Mike Bloomberg could team up with Hillary Clinton to try to take down President Trump in November — by making her his running mate.
Bloomberg’s internal polling found the combo “would be a formidable force,” sources close to the campaign told the Drudge Report Saturday.
Bloomberg’s communications director did not deny the rumored matchmaking effort.
“We are focused on the primary and the debate, not VP speculation,” Jason Schechter said in a statement.
But minutes after Drudge broke the news, Bloomberg himself posted a coy message about working with female colleagues.
“I would not be where I am today without the talented women around me,” he tweeted. “I’ve depended on their leadership, their advice and their contributions.”
(cont. NY Post)
Before I start, let me just be clear: the only reason I “care” about this at all is because so many of y’all were so antsy to get off a hot take to the internet as quickly as possible with digs about Hillary Clinton. We not just finna drag that old woman every time a baseless rumor pops up because she ain’t did nothing to y’all but try to save us from THIS current shitstorm we’re wading through okay? But let me just go on ahead and let y’all in on all sides of this non-story so you can draw your own conclusions.
Exhibit A: Bloomberg and Hillary like each other.
They were just out and about in December with a group of rich white folks celebrating somebody’s birthday in New York. She was a NY Senator when he was the Mayor of NYC. They’ve run in the same circles for at least 20 years now.
They’re not Obama and Uncle Joe, but they do have public chemistry and you can imagine the two of them working side by side for the next four years.
Put a Plus One in the column for They’re Running Together.
Exhibit B: Bloomberg would need a Progressive.
Remember how Hillary beat Sanders for the nomination and four years later we still have a lot of progressive folks in the party reminding us every chance they get that she stole the nomination from Sanders, that Sanders would have beat Trump, that centrism wasn’t the way to go, etc. Can you imagine the fallout if Michael Billionaire Racist Bloomberg was the conservative “liberal” who beat Sanders this time? And then had the nerve to pick the woman who beat Sanders the last time? Bloomberg is a lot of things, but stupid isn’t one of them.
Put a Plus One in the column for They’re Absolutely Not Running Together.
Exhibit C: Speaking of racism…
Superpredators vs. Throw them up against the wall. These are two very old white people with very inflammatory statements about Black folks in the public record. Hillary’s superpredator comments were downplayed during her run, but I promise you if she linked up with Bloomberg, both of their comments together would be magnified ten times over.
Another Plus One for Not Running Together.
Exhibit D: Trump might actually implode if they were on the same ticket.
Tom Steyer is a billionaire who can get under Trump’s skin. Elizabeth Warren is a wordsmith unafraid of confrontation who can get under Trump’s skin. Michael Bloomberg is a billionaire wordsmith unafraid of confrontation who comes with an added layer of belonging to the same social circles as Donald Trump. He can annoy that man like no other because Bloomberg is what Trump wishes he was — an actual billionaire businessman accepted by New York City’s Elite, not a bumbling buffoon being laughed at by the same people he’s been trying to impress since the 1980s.
For her part, Hillary has just run out of f*cks to give. She has been needling that man for the past two years and he loses it every time. If the two of them together took on Trump, he might actually snatch his wig off and throw a tantrum on the White House lawn.
Plus One for Running Together.
Exhibit E: The 12th Amendment
A lot of people who say Clinton and Bloomberg can’t run together erroneously point to the 12th Amendment to support their conclusion, but most people understand this part incorrectly:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves
They’re both from New York so I’ve seen people say they can’t run together because of this, but that’s not what it means. The electors from New York can’t vote for both of them, but the electors from every other state can. This was set up to prevent electors from trying to install “two favorite sons” from their own state in the White House. If they were from a smaller state they may consider running anyway, but because New York has a lot of electors, obviously Bloomberg and Clinton wouldn’t forfeit all those votes by running together as two people from New York. Even though the reasoning is off, the conclusions are still correct in assuming the 12th Amendment would keep them off the same ticket.
Hillary can change her residency before declaring. That’s what Dick Cheney did. He sold his house in Dallas and got a driver’s license from Wyoming where he had a vacation home so he could run with Dubbya and not forfeit all of Texas’s electoral votes. Hillary could essentially do the same thing so…
Put a One in both columns. It’s a wash.
