Ahoy! Bloomberg, right ahead!

[Blackhawk]

Let's say that you are sucked into the Twilight Zone. You are given two doors, and two only. One is labeled 'Trump'; the other is labeled 'Bloomberg.' You must choose one of them. There is no third door. There is no refusing to choose. There is Door A, and there is Door B.

Spoiler:

If Bloomberg wins the nomination, this is, essentially, your reality.

[Isgrimnur]

He's voting in Oregon.

Nods in Texan

[Drazzil]

Let's say that you are sucked into the Twilight Zone. You are given two doors, and two only. One is labeled 'Trump'; the other is labeled 'Bloomberg.' You must choose one of them. There is no third door. There is no refusing to choose. There is Door A, and there is Door B.

Spoiler:

If Bloomberg wins the nomination, this is, essentially, your reality.

So the choice may come down to Heydrich or Hitler?

I choose neither.

[malchior]

None of which actually matters. You are either voting for the Democrat candidate, or you are helping Trump stay in office. That's the way things are, and your "protest vote" only matters to the voices in your head. Grow up.

This! We are up against a proto-dictator right now. He may very well say the election is invalid. We may need every *damn* vote against him to convince the right players to escort him out the door. If you aren't voting against Trump you are voting for authoritarianism. Grow up is right. The danger is here. It is put up or shut up time.

[Kurth]

Is there a way to unsubscribe to all the "Who will Drazzil vote for in Oregon . . ." posts? The tension is killing me. I can't keep myself from logging back in to OO every 5 minutes to get the latest update. Total time sink.

[Kurth]

Mike Bloomberg is not the lesser of two evils

On the other hand, in some areas Bloomberg would likely be worse than Trump. As Mehdi Hasan writes at The Intercept, Bloomberg is a committed and pitiless warmonger — he supported the war in Iraq and repeated the Bush administration's lie that Saddam Hussein had plotted 9/11. (In January he said he had no regrets about doing so.) He opposed President Obama's Iran deal, and had few complaints about Trump's assassination of Iran's Qassem Soleimani. While Trump has escalated conflicts across the globe, he appears to have at least a mild hesitation about starting new full-scale wars of aggression. The chances of a shooting war with Iran probably increase if Bloomberg wins in 2020.

Don't agree with it all 100% but I do agree that we are screwed if he gets the Dem nomination.

I read through that article. So entirely one sided and partisan (written by an avowed Bernie supporter, btw), that I had a hard time with it. I started checking some of the linked citations purportedly backing up some of the more eyebrow-raising statements about Bloomberg. For instance:

Bloomberg is a committed and pitiless warmonger — he supported the war in Iraq and repeated the Bush administration's lie that Saddam Hussein had plotted 9/11. (In January he said he had no regrets about doing so.)

I followed that link, and the relevant part of the cited LA Times article states this:

“I don’t live in a regret world, and I didn’t make the decision,” the former New York mayor told The Times in an interview in downtown Los Angeles.

Bloomberg recalled that most Americans supported President George W. Bush’s decision to go to war with Iraq in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

“America wanted to go to war, but it turns out it was based on faulty intelligence, and it was a mistake,” Bloomberg said after celebrating the opening of his campaign office near Pershing Square.

“But I think the people that made the mistake did it honestly, and it’s a shame, because it’s left us entangled, and it’s left the Middle East in chaos through today.”

Honestly, outside of using the word "regret" in a quote, does the substance of that cited article actually support the assertion that Bloomberg is a "pitiless warmonger" who has no regrets about the war in Iraq and what it's done to the region and our standing in it? Maybe the author just read the title -- "2020 candidate Michael Bloomberg says he doesn’t regret backing Iraq war" -- which is pretty f'd up on its own (nice work LA Times).

I didn't bother with any of the other links in the article.

[Alefroth]

Is there a way to unsubscribe to all the "Who will Drazzil vote for in Oregon . . ." posts? The tension is killing me. I can't keep myself from logging back in to OO every 5 minutes to get the latest update. Total time sink.

Maybe he could spoiler all of his posts.

[Smoove_B]

All of this vote speculation and hang-wringing is pointless and only serves to feed into the chaos. When there's a nominee - when we can all look at the actual candidate that will be going up against Trump in November *that* will be the time for hyperbole and declaration of protest votes.

[Kraken]

All of this vote speculation and hang-wringing is pointless and only serves to feed into the chaos. When there's a nominee - when we can all look at the actual candidate that will be going up against Trump in November *that* will be the time for hyperbole and declaration of protest votes.

...or at least after tonight's debate.

[pr0ner]

[LawBeefaroni]

His anti-gun spending is done to create an astroturfed network of other local politicians and adherents. He's not looking to disarm his security retinue, is he? And once he's done stopping-and-frisking the browns guess where he's going to go next? It's a control thing, not a moral crusade.

