Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 269: All Caucuses Are Bad

(+) Yeah! (+)

I hope they get the results from Area 51 on Tuesday
EDIT: SATURDAY? Ugh too long

They cant stop all of us
---

lmao Tuesday. Long wait, friend.

Time for Bernie to BUILD MOMENTUM

---

Alternate title:

An American Tail: Buttigieg Goes West
---

I've gotten my wires crossed lately and the last time I saw ACAB my brain immediately read it as "assigned cop at birth"

no further point to make the topic title just reminded me of this

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/02/15/grotesque-corruption-emilys-list-center-american-progress-sold-out-michael-bloomberg

Very normal and very cool stuff

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/02/15/grotesque-corruption-emilys-list-center-american-progress-sold-out-michael-bloomberg

Very normal and very cool stuff

Honestly that sounds like those organization problems, not Bloomberg issues. They decided to remove things because they thought they would lose his contributions if they didn't. Sounds like they chose in those situations, if I am reading that correctly.

---

"I'll kill your daughter if you dont give me a million pounds. It's your choice either way though, whatever you choose is fine."

---

That literally is a terrible example.

He didn't even pressure the organizations according to what I read. He simply was supposed to speak, they thought about it, realized he was a big donor, and allowed him to speak.

The other was an article. They realized if they published it as so it would not make Bloomberg happy who was a big donor. So, they edited out the parts that call into question his mayorship.

If anything, they were pandering to him to use him for his donations.

"Senior Emilys List officials seriously debated withdrawing Mr. Bloombergs invitation, according to three people familiar with the deliberations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity."
"In the end, the group concluded it could not risk alienating Mr. Bloomberg."
And the Times on the Center for American Progress:
"In interviews with The Times, no one described being threatened or coerced by Mr. Bloomberg or his money. But many said his wealth was an inescapable consideration a gravitational force powerful enough to make coercion unnecessary."
"They arent going to criticize him in his 2020 run because they dont want to jeopardize receiving financial support from him in the future, said Paul S. Ryan, vice president of policy and litigation at the good-government group Common Cause."


---

Ok, it's bribery instead of blackmail.

That's better?

---

GildedFool posted...

Ok, it's bribery instead of blackmail.

That's better?

I am starting to think you have no idea what bribery or blackmail is.


---

Implying future money in exchange of goods or services is bribery as much as saying it explicitly.

As is implying the cessation of monies.

---

You've literally posted people saying they dont want to say bad things about Bloomberg because they want his money. What do you callthat?


---

GildedFool posted...

Implying future money in exchange of goods or services is bribery as much as saying it explicitly.

As is implying the cessation of monies.

You are insane. "Being rich means bribery happened".

You are literally arguing that because he has money that he committed bribery.

That is literally just insane.

---

GildedFool posted...

You've literally posted people saying they dont want to say bad things about Bloomberg because they want his money. What do you callthat?

I call that pandering organizations. They are choosing to suck up to people who donate to their cause over sticking to their convictions.

Again. The organizations come off as wrong here. Not Bloomberg himself.

---

Now does that mean the organization is corrupt or at least the senior officials? I would say it is a pretty gray area. You could argue yes they are corrupt because they went against their beliefs in order to get money. You could argue they weighed the actions and at the end of the day they didn't feel like there was enough there to ostracize him. Or you could argue that they weighed whether they could do more with potential donations from him to further their cause than not, so they made the tough decision that was best for their organization.

I mean, it is gray. Largely it will come down to how you view their job exists for. Making the tough economic decisions for their cause or by upholding their causes convictions.

Hypothetically: Is it better to go under while sticking to your principles and your cause and possibly not being able to further your cause because you went bankrupt or is it better to make decisions to bring in money to your organization that can be used to further your organizations cause and better realize it's goals.

It is a regular ethics question, and it is going to come down to how you view things. Do the results justify the means?

I mean, but this is again all on the organization's side. Nothing really to do with Bloomberg besides the fact he was the rich person the organization was apparently in a dilemma over

---

if you think financial corruption is impacting any candidate in any negative way you clearly aren't paying attention to modern politics. at this point it's probably preferred for your odds of winning.

also i really don't like this influx of BLOOMBERG BLOOMBERG BLOOMBERG everything is having. the man already owns the airways on commercials, now he's owning a bunch of time when it's not that? most of this stuff is print but that's just a quick transition after Nevada that it's a terrifying prospect since that's just gonna push him into 2nd by virtue of nobody else existing except for bernie and trump.

---

Corrik7 posted...

I call that pandering organizations. They are choosing to suck up to people who donate to their cause over sticking to their convictions.

Again. The organizations come off as wrong here. Not Bloomberg himself.

Do you think they would be pandering to Bloomberg if he hadn't already given them money?

---

GildedFool posted...

Do you think they would be pandering to Bloomberg if he hadn't already given them money?

No

---

I think I've advanced to never voting for Bloomberg no matter what, which is 'impressive' considering the current situation

---

I'd probably vote for Bloomberg over Trump because I do think he would manage to be slightly better (if only for the judges), but yeah I don't begrudge anyone who wouldn't because that's a very "american democracy is doomed" scenario.

---

Corrik7 posted...

I call that pandering organizations. They are choosing to suck up to people who donate to their cause over sticking to their convictions.

Again. The organizations come off as wrong here. Not Bloomberg himself.

The agency is just offering the money, its not their fault Agent 47 is executing the contract.

Yes this is a silly example, but I dont find the distinction youre making very important. Both parties involved are bad.


---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

The agency is just offering the money, its not their fault Agent 47 is executing the contract.

Yes this is a silly example, but I dont find the distinction youre making very important. Both parties involved are bad.

One party literally did nothing at all regarding the situation.