Exhibit F: This is the most important point — Hillary Clinton is more ambitious than this.
There are a lot of things you can say about Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton but “someone who settles for less” is not one of them (and most of the other things I’ll probably ignore anyway because I drank the Kool Aid back in 2000 when she WOULD have run for President if her husband hadn’t screwed up the plan by sleeping with his intern, getting impeached, and making Hillary look like a fool in front of the whole country).
Hillary Clinton has been one or two steps from the Presidency multiple times. She was Secretary of State and her husband’s number one policy adviser. She would not take a demotion just to be less powerful than she’s been before. She would not jump into the lion’s den of criticism and not-so-thinly-veiled disdain for a thankless title. Hillary has been dragged by journalism for her hair, her face, her ankles, her attitude, the sound of her voice, and her audacity(!) since the 1980s. This is a woman who changed everything about her public image — including finally taking her husband’s last name, which she hadn’t originally — because the public made it very clear to her that she was not wanted the way she was and if she wanted the top job (her goal was always to be President) she would have to accept the beatings, make changes, and press forward.
She has pressed forward as far as she is going to press. She tried to turn the position of First Lady into a political post by putting forth healthcare legislation. It didn’t work, so she played the role the way America wanted it to be played to wait out her time and run for President once her husband was on his way out. It didn’t work, thanks to Bill, so she ran for Senate instead to use that as a springboard to the nomination. It didn’t work, because no one could’ve beat Obama, so she accepted a Secretary of State post in his administration to use that as a springboard to the White House. It didn’t work, because we elected Trump instead. The political trajectory has always been aim higher, do more, use this setback as a step UP to the next position. Hillary Clinton would never step DOWN to Vice President.
Plus One in the column for They’re Not Running. Plus Three in that column. Plus One Hundred in that column.
Hillary Clinton would never run for Vice President. Period.
Go drag somebody else for awhile and let that lady have her tweets and her soundbytes. She plays coy with the press because it gives her something to do. Your retired grandma is just as messy but without the national spotlight, so Nana Hillary is alright by me.
The DNC won’t add weed and healthcare to the platform.
The United States is not a democracy.
The Democratic National Committee has been voting on the 2020 platform, and if you’ve been mystified (and upset!) about the outcome, you’re not alone. You would think that in a democracy, if the majority of people want something, our delegates and elected officials would speak on behalf of the people work to make that something come to fruition.
Unfortunately, the United States is not a democracy.
Marijuana is legal in 11 states and the District of Columbia. Across the country, grassroots organizations are working to decriminalize and legalize marijuana because there is no reason for it to be classified as a Schedule I drug alongside heroin and bath salts. Nobody ever ate a face high on marijuana. The continued vilification of marijuana is a holdover from the racist Refer Madness days of yore where lawmakers convinced everybody that Black men would smoke weed, turn into King Kong, and steal their white women. That racism never really went away. Who gets arrested for smoking weed and who doesn’t? Who is in jail for smoking weed and who gets to open dispensaries?
Given that history, it’s not a surprise that liberal-minded people have moved toward legalizing marijuana. In 1969, support for legalization was 12%. In 1977, it was 28%. Not much changed for the next couple of decades — support for legalization didn’t pass 30% until 2000. However, between 2000 and now, support has grown to 66%. A clear majority of Americans want marijuana to be legal, and among Democrats support is at 76%. (Even Republicans have tipped over into the majority with 51%.)
The DNC voted against adding marijuana legalization to the platform.
The draft version of the platform supports decriminalizing marijuana use and legalizing medical marijuana, adding that it should be left up to the states “to make their own decisions about recreational use.”
The platform was unlikely to ever endorse full legalization, since Joe Biden, the presumptive nominee, does not back the policy. He supports federal decriminalization, which would take away incarceration for possession.
But Dennis Obduskey, a delegate who introduced the legalization amendment during the meeting of the DNC’s platform committee, noted that the current document is a step back from the 2016 platform, which supported “providing a reasoned pathway for future legalization.”
