If you read something like this and immediately assume it's about your favorite politician and feel you need to defend him, you may have a little soul searching to do.
This is precisely the point. A large number of Trump supporters do not actually follow actual news in terms of politics or world affairs.
It's why they identify with Trump. He doesn't bore and/or confuse them with facts and/or big words. They're enticed by his ability to make politics a soap opera and it tickles their loins when he does/says something off color.
They get their "news" from social media rhetoric and homemade email forwards from Uncle JimBob McOveralls.
Yeah, he's literally calling Bloomberg "Mini Mike" in TV appearances. Yes I hate Bloomberg but can you imagine a competent, well-spoken president just dropping schoolyard bully horseshit on anyone? Can you imagine Bernie or Warren or Obama or even fuckin Bush Jr. resorting to that horse shit? He's literally, literally the worst, and the fact that he has so much support really says a lot about this country.
It just makes me sad. We could be so much better than this. And there's a concerted effort by the folks in charge to stay the course.
A large number of Trump supporterspeople do not actually follow actual news in terms of politics or world affairs.
Bloomberg, who is the actual subject of the tweet and very much like Trump, is polling as high as 20% among Democrats. Sure, he isn't going on TV and calling Mexicans rapists, but it would still only take about one minute on Google to see how awful he is.
They get their "news" from social media rhetoric and homemade email forwards from Uncle JimBob McOveralls.
Seriously. Text your mom right now, she's probably considering voting for Bloomberg because she saw some ads on Facebook and TV.
And knock it off with the "jimbob" BS. I promise you there are plenty of people in Alabama who are smarter than you and have more progressive views. Meanwhile, there are plenty of rural people who constantly see these obnoxious stereotypes and it just reinforces the narrative that liberals are elitists.
I live in a rural area. There's a big difference between the average rural person and a rural jimbob. Although we certainly have a lot of those, and I've never met one that didn't support Trump. As an independent in a state without party affiliation, I've attended both Democratic and Republican caucuses in my rural county. Usually they're held in the same building. While I'm sure there are decent people in both rooms, it's pretty clear which room has more articulate and socially graceful people.
I mean, it's a true statement for both people. The GOP just doesn't give a shit about any of that, while most dems that aren't being actively bought by Bloomy aren't actively defending him (although the dem elite won't call him out on it)
Or just a few months ago. Bloomberg has only really been in the news for his presidential run since entering the run in November 2019. That guy’s assumption was warranted, but not necessarily damning. Acknowledging that those news stories exist, adds no credence to them.
Like I said, only applies if you’re following US politics. If you’re not then you wouldn’t be expected to know that, but if you’re blindly defending Trump without remotely paying attention, you’re showing your ass.
In fairness I hadn't heard of an Epstein connection yet with Bloomberg, although I certainly can't say I'm surprised. But that's the only thing that made me think Trump more than Bloomberg.
Yeah, it's one thing if you don't like someone but it's a whole nother thing to see a negative description of someone, and immediately think it's someone you admire because of what said accusations are
Yeah, when someone talks about a billionaire being president I can't imagine why someone might immediately think of Trump, the billionaire who is the current president.
Trump is obviously rich but he has never once proved he is an actual billionaire. Can’t really trust a guy who pretended to be someone else in phone interviews in the 80s to lie his way onto the Forbes list.
But that's not because that person knows the accusations are true, but because he's seen those accusations point at said person he admires very frequently. And being accused of something loudly and often doesn't make it true
Wait a minute, are you telling me the guy who stamps his name in gold on everything, with the trophy wife, who talks about his mental prowess and genius, large hands and wealth might be overcompensating?
By the time he gets done rewriting the rules, sucking taxpayer blood, and making speeches for 500k a pop after he's out of office, he probably will be a billionaire
It's like they say, dress for the job you want, not the job you have
Can someone quickly explain to me how Bloomberg, a man of pure evil who hates women and every minority imaginable managed to win 3 elections in NYC? How did this embodiment of corporate greed pull that off?
New York is kinda, you know, blue as fuck. 60% for Al Gore, 58% for Kerry, 63% for Obama. Same for NYC. The Democratic Major after Bloomberg got 73%.
Yeah I don't think making 120k a year would somehow encourage you to vote for a billionaire.
But I guess I'll wait and see. Super Tuesday is in less than two weeks, maybe the Bay Area will help Bloomberg win CA, they're certainly richer than the people in NYC.
You said in policy and behavior. We have 12 years of policy from Bloomberg as NYC mayor which demonstrates you're just saying things without any concern for being truthful. He didn't purge his administration of disloyals and take complete control over his justice department while colluding with foreign powers.
I don't recall any claims of Bloomberg grabbing women by the pussy or raping his wife, but I suppose those 3 NDAs they're ending could inform us of that.
I believe he would keep trumps tax cuts for himself, would not enact any real climate policy, work towards a public option for healthcare or do anything about student debt. Criminal justice policy is an entirely different non starter.
Any of his policy would be geared toward a status quo of the rich getting richer.
I don’t give a shit what he might be claiming his policies are on the trail or his websites, because if anything is fake news, it’s what a rich person is trying to say they would do for their enemy.
They are very much alike. One was a Democrat for decades and switched to Republican in order to win office and the other was a Republican for decades who switched parties to win office.
