"Why should I vote? There's no difference between the parties" Remember that?

[mahina]

It was a concerted effort to suppress our votes.

That’s why I can’t support Mike Bloomberg’s candidacy, even if his policies in the past all made sense and even if I liked him and didn’t object to billionaire buying elections.

[Act_of_Reparation]

1. Stop and frisk alone should have sank his prospects before they started.

But it's 2020 and this is how we're doing things now, I guess.

[christx30]

4. With the exception of being against guns,

Bloomberg is pretty much a republican.

[Act_of_Reparation]

6. Between 2001 and 2007, he officially was.

He's changed party affiliation almost as much as Trump has, and probably for many of the same reasons.

[Kaleva]

2. Is your argument that there is no difference between Trump and Bloomberg?

[Act_of_Reparation]

7. Obviously not.

But asking questions is cool.

[Squinch]

14. I thought that was your point too. Maybe you should clarify if it isn't.

[Act_of_Reparation]

18. It's pretty simple.

The OP's point is Bloomberg has for a very long time been a bothsiderist, and has encouraged that kind of chickenshit centrism much to his own electoral benefit.

My point is he's an authoritarian who does not represent the values of the Democratic Party, which is unsurprising as he has in the past shifted his party affiliation when it became beneficial to do so.

Nowhere, in any of this, did either of us suggest Bloomberg was just as bad as Trump. If you're seeing it there, it's because you're putting it there yourself.

[Kurt V.]

27. i would say , without the cruelty, there isn't much difference in their world view.

[cwydro]

3. Yeah, I remember Kaepernick saying that too.

Quite interesting some of the people who said that.

[mahina]

8. I just searched for the SNL skit w Gote paired

Half black and half white, hyping this notion.

I can’t find it.

Listening to Satirical Gore broke my heart. What we lost.

[democrattotheend]

12. Gore had the same problem Hillary did, but it was outside of either's control

That "no difference between the parties" apathy seems to be the worst when we have an outgoing two-term Democratic president. After 8 years, it's easy to forget how bad it was under the last Republican president, and some don't remember it at all. The youngest voters in 2016 were probably too young to really remember how bad things were when Bush was president, and even those of us who do remember the Bush years were probably more complacent after 8 years of Obama than we were in 2008 when Bush was still president. I imagine the same was probably true in 2000 as well. I was a sophomore in high school during the 2000 election, and I remember my teacher remarking that most of us probably didn't remember a time before Clinton was president. I actually did remember Bush Sr.'s presidency, but not well enough that I would have felt the same urgency as I felt in 2004, after four years of W. So maybe I'm overly optimistic that people like the young snowflake I met in Pennsylvania in 2016 who seemed to agree about how bad Trump would be but was voting for Jill Stein because she wanted her first vote to be special, who was probably too young to really remember how bad it was under a Republican president, will suck it up and vote for the Democrat this time.

On an unrelated note, is it really necessary to attack Lieberman for his religious practices? I get that he is reviled here because he was (on some issues) a DINO in a state that didn't need to have a DINO, but the borderline anti-Semitic attacks on him have made me uncomfortable on this forum more than once over the years. If you want to criticize him for being bland, or for not being forceful enough during the recount, or for being a DINO, or endorsing McCain in 2008, or killing the public option, fine. But why is it necessary to attack him for observing Shabbat?

[mahina]

13. I didn't of course. I thought he was R lite.

But haven’t really thought about him at all since 2000.

[bucolic_frolic]

15. It was merely an observation

Maybe he could have found a way to suspend his religious observation for the campaign period. Maybe a few more days would have made a difference. But please, I'm not trying to offend, I really am not aware of the religious obligations involved. As a Christian I just don't understand I guess.

[democrattotheend]

20. That's not how it works

Jews who observe Shabbat are committed to it - it's not something they can just "suspend for the campaign period." The only time you're allowed under Jewish law to violate Shabbat is to save a life. And no, trying to win an election against a warmonger almost certainly doesn't count - it has to be more direct than that, like riding in an ambulance to take someone to the emergency room.

I'm not that religious myself, but I respect those who are, and I find the suggestion that Lieberman should have just put his observance on hold for political convenience offensive. I know you are not trying to offend, and I appreciate you admitting that you are not very knowledgeable on the subject. But I would guess (maybe I'm wrong) that you would not agree with someone who said that if Ilan Omar ever runs for a higher office, she should take off her head covering during the campaign to make herself more palatable as a candidate. Saying that Lieberman should have stopped observing Shabbat during the campaign is no different.

I have many criticisms of Lieberman, but unlike many politicians, I don't question the sincerity of his religious beliefs.

[bucolic_frolic]

23. President is a 24/7 job if that's not too inconvenient

Was that incongruity explored during the campaign? My apologies to all people of Jewish faith who find this offensive. I don't follow other religions closely, so I meant no offense.