---

Wanglicious posted...

also i really don't like this influx of BLOOMBERG BLOOMBERG BLOOMBERG everything is having. the man already owns the airways on commercials, now he's owning a bunch of time when it's not that?

Most of the networks seem to be giving him a lot of free coverage. It's in their best interest to keep him in the race because it will keep the money rolling in.

My attempts to talk my parents back to Biden from Bloomberg are not going very well :(

Hopefully I'll have better luck if Biden does well in NV/SC...

---

I have a feeling Bernie is going to get wounded in Nevada by the unions there now that he's actually facing frontrunner scrutiny. If a "moderate" candidate wins there, expect them to coalesce that Bloc in California too.

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

I have a feeling Bernie is going to get wounded in Nevada by the unions there now that he's actually facing frontrunner scrutiny. If a "moderate" candidate wins there, expect them to coalesce that Bloc in California too.

About 2 weeks ago I would confidently say youre wrong, but perhaps the Democratic Party is totally gone

https://twitter.com/virgiltexas/status/1229106780074135553?s=21

If the lesson Dems learned from 2016 was almost literally Trump, but identifies as our guy, this is not a party I can support in any way.

---

https://twitter.com/wesleylowery/status/1229135266008440835?s=21

Theres no bottom

---

Bernie's got some endorsements from smaller unions in Nevada on his endorsements page, just not the biggest one.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

My attempts to talk my parents back to Biden from Bloomberg are not going very well :(

Hopefully I'll have better luck if Biden does well in NV/SC...

How did they make that switch?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

How did they make that switch?

My mom thinks Biden is dead and that Bloomberg can beat Trump. My dad isnt going quite that far, but hes losing confidence in Biden. Both of them strongly dislike Sanders.

---

So its not on any principles aside from electability. Ok
---

Biden's campaign is a dumpster fire.

---

your parents aren't the only ones, LOTM. that's a constant trend seen in the states bloomberg's gone up, he's eating up all biden voters because the reason his base was so sticky wasn't ideological as much as it was "beating Trump" mixed with "not bernie."

i think at one point it was as high as 56%? yeah, that's what's shifting. there isn't really any ideological pull towards biden himself, with a bit of thought you could easily figure out that this return to obama times bit is kinda crap anyway. bloomberg is just there with his over $400 million spent campaign. unfortunately there isn't going to be an easy way back to biden or frankly, anyone else.

---

Are you sure your parents arent Instagram meme lords he bought off?
---

This is where LotM tearfully discovers his parents were Russian bots all along.

---

My entire family except me is conservative so

https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/mobile/000/027/763/07B89120-B48D-45FB-AF1D-49AF6CD16790.jpg

---

Trump has broken some peoples brains to the point that theyve stopped considering the quality of a candidate beyond their ability to not literally be Donald Trump. its a mess
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

Trump has broken some peoples brains to the point that theyve stopped considering the quality of a candidate beyond their ability to not literally be Donald Trump. its a mess

TDS we know

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Are you sure your parents arent Instagram meme lords he bought off?

Given my mom's mastery of technology I think I can safely rule this one out!

---

Anyway, Bloomberg is still better than Trump, so I could see the logic if he was actually clearly the most electable. I don't buy that at all, though. He'll turn off the left even more than the other moderates and pretty much his only path to victory is through a contentious contested convention.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

He'll turn off the left even more than the other moderates

Dude won 3 terms in New York City. He doesn't need hardcore progressives to win an election.

---

Just like Hillary didn't.

Who was the...

*reads card*

Senator from New York

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Just like Hillary didn't.

Who was the...

*reads card*

Senator from New York

Yes, Hillary Clinton. Famous popular centrist.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Anyway, Bloomberg is still better than Trump

You literally said Evo Morales was near-fascist because he wanted to change the laws to allow himself to run a 3rd term.

Bloomberg actually did that.


---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

You literally said Evo Morales was near-fascist because he wanted to change the laws to allow himself to run a 3rd term.

Bloomberg actually did that.

I said that the fact that he did so made it more believable that he might rig an election. And yes, the fact that Bloomberg did that is bad.

The guy I'm comparing him to, though, is literally locking kids in cages and trying to use the DoJ to both get his goons off the hook and prosecute his enemies. There's quite a lot of room to suck and still be preferable to Trump.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

My attempts to talk my parents back to Biden from Bloomberg are not going very well :(

don't you worry i've got your back

https://twitter.com/CANCEL_SAM/status/1229127380402393088

Bloomberg says...

"If you show up with cancer and you're 95 years old, we should say... there's no cure, we can't do anything. A young person, we should do something. Society's not willing to do that, yet.

throwback thursday to death panels

God, I think I've reached the point where I think Gabbard is preferable to Bloomberg and god help me I think he'd still be preferable to Trump because Congress (from both parties) could hopefully hold this shit in check... it gets increasingly more difficult to make this argument every damn day.

---

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bernie-sanders-topless-protesters-nevada-rally

Now that's a rally I could get behind.

---

I kind of hope Bloomberg is the nominee just to see all the hoops yinz have to jump through and gymnastics yinz do to try and justify your votes.

---

Corrik7 posted...

I kind of hope Bloomberg is the nominee just to see all the hoops yinz have to jump through and gymnastics yinz do to try and justify your votes.

There's very little justification to be done. The only relevant comparison is to Trump because there are only two viable candidates in a general election.

Where we might unfortunately have an opportunity to see some hypocrisy is if a President Bloomberg started abusing the powers of the office. I *think* the Dems would be better about holding him accountable than the GOP was for Trump, but I guess we might have to find out if that's really true.

---

If Bloomberg is the nominee because he got the most delegates I will just say "well, Supreme Court picks I guess."

If he is the nominee because of dnc villainy, I won't be voting.

---