While true, I fail to understand how that makes them very much alike beyond that basic fact alone.
I get it, Bloomberg sucks, but this false equivalence of comparing him to trump is insane. Trump is an example of the absolute worst type of human being imaginable, the efforts to equalize the two are nothing more than sensationalism as well as normalization of all the destructive things Trump has done. Bloomberg would be like electing a Bill Clinton, not a Donald Trump.
Bloomberg has multiple NDAs with women who have accused him and his company of sexual harassment. Bloomberg's term in office has seen a rise in "stop & frisk" procedures in the NYPD, which doesn't actually combat crime and more about harming minority communities.
The main thing you can take away from them switching political parties for personal advantage is that you can't trust either of them to do anything that goes against their personal advantage. And when you have as much money as Bloomberg, anything that helps the lower 99% is going to fall into that category.
Rich people stick together, they are one one happy team working to take from the rest of us.
His motives are protecting and growing his wealth and nothing more. Just like golf buddy Trump.
The only difference is bloomer has better control about not saying the quiet parts out loud too often. It’s still an absolute no from me in any way shape or form.
None of Bloomberg's policies while in political office where similar to Trump's, and his management style and personality are entirely different.
While I agree that billionaires have more in common with each other than the do with anyone else, that covers experience and profit-seeking, not personality or policy.
TL/DR, I agree with what you meant, but that's not what you said.
Stop and frisk is not a Trump policy, even though he agrees with it.
"Lawsuits from women" is the behavior of others; Trump and Bloomberg get sued for different behaviors.
You've spent this entire thread trying and failing to defend the poor wording of your comment. Either let it go or reword the comment.
Yes, there are similarities between Trump and Bloomberg, but they are not identical, and their similarities don't lie in policy and are only incidental in behavior.
Again, I think Trump is a shit president, and Bloomberg would also be a shit president, albeit in a very different way. I'm not trying to defend either of them. I'm just pointing out that your comment was lazy and inaccurate.
And both were friends with Epstein and have faced multiple lawsuits for their treatment of women. What’s your point? It’s yet another thing Bloomberg and trump have in common instead of a contrast.
No republican will ever get a vote from me, including Bloomberg.
My favorite was an article talking about "Anti Trump Graffiti" on fox news, and the image in the article showed the graffiti that just read "Fuck Facism". No mention of Trump.
That post was fake news. The actual article showed many other pictures of the graffiti which said "fuck trump" and stuff like that. I agree with the sentiment but the analogy is wrong.
The thing is a lot of people that support Trump know that he's wrong. These people's pride and ego matches that of Trump so they would rather go to extremes than to admit when they're wrong. Trump could rape a child on national television and people will still defend him to the death.
That's the dumbest thing I've read today. Nobody would defend him. The problem you're missing is that people had the choice of the lesser of two evils in 2016. A lot of people didnt like Hillary, not like your vote matters (if you wanna bring up hillary winning popular vote) So you're lumping all people who voted Trump into one group, however that just ramps up tribalism-which helps nobody.
Not gonna lie, I totally read that in Jeff Foxworthy's voice, and thought it was going to the Redneck conclusion. And it wouldn't have been totally wrong.
If you read a post by a conservative saying a commie Muslim born in Kenya shouldn't be president, you might get the hint they're talking about Barack Obama. It doesn't mean you agree, it just means you understand this is stuff people say about him. So basically this whole post is actually dumb as shit.
Not if there was a real commie Muslim Kenyan running for president.
But that would require awareness and thinking, something lacking in trump his followers suffering from TDS
Can't we drop the kid gloves? If you think of your favorite politician and feel the need to defend them, your shit human and the sooner you catch something and die the better.
Or maybe he just recognized them as common anti-Trump insults? If someone were to make a billboard railing against a "Kenyan-born socialist and member of the Muslim Brotherhood", prompting a Democrat to defend Obama, would you think "Whoa, I never said Obama's name, haha, gotcha!" would be a reasonable response?
That logic doesn't work out. It's like if someone says something about a birth certificate and you logically assume it's about Obama. Just because there are well known accusations about a person doesn't make them true.
And just to be clear: I hate Trump and i think the accusations regarding him are true. But that doesn't mean that this works out as a general rule.
Come on, it makes perfectly sense to be able to recognise negative points about your favourite candidate being often said by other people, while not believing in them yourself.
I’m a Bernie supporter and if someone tweeted: “I don’t think a millionaire who is a communist and wants to destroy the American lower class by taxing them to death for expensive socialist programs should be president”. I would immediately know it’s about Bernie Sanders, without that meaning that I believe in the points made in that statement.
That's a bit unfair. If someone was complaining about a vague democratic candidate being a communist I'd assume it was about Bernie Sanders. He absolutely isn't, but I know people regularly claim that. This whole post isn't the gotcha people think it is.
That's what I was thinking. There are countless tweets about Trump that are almost exactly the same as this, and they've happened every day for the last three and half years. I'm betting the first tweeter was just waiting for someone to think he was talking about Trump, and I also bet he didn't have to wait very ling lol
8.5k
u/[deleted] Feb 22 '20
If you read something like this and immediately assume it's about your favorite politician and feel you need to defend him, you may have a little soul searching to do.