16th February 2020, 12:27 AM
Bloomberg is awful (just look at all of the terrible quotes of his that keep coming out!), barely a Democrat, and I definitely hope that he is not our nominee (I will certainly not be voting for Bernie or Bloomberg in the primary), but saying he's the same as Trump is not true; at a minimum, that he is in our party and not theirs is a huge difference -- he'd be working with our Senate and House members, would have to push Democratic policies forward to at least some extent like Trump does for Republican policy issues like judges, etc. Those are real things he would do which would be a very dramatic improvement over Trump. I hope things don't get to the point of having to think about a President Bloomberg, but "he's the same as Trump" is exaggerating.
For foreign policy I don't know, that's harder... Warren and Bernie are both pretty weak on domestic policy, but someone like Biden who voted for the Iraq War (yes, like Kerry and Hillary as well) was quite wrong on a really important vote so... I don't know.
(12th February 2020, 8:32 PM)Dark Jaguar Wrote: If what we're wanting happens and Sanders actually becomes the nominee, I think we're going to see a dragon wake up in ABF. A blocky lego dragon but still it's going to be interesting to see him start to get excited for all those policies we both know he really wants. I'm looking forward to us all being on the same side.As for as domestic policy goes it's Warren I agree with, not Bernie. He's too extreme and absolutist, that is not the way things work in the real world. And as I've said be fore, it's not like he'd get most of his agenda done anyway, not with this Congress and with the way politics actually work in this country. It'd go like any of his other policy proposals over the years have, nowhere; there's a reason why Bernie doesn't get much legislation passed.
For foreign policy I don't know, that's harder... Warren and Bernie are both pretty weak on domestic policy, but someone like Biden who voted for the Iraq War (yes, like Kerry and Hillary as well) was quite wrong on a really important vote so... I don't know.
(14th February 2020, 1:03 PM)Dark Jaguar Wrote: However, I'm glad so many centrists are running. Having all of them in the race at once is essentially handing this race over to Sanders. They're even bouncing all over the place between candidates on the news, promising that not a one of them will be able to push the others out of the race. The centrists are amazing. They're proving their inability to win inside their own party.If there was one center-lane candidate now instead of three or four, yes, Bernie would be losing 60-40 of 70-30 or such, so yes, you should be glad for that...
Quote:(On a minor note, of COURSE Bernie won a lower percentage than he did in 2016. It's a 9 person race compared to a 2 person race! Buttigieg also poored ALL of his spending into these first two states. He's going to fizzle out in the rest of the race. But as you say, Bloomberg's the Loomberg threat. Oh, and what the hell was MSNBC doing posting the madness that if you fused Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Biden together they overtook Bernie's percentage? That's not how ANY electoral process works. Yes, if they did the fusion dance I'm sure Klobidegieg would win handily. Fortunately such a transporter accident doesn't appear to actually be running for president, so he still beat each of them.)That's not how it works now, but if nobody gets a majority of the delegates, that's exactly the kind of negotiations that go on for the later ballots. Again, a contested convention would be a near-certain disaster which would leave the losing faction quite angry just before a must-win election, but that IS pretty much how it works... and because of our field's failure to find a great candidate, right now a contested convention is apparently the most likely result. Fantastic.