A majority of the country wants legal weed. A hefty majority of Democratic voters wants legal weed. Biden does not want legal weed and the delegates fall in line behind him.
Medicare for All
Wouldn’t it be nice to live in a country where, if you got sick, you could go to the doctor without worrying about whether you’ll go bankrupt? In the middle of a deadly pandemic, wouldn’t it be great to be able to go to your local healthcare provider and ask for a coronavirus test without insurance? (We can do that here in NYC, but in many places in the US, you need insurance or you need to be an essential worker or both.)
The rest of the country thinks so too. 66% of voters support Medicare for All — that’s 46% of Republicans (because you know how they are) and a whopping 88% of Democrats. There aren’t a whole lot of things you can get 88% of a group to agree on, but clearly Americans who are voting Democrats into office want Medicare for All.
The DNC is not adding it to the platform.
Here’s my Sitting On My Beanbag Chair With No Expertise opinion. We’ve seen things like this happen before, where it seems a majority of us want one thing and our officials ignore that in favor of what’s good for them or their career. Our politicians are beholden to donors, so if we want more money for solar energy but the oil guy is paying for the campaign, we don’t get more money for solar energy. This doesn’t quite feel the same.
Instead, I feel like I’m being taken for granted, that my vote is a given, and the party and platform feels free to capitulate to the minority of loud, moderate, and reliable voters. I don’t have any insights to their actual process, so feel free to draw your own conclusions, but it looks to me that the DNC is playing the odds, and those odds are against the majority because most of us will in fact support the party even if the platform isn’t as progressive as we all want and deserve.
There’s no medicare and no weed, but I’m still going to do my best to make sure we get Democrats elected as opposed to Republicans. I’m not going to sit out, because there’s too much at stake. On the other hand, the moderates who would be upset by free healthcare and legal marijuana could in fact turn away, withdraw their support, and just sit at home. They’re not as upset at the direction of the country, so they don’t have the same fiery desire to make sure we do in fact get as many Republicans out of office as possible. Those moderates are older and they more reliably turn up to the polls. So the DNC looks at it and says, “here are these people who always vote and work for us who MIGHT NOT VOTE if we make changes, and here are these people who vote sometimes and they’ll work whether or not we make changes.”
And the only way to change those odds and that thought process is to actually show up. We go through this every couple of years and at some point it has to stick — young people, you have to vote. People who will be dead before you even throw out some of your spices are building the country you have to live in for the next 4 or 5 decades because you don’t vote. And the DNC makes undemocratic decisions like these, against the will of the majority, because the minority turns out over and over.
No one cares about the lunch lady.
What’s going to be the mortality rate for cafeteria workers when schools reopen?
There are a couple of viral tweets going around painting Betsy DeVos as a callous monster for wanting to re-open the schools.
Betsy DeVos says that "only" 0.02% of children will probably die as a result of schools re-opening.— madeline lane-mckinley (@la_louve_rouge_) July 12, 2020
That's 14,740 children.
That's about 40 times the number of school shooting victims from the last 10 years.
So, Betsy Devos today said "only" .02% of kids are likely to die when they go back to school.— James Scott (@Jscott1145) July 12, 2020
That's 14,740 children.
✏️Welcome 📚 back! 📝
As far as I’ve been able to find, a doctor made that prediction, not Betsy, and I’m not even sure how he came to those numbers because the death rate for children under 18 is actually lower than 0.02%. Still, let’s be very clear. Betsy DeVos is definitely a monster, but she should be going viral because of the full scope of the picture, not one dubious figure.
The economy can’t reopen because there’s nowhere for children to go. Parents can’t leave their kids at home alone while they go back to work, so until they’re back in school, the country won’t start running again. That is the main concern for this administration.
The people who have the means to keep their children home away from public school are mostly white and mostly middle class. This is also great for DeVos because she doesn’t want those kids in school with poor and/or brown kids anyway.
A lot of teachers would rather retire or quit than go back to school next month, and that’s also great for DeVos because if public schools perform poorly, she can more righteously throw her weight behind the charter system she loves so much.
