of a bad status quo for no reason other than that you (but not others!) are resigned to it. In other words, just because you don't care doesn't mean that others don't. And the news isn't writing stories catering to solely your interests; there's millions of other readers to consider.

asdfqwer234 7y ago

No, some people still stand by ethical principles, and appreciate the irony of the process taken by the "Democratic" party

chrisseaton 7y ago
In the US the Democratic and Republican parties are both democratic and republican - the names don't mean much taken literally.

humblebee 7y ago

I wouldn't say its an attack on Bloomberg, it was the DNC who choose to changed their policy to allow him on their debate stage. They didn't have to do that.

beepboopbeep 7y ago
No and bloomberg would continue to skate by with no challenges if they didn't, where as the other candidates are going through a meat grinder. Pick your lesser evil

free652 7y ago

His reign of terror? Which specific policies did he enact? How about the current racist with his reign of corruption and racism?

mAEStro-paNDa 7y ago
Stop & frisk.
- free652 7y ago
  He didn't enact and he stopped it. I assume you aren't from NYC, stop & frisk pre dates Bloomberg by a decade.
  - mAEStro-paNDa 7y ago
    > and he stopped it. Assume what you want, but that claim is just false. He also defended it for years even after it was ruled unconstitutional. Stop and frisk is only the tip of the iceberg, by the way.
  - huebomont 7y ago
    Lol he greatly expanded it, what are you talking about.
  - morelisp 7y ago
    He didn't enact it, but it was a signature policy of his, and he pushed it hard. There were twice as many stops his final year in office as there were his first year. It is only a reduction if you compare it to his penultimate year, when there were 7x as many stops as his first year. This claim he reduced it is a key talking point of his campaign, and an outright lie. He was defending it literally up until the moment he decided to run for president (defending it publicly for years until October 2019, then apologizing in November 2019 when he announced his campaign).

Seenso 7y ago

>> He'll be on the debate stage tonight as a legitimized candidate -- having not participated in the competitive process at all, and without a single donor (doesn't need 'em), and levering his billions to flood media. > You know, I strongly disagree with Bloomberg, having lived through his reign of terror in NYC personally. But I just don't see the point in focusing on this kind of attack. I think there are two issues here: 1) candidate Bloomberg himself, and 2) systemic flaws that are offensive to small-d democratic sensibilities, of which Bloomberg is a representative and symbol. The point of that kind of attack is to bring focus on the systemic flaws. Also, at this point, many more people are probably attuned to those flaws than they are to the candidate himself (as only New Yorkers have really had to care about him, previously). > The Democratic party is really not required to have any sort of fair process for deciding their candidate for president. It can be as transparently crooked and disgusting as this... It can be, but not having a fair process turns off a lot of voters, and makes others angry. Doubly so if that lack of fair process means they'll be forced to choose between two bad options.