A conflict could arise if he were President and duties intruded on the Sabbath. Crises, that sort of thing.

[bucolic_frolic]

24. I have removed my original post

and will take a few days off of here. I meant no offense. I know many Jewish people and they are great, and a Rabbi is a member of a group I belong to. But we don't talk religion, there's simply no need to.

[democrattotheend]

25. I understand - no hard feelings

And I wish you hadn't removed your original post, because you made some other good points in it. I'm sorry if I made you feel like you had to do that - not my intent. I just wanted to point out why I thought the "6 day a week" comment was inappropriate. I apologize if I overreacted. I may have been oversensitive because there has been a lot of anti-Semitic Lieberman bashing on this forum over the years.

[DownriverDem]

9. Why

would anyone believe that crap? I will never understand why any woman would vote repub.

[NurseJackie]

10. I remember that. I also remember...

I remember that. I also remember the following lies:

-- "the Democratic party is corrupt"
-- "the Democrats are the party of the one-percent"
-- "the Democrats are the party of the elite"
-- "the Democrats are ideologically bankrupt"
-- "the Democrats are intellectually bankrupt"
-- "the Democrats are feeble"
-- "the Democrats focus too much on diversity"

All of these things are divisive and discourage people from supporting Democrats. Negativity generates apathy. Apathy discourages voter turnout. Low voter turnout gives Republicans a chance to steal the elections.

[Squinch]

16. Oligarchs!!! You forgot the oligarchs!!! And the "corporatists!"

[NurseJackie]

19. Ugh. Yeah, I know.

The final straw was an election day tweet from a "high profile" progressive who proclaimed how it didn't matter who you voted for, just as long as you voted. It was a tweet that was basically "giving permission" to her followers to vote for Jill Stein... or to NOT vote for our party's nominee.

The reality, of course, is that it DOES MATTER who you vote for, and the continual lies and smears and denigrating of the Democratic party only serves to benefit the GOP and Trump and Russia.

[Squinch]

21. Yep. And now the Democracy is at stake, quite literally, and those fools are still at it.

[democrattotheend]

11. I agree with you

I've never felt like there's no difference, but this is the closest I'd come to feeling that way. Bloomberg would certainly be more professional and presidential than Trump, and better on many issues, but he's way too corporate and conservative and has supported way too many Republicans for me to get excited about him.

That said, I think the "no difference" narrative won't do as well this year as it did in 2016. It's easy to get complacent and say there's no difference when you've been spoiled with 8 years of a Democratic president and the youngest voters aren't even old enough to remember how bad it was when Republicans were in charge. That won't be the case this time.

[Squinch]

17. My understanding is that when Bloomberg supported Republicans, it was specific

Republicans chosen because of their strong support of Bloomberg's two pet issues, namely climate change and guns.

I'm not a fan of voting for any Republicans, but is that the case?

[democrattotheend]

22. In later years, maybe

But I can't imagine that's why he supported Bush in 2000 and 2004, since Bush wasn't good on either of those issues.

Besides, regardless of the reason, he still supported Republican senators very recently who voted to acquit Trump for blatantly abusing his power, and who continue to keep Mitch McConnell in the majority leader position.

If he only supported Republicans in primaries against other Republicans, that might be more forgiveable, but I don't believe that's the case.

[CowboyProgressive]

26. Didn't Bloomberg support president GWB? Didn't he endorse Rudy Giuliani and some point?

[Ferrets are Cool]

28. I must be very slow. I don't understand your post. nt

[mahina]

29. If we nominate Mike Bloomberg we will again experience

Voter suppression from people using the message that the parties are the same.

With some sauce. Better?

[Ferrets are Cool]

30. Yes, thank you.

But, I do not agree.

[MH1]

31. JHFC, if someone can't see the difference between Bloomberg and Trump,

there's no fucking hope for them.

We need to shitcan that trope whenever it come up.

But you know what? "not a dime's worth of difference" is why I can't stand the most extreme faction that sometimes shows up for Democratic primaries - the Michael Moores and Susan Sarandons and Briana Joy Grays (not sure I spelled that one right).

I will vote for the Dem nominee but I WILL FIGHT LIKE HELL TO MAKE SURE IT ISN'T SOMEONE WHO PLAYS THAT FUCKED UP GAME.

n.b. for those who don't watch my every post - Bloomberg is pretty low on my preference list. But I'll take a billionaire I think can beat Trump, over a socialist who I don't believe can.

[mahina]

32. For me its the difference between

voting, or voting, phone banking, registering voters, volunteering w our state Dem party and Indivisible, writing postcards and traveling to battleground state if I can.

If it's Bloomberg, I'll vote.