It is also a highly privileged thing to say.
My question is, can we even go back to the closed-door corruption of the previous administrations?
Please tell me how being suspect of a registered Republican who as recently as 2016 called transwomen “men wearing dresses” is privileged.
If we take enough power away from Republicans, and actually enforce and expand anti-corruption enforcement, then yes. The corrupt will go back to being sneaky about it.
Because him being a bigot personally, but not wanting to enact it in public policy while saying that he is the same or worse than Trump, who has and will continue to oppress trans folk in public policy shows that you have not been impacted by those restrictions and are unconcerned about further Trump oppression of trans people.
Yes, I’m unconcerned about Trump’s oppression of trans people. It definitely hasn’t been on my mind when I’m thinking about transitioning. I have no idea of what could possibly be effecting trans people or the challenges they experience on a daily basis.
Also, you are ignoring abortion rights, people dying in unnecessary wars, child separation and ICE gone wild, etc.
ETA: If you actually watch the video, he says that other people think that way and that it is up to the “intelligencia” to fight against that.
I mean if we want to take people’s speeches completely out of context, I can make Sanders say some really crazy stuff.
There is enough BS stuff out there on Bloomberg to not have to cut conversations in a way that make it out of context.
That’s not what he said. He said very clearly, that one is a good salesman if they can sell the idea that a man wearing a dress should use a locker room with your daughter. He didn’t say “you need to sell the idea that transwomen are women” or “transwomen aren’t actually a threat”. He very clearly internalized the idea that this is the case, and that it just needs to be sold to the dumb dumb midwesterners.
BTW, wrt to minority rights, you don’t have to listen to me on that front
You can make a fair point that a Bloomberg presidency could be dangerous to trans people.
A Trump presidency is more dangerous to trans people. And is specifically dangerous to a large number of other classes of oppressed people.
I’m not excusing any bullshit a Democrat said. I’m saying that it is disingenuous at best, and dangerous at worst, to even hint at the two sides being equivalently dangerous in any context.
Michael Bloomberg is a Republican
Yeah he sucks. Nobody is saying he doesn’t.
We’re saying that despite being awful, he’s still a significantly better option compared to the pile of diarrhea on fire that is our current president. It’s not about how good Bloomberg is, because he’s not. It’s about how bad Trump is. He’s just that much worse.
Even Ronald Reagan is better than Trump. That how bad Trump is.
I still believe everything will get better when enough old people die. It just might still get worse before it gets better.
He says that they (red staters) think that trans women are just men in dresses, but that the intelligencia need to be good salesmen to disabuse them of that thinking.
You are really advocating purging human beings? Disgusting.
Hey uh that’s fucked up.
I’ll be more clear. If Republicans continue to attack the welfare state, that directly impacts the health of their main voter base. Ditto for social security, minimum wage, and everything else. I’m surprised we haven’t hit the wall yet, but it’s coming where the aging Boomer population will begin to be aggressively impacted by the social and economic climate they’ve created. They are going to experience ageism soon, and it will probably be the first time in their lives they experience prejudice. In the same way that we must destroy their misinformation about “nationalism” and other fascist propaganda, we need to head this wave off and ensure they do not deflect the real blame they deserve for their situation as blank prejudice.
Thanks for clarifying.
I’m going to be blunt, “Bloomberg is just as bad as Trump” is at best needlessly reductionist and at worst a bad-faith argument. I am no fan of racist-ass billionaires, and I believe in aggressive wealth redistribution because no person can amass that fortune and still be a friend of the working class, but there is nuance, and it is the height of intellectual dishonesty to wash that nuance away.
The Sanders campaign and its attendant ardent supporters have been repeatedly accused of lacking nuance and failing to account for differences that may be important to others, and that is entirely at work here. Reducing everything to a class issue while ignoring differences within specific classes has been a constant critique, to which I have not seen an adequate response. It’s the largest critique I see from the PoC camp, and here we are again erasing important differences because class trumps all according to Sanders.
It’s not that simple. If it were, we wouldn’t have racial inequality in the middle class. People want that addressed, and the Sanders message is consistently seen as blowing past or dismissing that. “Bloomberg is just as bad as Trump” is literally the same problematic thought process applied to a different arena. Learn to recognize and combat it or you will literally tank your own movement.
You want to criticize Bloomberg, let’s talk about why he’s not trying to run as Republican to unseat Trump, or why he isn’t using his vast wealth to unseat GOP Senators in key races. We can criticize those things left and right without falling into the intellectually lazy trap of “both sides” or “billionaires can’t be trusted.”
I don’t want to vote for Bloomberg and I am working everywhere I can to make sure that’s not the case, but for the love of fuck you are actually making it harder to make that reality happen by erasing any and all nuance from the discussion.