But Betsy DeVos and the whole lot of them are ignoring the lunch ladies.
I grew up in a very rural school district where my graduating class would have been around 80 people (I didn’t graduate with them though because I left for boarding school). I don’t remember the names of any of the janitors in any of the schools I went to growing up. The ones I can clearly build an image of in my mind were 40-year-old Black men, but they were in the background of my upbringing, neither praised nor maligned.
I don’t remember my first bus driver but she was a white woman with a long ponytail and a son named Brian who bullied me on the way home from school every day until I fought back. She kicked me off the bus and my mom had to pick me up for the rest of the year. My second bus driver a few years later was a cheerful Black woman. I remember a lot about her because she was also the computer teacher — that’s what happens in rural school districts, a lot of double duty. They were both in their 40s, but there were a few older bus drivers as well. My mom drove a school bus in her 60s just for something extra to do because she was tired of doing so much hair (she owned a salon). I don’t think anybody hated the bus drivers — except James Harris. I definitely hated James Harris because he was an asshole and I don’t care if anybody from my childhood is reading this. James Harris was an asshole.
One of the 3rd grade teachers went to high school with my mom and she was in her 40s when I came through. My 3rd grade teacher was almost 60 though. My 6th grade science teacher and 7th grade math teacher were both about 60 as well. The rest seemed old at the time, but they were generally under 40. Most of my teachers were nice women and I have pretty fond memories of them growing up.
I don’t have any fond memories of any of the cafeteria workers. They were mean old ladies who gave me nasty food. The square pizza would be burnt. The chicken rings would be rubbery. I’ve never had chocolate milk that tastes like that outside of a school cafeteria. A peanut butter and jelly sandwich should actually have some jelly in it. And did I mention they were mean? Because they definitely were. When one of the Poor Kids didn’t have the quarter to pay for reduced breakfast, they didn’t get any food, and I felt like it was the mean old ladies’ fault. Lunch was a break from the day, but they would yell at us for just being kids. Why do we have to be so quiet?!
It’s not just me. The lunch lady is the most maligned adult from our childhoods. It’s hard to find nice cartoons about the lunch lady, but these are endless.
As an adult, it’s easier to look back at the cafeteria workers and stand in solidarity with what they go through. Most of those women have cooked for their families for decades. They know their way around the kitchen as much as any other 60-year-old Southern woman, but they were forced to feed us what was stipulated by the guidelines and the budget. They couldn’t give free food to the unfortunate and they didn’t make enough money to feed them out of their own pocket. They sometimes didn’t make enough money to feed themselves, and they’d be punished if they took leftovers (which are supposed to be thrown away per school district regulations, not taken home to feed your family). And if they were a little grumpy from time to time, they had the right to be. It’s a thankless job serving terrible food to children who disrespect you. Also, put yourself in this common scenario: You’re an older woman whose husband has been laid off or passed away, and you have to find a job with no work history. You can either greet at Wal-Mart or serve cold corn at the elementary school.
When schools open, kids will be spreading the coronavirus around like Skittles. As a general rule, children are disgusting germ factories. They’re always leaking and touching things and they’re mysteriously sticky at all times. And they cough like this:
I don’t understand what a school day is supposed to look like. Disney went through all this work to make their park Social Distance Friendly and they’re requiring people to wear masks and the system is already breaking down, but how do you do that in a school? The desks are right next to each other and there’s no way to spread them out. How do you make a class of 25 wear a mask all day long when it takes ten minutes just to get them in a straight line to go to recess?
When the kids start to get sick, some of your children will die. The ones who don’t die will hop on a packed school bus and kill some of the bus drivers. They’ll walk by the janitor who cleans when the halls are mostly empty. They will sit in class all day with a teacher trying to hide behind a shield, but some of them will die too.
Then their midday reprieve from learning and breathing in a mask will be in the school cafeteria where they’re yelling at each other and spraying germs on the grumpy old lady serving the food nobody likes. She’s wearing a mask, but they aren’t. She’s wearing gloves, but they haven’t washed their hands well. She’s keeping her distance, but she’s stuck in that cavern of corona with recycled air for the 3 or 4 hours it takes for all the classes to have lunch.