[Blackhawk]

I choose neither.

*Bzzzt* Impossible answer. You can't choose neither.

[Zarathud]

Part of being an adult is forcing yourself to do thing you don’t want.

[Smoove_B]

I choose neither.

*Bzzzt* Impossible answer. You can't choose neither.

Over and over again, this should be the mantra for November of 2020:

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.

[LawBeefaroni]

I choose neither.

*Bzzzt* Impossible answer. You can't choose neither.

Over and over again, this should be the mantra for November of 2020:

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.

If you are neutral in the situation of Trump vs. Bloomberg, you have chosen the side of the current oppressor over the future one.

But you still cannot choose neither.

[Smoove_B]

If you are neutral in the situation of Trump vs. Bloomberg, you have chosen the side of the current oppressor over the future one.

No, no. We need to start the "You need to give him a chance..." discussion with Bloomberg as all the MAGAts did back in November of 2016 for Trump.

[LawBeefaroni]

If you are neutral in the situation of Trump vs. Bloomberg, you have chosen the side of the current oppressor over the future one.

No, no. We need to start the "You need to give him a chance..." discussion with Bloomberg as all the MAGAts did back in November of 2016 for Trump.

Well he does tell it like it is, I mean he says what we all ant to say but are too PC to do so. Plus he's way to rich to be beholden to anyone or even want more money or power. So I'm on board!

[Kurth]

His anti-gun spending is done to create an astroturfed network of other local politicians and adherents. He's not looking to disarm his security retinue, is he? And once he's done stopping-and-frisking the browns guess where he's going to go next? It's a control thing, not a moral crusade.

What does "astroturf" mean in this context? Fake? Artificial? I keep seeing that word used over and over again in connection with Bloomberg, and I don't get it. It's a little like "gaslighting" for me. I see it used everywhere, but I don't really understand.

[Holman]

His anti-gun spending is done to create an astroturfed network of other local politicians and adherents. He's not looking to disarm his security retinue, is he? And once he's done stopping-and-frisking the browns guess where he's going to go next? It's a control thing, not a moral crusade.

What does "astroturf" mean in this context? Fake? Artificial? I keep seeing that word used over and over again in connection with Bloomberg, and I don't get it. It's a little like "gaslighting" for me. I see it used everywhere, but I don't really understand.

"Astroturf" in a political context means "fake grass-roots." (Get it???)

It was originally coined for superPACs and political operatives launching campaigns that tried to appear like genuine regular-voter activism.

[malchior]

It's a little like "gaslighting" for me. I see it used everywhere, but I don't really understand.

Gas lighting is when someone manipulates you to make you doubt your own judgement or in extreme cases your sanity. It really started in a domestic violence context but is very topical with monsters who run our government now. It is more now used to talk about the boiling frog effect that is destroying people's perspective on norms in our government now.

[Z-Corn]

The term comes from this movie:

[Kraken]

Great movie. I only watched it after Trump made gaslighting a national policy.

[Smoove_B]

As someone currently reading this book, gaslighting is examined in great detail as one of the traits a sociopath utilizes. What's also interesting is that the book's author in the first few chapters wonders what would happen if a sociopath ascended to the Presidency. It was written in 2006, FWIW.

/derail off

[malchior]

As someone currently reading this book, gaslighting is examined in great detail as one of the traits a sociopath utilizes. What's also interesting is that the book's author in the first few chapters wonders what would happen if a sociopath ascended to the Presidency. It was written in 2006, FWIW.

/derail off

Great book. I work in an industry with a lot of sociopaths (consulting) and its sometimes really clear pretty quickly. Other times you get false positives but on average in my line of work they usually self-destruct.

[Defiant]

The term comes from this movie:

There is no such movie.

[Holman]

Holy Shit. Warren is eating Bloomberg alive on stage tonight.

Bloomberg is actually being boo'd by the audience on his NDAs. I can't remember that ever happening in a party debate.

[Kraken]

If he's still polling high after tonight, I'm worried about Democratic voters.

[hitbyambulance]

"Nate Silver
9:45 PM

As your Bloomberg correspondent, I think they should have held him out of this debate."

[El Guapo]

The term comes from this movie:

There is no such movie.

Actually, it's from this movie:

[gbasden]

If you are neutral in the situation of Trump vs. Bloomberg, you have chosen the side of the current oppressor over the future one.

But you still cannot choose neither.

Bloomberg is by far my least favorite Democratic candidate, by a mile. But he's not in Trump's league. Yes, he seems like a racist. But not a lock kids in cages racist. He is a billionaire, but is at least espousing progressive taxation instead of more giveaways to the 1%. He takes climate change seriously. He's not going to appoint more Kavanaughs.

I have no idea how you can look at him and Trump and shrug. While I might prefer anyone else on that debate stage if he gets the nomination I'm going to support him 100% because he's still infinitely better than that orange turd.

