Discussion
  • Read More
    TRUMP DELENDUS EST (fka Chatham Harrison)Alex Pareene
    7/28/16 7:13pm

    For a party that is pushing for national paid family leave and ending the wage gap, Michael Bloomberg seems an odd person to invite into the big tent.

    If his endorsement moves the general election needle in Hillary’s direction by even a fraction of a percent, he’s worth one indifferently-received speech. Of course, whether or not he can deliver such a meaningful endorsement is no certainty itself.

    Regardless, Michael Bloomberg did not write this platform, and he is not running for any Democratic office. If he wants to endorse a Democrat, that’s his business. Let’s not treat this endorsement as anything more than what it is: one part of a dedicated, unrepentant effort to stop Donald Trump by getting as many “big” names as possible to oppose his candidacy—an effort that has an explicit interest in finding endorsements from prominent individuals who would otherwise be uninterested in supporting Hillary.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      handmadeproteinshakeTRUMP DELENDUS EST (fka Chatham Harrison)
      7/28/16 7:15pm

      Hey, if my candidate’s people do it, totally ok. But how if the kids across the isle do it, I’m ready to grab my pitchfork.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      SnagglepussTRUMP DELENDUS EST (fka Chatham Harrison)
      7/28/16 7:31pm

      He wasn’t there to support Hillary’s platform, just to see he’s a Republican, he thinks Hillary’s good, and that Trump isn’t sane. It was intentionally done to reach out to other Republicans and/or moderates. The fact it came from another NY billionaire who got threw a few gut punches at Trump’s expense is a a bonus.

      (Chris Mathews was saying Bloomberg was up there because every other NY billionaire/multi-millionare hates Trump and he’s up there speaking for them. Not necessarily the audience you’re going for but if you pay attention to how the richy riches conduct themselves, one going against another is a big deal)

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Endless Supply of CynicismAlex Pareene
    7/28/16 7:08pm

    Probably because if you talk about Bloomberg’s sexism at the DNC, you kinda gotta talk about Bill’s...

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      icanneverremembermyburnercodeEndless Supply of Cynicism
      7/28/16 7:32pm

      Nailed it.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      iusedtobesomeoneEndless Supply of Cynicism
      7/28/16 7:39pm

      Why? Bill isn’t running for office, either.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    TimF101Alex Pareene
    7/28/16 7:19pm

    He’s a Republican. He has to be some sort of asshole. If John McCain endorsed Hillary they would probably give him a speaking slot too.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      icanneverremembermyburnercodeTimF101
      7/28/16 7:32pm

      Actually he was a democrat for the majority of his life. He was a republican for seven years and for the last nine he's been an independent with democratic leanings.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      MalcireTimF101
      7/28/16 7:33pm

      He’s currently an independent.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    CharitybAlex Pareene
    7/28/16 7:14pm

    Jeez. I mean, I know why he was invited (they wanted to sic one New York billionaire on another) but damn, this is pretty negative stuff and it’s the kind of thing that Trump is deservedly lambasting for doing.

    That last part about mothers in the workplace is a key point in my opinion. The reality is that a policy doesn’t have to be explicitly sexist in order to have a sexist effect. When you have those extreme work environments — the kinds that require you to basically not take any time off — it means that women who take time off to give birth are going to be hit hard. Either directly, in terms of being punished for taking time off, or indirectly in the form of being passed over for career opportunities because they aren’t at work all the time. The same thing affects men as well, of course.

    This might be the next stage of the fight over paid leave for maternity and paternity, and it’s going to be interesting to see how it shakes out. Bloomberg seems like an old school workaholic in addition to sexist but I’m wondering if the new generation of business leaders and workers are going to have the same attitude towards work and family balance.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ObviousHuh20Charityb
      7/28/16 7:29pm

      I am by no means a workaholic. Therefore, I have no interest in working in a place like that. Why would a woman want to do so if she intended to have kids while working there? Or a man?

      I think work environments like that are insane, but some people clearly like or thrive in that environment, so why not leave it to them?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      CharitybObviousHuh20
      7/28/16 7:44pm

      Yeah, that’s going to be a big part of the debate too. I certainly don’t want to tell people they can’t work 12 hours a day 6 days a week as an analyst on Wall Street if they don’t want to, but I can also see how even work environments that are a lot less overtly extreme as that can have the same issues. If you have a work environment where taking more than a few days off gets you sidelined, it’s easy to see how that can screw over women who become pregnant. That can become a legal issue (disparate impact) and for many employers and employees it’s becoming culturally unacceptable. In my own industry I can see that change happening already; work life balance is becoming more important and the biggest firms are competing on things like maternity and paternity leave — things that were barely existent a generation ago.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ReburnsABurningReturnsAlex Pareene
    7/28/16 7:37pm

    Because conventions are not purity tests. They’re pageants designed to help propel your party into the general election run with a full head of steam.

