Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Mike Bloomberg Once Again Called Transgender People “It” And “Some Guy Wearing A Dress”

Discussion in 'GatorNana's Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gator_fever, Feb 18, 2020.

  1. wgbgator

    wgbgator Tiny "Boop Squig" Shorterly Premium Member

    Only in America could the guy who wants more democracy and to be less beholden to amassed wealth be called an authoritarian I guess. Some of his supporters can be mean on social media, so Hitler 2.0.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2020
  2. ThePlayer

    ThePlayer VIP Member

    31,409
    2,782
    1,823
    Apr 3, 2007
    No Coke for you.

    [​IMG]
     
  3. gator_fever

    gator_fever GC Hall of Fame

    1,815
    138
    393
    Nov 3, 2013
    I actually agree on the energy part. The question is will the Indies more than counter that. It's hard to say but I have told fellow Trump supporters Bernie isn't as easy to beat as people may think.
     
  4. dangolegators

    dangolegators GC Hall of Fame

    7,427
    253
    688
    Apr 26, 2007
    Sanders' proposals are far more authoritarian than Bloomberg's. Sanders wants to eliminate entire industries and cancel student debt. He wants to double (at least) the size of the federal government. Of course he won't be able to actually do any of that but that is what he wants.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. gator7_5

    gator7_5 GC Hall of Fame

    11,543
    228
    603
    Apr 9, 2007
    What’s worse? Insincere regret and apologies or none at all?
     
  6. wgbgator

    wgbgator Tiny "Boop Squig" Shorterly Premium Member

    Ok, none of those things are inherently 'authoritarian.' And then you basically say Sanders will be constrained by the democratic process, which doesn't sound very authoritarian either. I mean for me, its more of a style. Trump and Bloomberg are businessmen used to getting their way, because in business they get to act like kings. No one ever told them no most of their lives. I have every confidence Bloomberg would run his administration in a similar fashion to Trump's, except with more technocratic precision. Also, the soda thing. Bloomberg is the embodiment of the nanny state, and I really don't know how people are convinced swing state voters in reddish states are going to go for the gun grabbing, big soda banning guy, who's also a kleptocratic billionaire.
     
  7. wgbgator

    wgbgator Tiny "Boop Squig" Shorterly Premium Member

    Strange that the regrets come when he wants the votes of Democrats!
     
  8. dangolegators

    dangolegators GC Hall of Fame

    7,427
    253
    688
    Apr 26, 2007
    Eliminating a trillion dollar industry seems pretty authoritarian to me. And while Bernie won't be able to get anything passed (he's only gotten a small number of inconsequential bills passed in his entire career), Trump hasn't gotten much passed either. Which is why Trump has had to declare a 'national emergency' to get money for his border wall. Sanders will make similar use of executive orders. Sanders is an ideologue, inflexible and uncompromising. All the makings of an authoritarian.
     
  9. wgbgator

    wgbgator Tiny "Boop Squig" Shorterly Premium Member

    Yes, if he waves his hands and eliminates an industry that would be pretty authoritarian. If people vote democratically for universal health care and it happens to put the insurance industry out of business, not so much.
     
  10. dangolegators

    dangolegators GC Hall of Fame

    7,427
    253
    688
    Apr 26, 2007
    AOC says worst case, we compromise and end up with a public option. Bernie disagrees and says M4A is already a compromise. Why? Because it has a 4 year implementation schedule. Clearly Bernie doesn't understand the meaning of 'compromise'. He's an inflexible ideologue.

    Sanders disagrees with AOC over Medicare for All
     
  11. wgbgator

    wgbgator Tiny "Boop Squig" Shorterly Premium Member

    That's because he's a smart politician. Why in the world would you make a hypothetical 'compromise' before you are even in position to negotiate anything? This is what infuriates me about people who are otherwise quite smart. Why would you signal you are going to trade away something and settle for less? Warren's campaign cratered as soon as she waffled on M4A.
     
  12. dangolegators

    dangolegators GC Hall of Fame

    7,427
    253
    688
    Apr 26, 2007
    Smart politicians know that you can't implement M4A in 4 years. That would be disastrous. It would be so disruptive and cause so much unhappiness amongst the electorate, and likely a recession, that Dems wouldn't sniff the Whitehouse for another 20 years.
     
  13. wgbgator

    wgbgator Tiny "Boop Squig" Shorterly Premium Member

    What's the point of having power if you aren't going to govern and reward your voters? What happens if you are 'smart' and say we'll do it over 8-10 years? And you lose power after 4? Its even worse. Or gets hijacked and undermined. Warren's idea was banking on a second term, which is stupid! That's no guarantee, and people tend to lose all their political capital after their first two years even if they manage to win a second term.
     
  14. dangolegators

    dangolegators GC Hall of Fame

    7,427
    253
    688
    Apr 26, 2007
    Trump said we would build a wall and have Mexico pay for it. His base believed him. Bernie says we will implement M4A in 4 years. His base believes him. Lots of similarities there.
     
  15. wgbgator

    wgbgator Tiny "Boop Squig" Shorterly Premium Member

    Ok, ultimately you are comparing Bernie to a guy who a) Won and b) Is 'building the wall' to the point where those voters are satisfied. They don't seem too upset about the Mexico thing , nor do the Republicans who thought that was BS all along. Ultimately this is all very stupid because even if you think Klobuchar or whoever is more 'realistic,' what is she proposing that's going to get a single vote from a Republican? Nothing. Everyone's plans rely on optimal political conditions. Might as well support the plan you like, not some dumb compromise who's chances are the same as any "pie in the sky" proposal. And all along Bernie has basically said none of its happening without people agitating politicians and organizing for it (you can debate how realistic that is, but that's the only way it can be done). Of all the candidates he seems to understand that any hope for significant change wont be done through "traditional" legislative politics where you magically try to 'compromise' and be 'reasonable' with the people who would rather nuke your whole agenda.
     
  16. dangolegators

    dangolegators GC Hall of Fame

    7,427
    253
    688
    Apr 26, 2007
    Though you were arguing that Bernie isn't an authoritarian, you now seem to be arguing that he is and, in fact, that would be the only way for him to get his policies implemented. You apparently agree that the only way Sanders would get M4A would be to pull an authoritarian move like Trump did with regards to his wall. Maybe he could declare a national emergency to implement it, using Trump's moves as precedent. Would you be ok with that? I wouldn't.
     
  17. wgbgator

    wgbgator Tiny "Boop Squig" Shorterly Premium Member

    I said that Bernie says that ordinary people would have to organize and agitate politicians to support M4A which isnt authoritarian at all, that's normal democratic politics in fact. I didnt say Bernie should raid the military budget after declaring a fake national emergency and implement it via executive order which is how the wall is being built. So I dont know where you're coming from on this.
     
  18. dangolegators

    dangolegators GC Hall of Fame

    7,427
    253
    688
    Apr 26, 2007
    Oh, so you think the Bernie Bros will just be able to 'agitate' the country into supporting M4A. Trump's base does a lot of agitating too. That didn't get the wall money passed though.
     
  19. gator_fever

    gator_fever GC Hall of Fame

    1,815
    138
    393
    Nov 3, 2013
     
  20. wgbgator

    wgbgator Tiny "Boop Squig" Shorterly Premium Member

    Agitate: campaign to arouse public concern about an issue in the hope of prompting action. If it is possible (and it is, the Progressive Era is very demonstrative here), its not going to be small number of hard core supporters who demand action. Thats not to say its an easy thing or a given.