"The Democratic party is really not required to have any sort of fair process for deciding their candidate for president. It can be as transparently crooked and disgusting as this and really that's just how he chose to operate within the legal frameworks established by folks like him."

So what though? What point is this rebutting? If a process is crooked and disgusting then damn straight you're gonna have people complaining about it and demanding they do better, as you see here.

My point is rebutting the point made by the poster before me, who said there was a real story here.

I disagree. This is somewhat par for the course. For many people, this could be the first time they experience the disappointment of how corrupt folks like Bloomberg operate within the political sphere. However, these people would be incorrect to chalk this up as historically or even politically noteworthy, for many of us this is rather unsurprising and the story has already been told many times. Why rehash these tired tropes when Bloomberg presents so many new, unique, and significant issues that we now must address?

That the process is crooked and disgusting is absolutely the realest story that there is here. Again, I don't understand your point. You're just being dismissive and accepting of a bad status quo for no reason other than that you (but not others!) are resigned to it.

In other words, just because you don't care doesn't mean that others don't. And the news isn't writing stories catering to solely your interests; there's millions of other readers to consider.

>> He'll be on the debate stage tonight as a legitimized candidate -- having not participated in the competitive process at all, and without a single donor (doesn't need 'em), and levering his billions to flood media.

> You know, I strongly disagree with Bloomberg, having lived through his reign of terror in NYC personally. But I just don't see the point in focusing on this kind of attack.

I think there are two issues here:

1) candidate Bloomberg himself, and

2) systemic flaws that are offensive to small-d democratic sensibilities, of which Bloomberg is a representative and symbol.

The point of that kind of attack is to bring focus on the systemic flaws. Also, at this point, many more people are probably attuned to those flaws than they are to the candidate himself (as only New Yorkers have really had to care about him, previously).

> The Democratic party is really not required to have any sort of fair process for deciding their candidate for president. It can be as transparently crooked and disgusting as this...

It can be, but not having a fair process turns off a lot of voters, and makes others angry. Doubly so if that lack of fair process means they'll be forced to choose between two bad options.

His reign of terror? Which specific policies did he enact?

How about the current racist with his reign of corruption and racism?

Stop & frisk.

He didn't enact and he stopped it. I assume you aren't from NYC, stop & frisk pre dates Bloomberg by a decade.

He didn't enact it, but it was a signature policy of his, and he pushed it hard. There were twice as many stops his final year in office as there were his first year. It is only a reduction if you compare it to his penultimate year, when there were 7x as many stops as his first year.

This claim he reduced it is a key talking point of his campaign, and an outright lie. He was defending it literally up until the moment he decided to run for president (defending it publicly for years until October 2019, then apologizing in November 2019 when he announced his campaign).

> and he stopped it.

Assume what you want, but that claim is just false. He also defended it for years even after it was ruled unconstitutional.

Stop and frisk is only the tip of the iceberg, by the way.

Lol he greatly expanded it, what are you talking about.

I wouldn't say its an attack on Bloomberg, it was the DNC who choose to changed their policy to allow him on their debate stage. They didn't have to do that.

No and bloomberg would continue to skate by with no challenges if they didn't, where as the other candidates are going through a meat grinder.

Pick your lesser evil

No, some people still stand by ethical principles, and appreciate the irony of the process taken by the "Democratic" party

In the US the Democratic and Republican parties are both democratic and republican - the names don't mean much taken literally.