[Alefroth]

The term comes from this movie:

There is no such movie.

Actually, it's from this movie:

[Kurth]

If he's still polling high after tonight, I'm worried about Democratic voters.

I can’t see how he can survive the NDA thing. Biden really hit him hard on that as well. He should be finished, but I’ve thought that about many other candidates in the past and was, sadly, proven wrong.

[Zarathud]

Bloomberg’s right answer on the NDA was to argue he was not his company but apologized for mistakes by his employees. That he settled to do the right thing and take responsibility. That he would honor his contracts even if they were inconvenient to his politics because it would be unfair to unleash the media on those in his private disputes. That his bad jokes in no way compared to the offenses and disrespect of Trump towards women, with all respect to Sen. Warren.

But Bloomberg got his clock cleaned so thoroughly on obvious issues, this bodes badly for him.

[LawBeefaroni]

If you are neutral in the situation of Trump vs. Bloomberg, you have chosen the side of the current oppressor over the future one.

But you still cannot choose neither.

Bloomberg is by far my least favorite Democratic candidate, by a mile. But he's not in Trump's league. Yes, he seems like a racist. But not a lock kids in cages racist. He is a billionaire, but is at least espousing progressive taxation instead of more giveaways to the 1%. He takes climate change seriously. He's not going to appoint more Kavanaughs.

I have no idea how you can look at him and Trump and shrug. While I might prefer anyone else on that debate stage if he gets the nomination I'm going to support him 100% because he's still infinitely better than that orange turd.

I don't look at them as the same. Trump is worse. But Bloomberg is still terrible. The Desmond Tutu quote presumes that there is a good and a bad (justice vs. injustice). 'Berg v Trump isn't good v. bad. It is bad v. worse. I'll take bad in that situation but it's still a loss.


I've been decrying the false choice since before I could vote. This is the terrifying climax that I have always been dreading. Well, actually I thought Hillary v. Trump was but little did I know it could get even worse.

[gbasden]

If you are neutral in the situation of Trump vs. Bloomberg, you have chosen the side of the current oppressor over the future one.

But you still cannot choose neither.

Bloomberg is by far my least favorite Democratic candidate, by a mile. But he's not in Trump's league. Yes, he seems like a racist. But not a lock kids in cages racist. He is a billionaire, but is at least espousing progressive taxation instead of more giveaways to the 1%. He takes climate change seriously. He's not going to appoint more Kavanaughs.

I have no idea how you can look at him and Trump and shrug. While I might prefer anyone else on that debate stage if he gets the nomination I'm going to support him 100% because he's still infinitely better than that orange turd.

I don't look at them as the same. Trump is worse. But Bloomberg is still terrible. The Desmond Tutu quote presumes that there is a good and a bad (justice vs. injustice). 'Berg v Trump isn't good v. bad. It is bad v. worse. I'll take bad in that situation but it's still a loss.


I've been decrying the false choice since before I could vote. This is the terrifying climax that I have always been dreading. Well, actually I thought Hillary v. Trump was but little did I know it could get even worse.

Sure - I don't disagree with you. But others have been saying they will sit out. I get not liking Bloomberg. I get not liking Hillary. But either of them is better that what we have now.

[El Guapo]

If you are neutral in the situation of Trump vs. Bloomberg, you have chosen the side of the current oppressor over the future one.

But you still cannot choose neither.

Bloomberg is by far my least favorite Democratic candidate, by a mile. But he's not in Trump's league. Yes, he seems like a racist. But not a lock kids in cages racist. He is a billionaire, but is at least espousing progressive taxation instead of more giveaways to the 1%. He takes climate change seriously. He's not going to appoint more Kavanaughs.

I have no idea how you can look at him and Trump and shrug. While I might prefer anyone else on that debate stage if he gets the nomination I'm going to support him 100% because he's still infinitely better than that orange turd.

I don't look at them as the same. Trump is worse. But Bloomberg is still terrible. The Desmond Tutu quote presumes that there is a good and a bad (justice vs. injustice). 'Berg v Trump isn't good v. bad. It is bad v. worse. I'll take bad in that situation but it's still a loss.


I've been decrying the false choice since before I could vote. This is the terrifying climax that I have always been dreading. Well, actually I thought Hillary v. Trump was but little did I know it could get even worse.

Sure - I don't disagree with you. But others have been saying they will sit out. I get not liking Bloomberg. I get not liking Hillary. But either of them is better that what we have now.

Yeah, I agree. Trump is destroying American democracy *now*. Bloomberg *may* do problematic things *later*.

That said, I am less worried about a Bloomberg nomination after last night anyway. Though we'll need to wait to see how the polls shape up.