What’s going to be the mortality rate for the lunch ladies?
Sarah Palin’s death panels are finally here.
And they have nothing to do with Obamacare.
Flattening the curve is the strategy we were told to implement to keep from overwhelming the healthcare system. I’m not sure when that messaging got lost, but the death rate in Italy was so high because they didn’t have the ability to treat all of the infections, not because the virus itself was so much more deadly. When covidiots respond to articles about the uptick in infections with statements about how low the death rate is, they are correct. The death rate is lower in these hotspots than we expected, because we have the ability to treat the sick.
What happens when there is no more space to treat them? The bodies start to pile up, and that’s the next uptick we’ll see, because hospitals have run out of beds and doctors have to make on the spot decisions about who receives care and who doesn’t.
You have ten people who will die if you don’t save them. How do you pick which three? Doctors are not equipped to do that and no one should have to pick and choose who dies because the government failed to protect the public. The government decided it was more important to put people back to work and the government has decided these are the talking points they’re going to arm their supporters and coronvirus deniers with:
- The number of infections is up because we’re doing more testing.
The percentage of infections is up because more people are getting sick. If one in ten tests came back positive and now one in four come back positive, that has nothing to do with the number of tests you’re doing and everything to do with the rate of infection, which is sky rocketing.
- The death rate is low because it’s mostly young people getting sick.
Don’t young people know old people who will then get sick? And what happens when those young people need medical care and there’s no space for them?
- Most people recover.
Just because I’m going to recover from something doesn’t mean I want to get it in the first place. I can recover from a broken leg, but it really really hurts, so I avoid breaking my leg. Some people are sick for weeks. Some have lasting neurological deficits. Some people still can’t breathe well. And a lot of those people recover because there was space in the hospital.
Since we are running out of space, despite what any covidiot tells you, we have to decide who gets treatment and who doesn’t.
Enter, the death panels. Along with a further dumbing down of political discourse, Sarah Palin left us with the phrase “death panels” which she coined herself in a Facebook post back in 2009 where she railed against Obamacare.
The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society
The Right took it and ran with it. The Affordable Care Act was especially heinous because sick people would have to parade themselves in front of paper pushers who would decide whether they live or die. They would have to beg bureaucrats for the right to receive healthcare. Every time the Republicans try to repeal Obamacare, these death panels are mentioned again, panels that have never come to fruition.
Until now. If Sarah Palin defines a death panel as a group of people deciding how productive someone will be to society, then Arizona’s coronavirus scorecards are death panels. They grade people based on their general health and life expectancy. The sicker you are, the older you are, the higher your score, and the lower your priority on the care list.
Flattening the curve would’ve prevented this. Arizona is a Republican state with a Republican governor and they have rolled out the dreaded death panels in response to a situation they created themselves. In the 11 years since Sarah Palin gave the GOP their main talking point against Obamacare, we haven’t seen a death panel of any sort. In the 4 months since COVID-19 hit our shores, we have a formal death panel in Arizona and instant death panel calculations going on in ICUs across the country as doctors grapple with the reality that they cannot treat every patient who needs life-saving measures.
But at least people can go to Applebee’s.
Why don’t we say “Ebonics” anymore?
Watch: Diana Ross “Ninety-Nine and a Half”
The DNC won’t add weed and healthcare to the platform.
Why don’t we say “Ebonics” anymore?
No one cares about the lunch lady.
Florida has 7% of new COVID-19 cases…on the planet.
Race2 months ago
How to respond to “riots never solve anything!”
LGBT1 month ago
Fire Island said “what pandemic?”
Pop Culture11 months ago
Today I Learned: Betty White Gave Arthur Duncan His Start
Race2 months ago
How to respond to “but look at all the Black on Black murders in Chicago!”
Race7 days ago
Why don’t we say “Ebonics” anymore?
LGBT2 months ago
We’re getting our first openly gay Black congressmen — two of them.
Race1 month ago
There is no “both sides” argument for racism.
LGBT1 month ago
Valentina Sampaio, Sports Illustrated, and trans women under the male gaze.