    The point of having him speak was to point out that even someone that disagrees with many Democrats, and someone who is viewed by many Democrats as a deeply flawed techno-plutocrat recognizes that Donald Trump would be a bad President.

    And really, that is the most notable point about his speech. Here’s a guy who definitely, clearly takes issue with significant chunks of the Democratic platform, and even he thinks Clinton is the only reasonable choice. That’s how bad Trump is.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      You might be wrong.ReburnsABurningReturns
      7/28/16 8:00pm

      One doesn’t have to apply a “purity test” in order to just, you know, report on facts.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      angrybrownsocialistYou might be wrong.
      7/28/16 8:40pm

      Careful now, that sounds like dirty Bernie-Bro talk.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    MarmaladeTeardropsAlex Pareene
    7/28/16 7:26pm

    If the Democrats excluded all those accused of sexism, the convention hall would be half empty. So would the press box.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ReburnsABurningReturnsMarmaladeTeardrops
      7/28/16 7:40pm

      And they would have lost their headline speaker from two nights ago.

      But in all seriousness, has anyone who isn’t Ann Coulter or someone like her actually lobbed a meaningful sexism/sexual harassment complaint at President Obama?

      Maybe I’m giving him too much credit / am a bit of a fanboy for him, but he’s one of the few human beings I would be genuinely shocked to hear had done anything like that.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      MarmaladeTeardropsReburnsABurningReturns
      7/28/16 8:29pm

      I’d be shocked too. He’s too damned smart and, at least in part because of his race, very careful. The stakes were so much higher for him as a young man.

      Also — fangirling here — do you think Michelle would stand for any sad, stand-by-your-man mea culpa tours? I prefer to think she’d grab the girls and GO.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Josh SalaamAlex Pareene
    7/28/16 7:33pm

    The mainstream liberal media is NOT talking about the fact that Muslim Americans protested his involvement due to his history of placing Muslim neighborhoods and mosques in the New York(-ish) area.

    It’s not Donald Trump-level of odiousness, but it’s up there yet the DNC and the mainstream liberal media have completely ignored it.

    Another feather in Gawker’s cap. Well done (for bringing it to its audience attention; the statement that “much of the coverage” has noted it is suspect).

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      MalcireJosh Salaam
      7/28/16 7:35pm

      One could argue it was worse as he actually did it where as Trump hasn’t.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Josh SalaamJosh Salaam
      7/28/16 7:56pm

      ETA: ...due to his history of placing Muslim neighborhoods and mosques in the New York(-ish) area under surveillance.

      Ahem, oops.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Bill WeldonAlex Pareene
    7/28/16 7:22pm

    He has got a dick ok? He is a man with power and stuff gets in your head. He came of age in the sexist Mad Men era. I am sure he is not proud of the stuff he has been accused of doing. He is not perfect. But he is one hell of a businessman and that is something to be proud of. And he gave an awesome speech yesterday.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      You might be wrong.Bill Weldon
      7/28/16 8:02pm

      Literally everything you said applies to Trump.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      TakahashiBill Weldon
      7/28/16 8:22pm

      Are you talking about Trump or Bloomberg or Bill Clinton? They’re interchangeable in your comment.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    justachickAlex Pareene
    7/28/16 7:32pm

    Q:

    Why Hasn’t Anyone Mentioned Michael Bloomberg’s Long, Well-Documented History of Sexism?

    A:

    lots of people have, including this blog in plenty of places. what is the point of the question? it’s obvious he’s stumping to attract swing votes. Are people worried about sexism going to vote for trump or something? no. but are economic conservative social centerists at risk to voting trump? you bet. who ever invited him accepted a calculated risk, and i think it makes sense.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      icanneverremembermyburnercodejustachick
      7/28/16 8:29pm

      I don’t know a single republican outside of New York that considers Bloomberg as anything other than a piece of shit. The only swing voters that he would bring are from New York which Hillary doesn’t need to win there anyways.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      StingingVelvetjustachick
      7/28/16 9:01pm

      I’m an economic Conservative who has voted Democrat since 2004 because Republicans are awful. I’m sure if I got on stage and detailed my views most people here would boo me, but I’m probably voting for Clinton and those people need me to.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    firemonkey1313Alex Pareene
    7/28/16 7:28pm

    Why isn’t anyone talking about that spying on Muslims thing? Oh yeah, because dems only pretend to care about civil liberties.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      TheRealFrying_slothfiremonkey1313
      7/28/16 8:49pm

      Why the astroturfers are out in force on this one.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Gaying Mantis Tobogganfiremonkey1313
      7/28/16 8:56pm

      I’m sure an autocrat praising, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia spewing Trump will be great for civil liberties because he won’t have to pretend he even cares.

      Reply
      <