[malchior]

Honestly Bloomberg is going to get a mulligan here I imagine. He isn't expected to do anything in Nevada. By Super Tuesday, this will have been forgotten after Trump pardons Stone, does more crazy things, and Bloomberg drops $150M on tv ad buys which will miraculously lead the network pundits to be very respectful of him.

[LawBeefaroni]

Honestly Bloomberg is going to get a mulligan here I imagine. He isn't expected to do anything in Nevada. By Super Tuesday, this will have been forgotten after Trump pardons Stone, does more crazy things, and Bloomberg drops $150M on tv ad buys which will miraculously lead the network pundits to be very respectful of him.

Which is a good point. As soon as he's out of the race, ad revs will fall precipitously.

[Kraken]

If you are neutral in the situation of Trump vs. Bloomberg, you have chosen the side of the current oppressor over the future one.

But you still cannot choose neither.

Bloomberg is by far my least favorite Democratic candidate, by a mile. But he's not in Trump's league. Yes, he seems like a racist. But not a lock kids in cages racist. He is a billionaire, but is at least espousing progressive taxation instead of more giveaways to the 1%. He takes climate change seriously. He's not going to appoint more Kavanaughs.

I have no idea how you can look at him and Trump and shrug. While I might prefer anyone else on that debate stage if he gets the nomination I'm going to support him 100% because he's still infinitely better than that orange turd.

I don't look at them as the same. Trump is worse. But Bloomberg is still terrible. The Desmond Tutu quote presumes that there is a good and a bad (justice vs. injustice). 'Berg v Trump isn't good v. bad. It is bad v. worse. I'll take bad in that situation but it's still a loss.


I've been decrying the false choice since before I could vote. This is the terrifying climax that I have always been dreading. Well, actually I thought Hillary v. Trump was but little did I know it could get even worse.

Sure - I don't disagree with you. But others have been saying they will sit out. I get not liking Bloomberg. I get not liking Hillary. But either of them is better that what we have now.

Yeah, I agree. Trump is destroying American democracy *now*. Bloomberg *may* do problematic things *later*.

I worry that he will co-opt and corrupt the D Party. Right now we have one rogue authoritarian party and one constructive party. As long as there's a principled opposition, there's hope for recovery. If Pres. Bloomberg leaves us with two dictatorial parties, that's worse than keeping and continuing to oppose our current dictator. Yes, it's still a matter of actual current harm vs. potential future harm, but that potential would be the end of democracy, once and for all.

Bear in mind is that whoever moves into the Oval Office next will inherit a presidency with expanded, near-unlimited power. If it's Bloomberg, then Moscow Mitch becomes our best hope for reining him in, because SuperPOTUS needs the Senate's buy-in. Good lord.

[El Guapo]

If you are neutral in the situation of Trump vs. Bloomberg, you have chosen the side of the current oppressor over the future one.

But you still cannot choose neither.

Bloomberg is by far my least favorite Democratic candidate, by a mile. But he's not in Trump's league. Yes, he seems like a racist. But not a lock kids in cages racist. He is a billionaire, but is at least espousing progressive taxation instead of more giveaways to the 1%. He takes climate change seriously. He's not going to appoint more Kavanaughs.

I have no idea how you can look at him and Trump and shrug. While I might prefer anyone else on that debate stage if he gets the nomination I'm going to support him 100% because he's still infinitely better than that orange turd.

I don't look at them as the same. Trump is worse. But Bloomberg is still terrible. The Desmond Tutu quote presumes that there is a good and a bad (justice vs. injustice). 'Berg v Trump isn't good v. bad. It is bad v. worse. I'll take bad in that situation but it's still a loss.


I've been decrying the false choice since before I could vote. This is the terrifying climax that I have always been dreading. Well, actually I thought Hillary v. Trump was but little did I know it could get even worse.

Sure - I don't disagree with you. But others have been saying they will sit out. I get not liking Bloomberg. I get not liking Hillary. But either of them is better that what we have now.

Yeah, I agree. Trump is destroying American democracy *now*. Bloomberg *may* do problematic things *later*.

I worry that he will co-opt and corrupt the D Party. Right now we have one rogue authoritarian party and one constructive party. As long as there's a principled opposition, there's hope for recovery. If Pres. Bloomberg leaves us with two dictatorial parties, that's worse than keeping and continuing to oppose our current dictator. Yes, it's still a matter of actual current harm vs. potential future harm, but that potential would be the end of democracy, once and for all.

Bear in mind is that whoever moves into the Oval Office next will inherit a presidency with expanded, near-unlimited power. If it's Bloomberg, then Moscow Mitch becomes our best hope for reining him in, because SuperPOTUS needs the Senate's buy-in. Good lord.

I think the case for Bloomberg as a dictator / would-be authoritarian is pretty speculative. I worry about whether he'll be sufficiently respectful on civil rights issues, but I don't see much specific reason right now to fear that he would try to become President for Life. Whereas Trump CLEARLY aspires to that.