Bloomberg for President?

Childlike Empress said:
Basic search (using the leading quotation mark and putting one before the first [name redacted]) hit a "Nymag" article from 2001 which reveals that [name redacted] is Jane Fonda.
Click to expand...
But that article actually says that it's own source is dubious. More than once even, including immediately after the mention of Jane Fonda.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
But that article actually says that it's own source is dubious. More than once even, including immediately after the mention of Jane Fonda.
Click to expand...


Yeah, sorry, I should have spend a few seconds to read the actual thing.

the actual thing said:
The artifact came in the form of a photocopied booklet with the title The Portable Bloomberg: The Wit and Wisdom of Michael Bloomberg – 32 pages of Bloomberg quips, anecdotes, and aphorisms with occasional illustrations – dated February 14, 1990 [...]
Click to expand...
 
From Mike's press release:

https://www.mikebloomberg.com/news/bernies-new-bro-donald-trump

Naming some of Bernie's campaign staff and surrogates:

In just the past week, Bernie Sanders’ National Press Secretary Briahna Joy Gray, Senior Advisor David Sirota, and National Campaign Co-Chair Nina Turner have referred to Mike as a “racist” and an “oligarch,” implied Donald Trump is better than a fellow Democatic candidate for president, and called Bloomberg supporters “enablers".

“If you wouldn’t even condone a tweet criticizing a racist authoritarian like Bloomberg, you are a fence sitting enabler of the worst variety and have no business holding yourself holding yourself out as a Democrat — much less a progressive.” [Twitter, @briebriejoy, 2/16/20]

“Oligarch of the Month: Michael Bloomberg.” [Twitter, @ninaturner, 2/3/20]

“Moreover, we have no reason to believe Bloomberg’s newfound political commitments. He has demonstrated a willingness to change his stripes with the political winds, and because (sic) he’s self funded, is literally accountable to no one. The danger he presents can not be overstated.” [Twitter, @briebriejoy, 2/13/20]

“Trump will say he has a better record on criminal justice than Bloomberg. And he may be right.” [Twitter, @briebriejoy, 2/16/20]

“I’m told Mike Bloomberg isn’t an “oligarch” — he’s just a billionaire who buys elections and is a “part-time resident” of a foreign tax haven.” [Twitter, @davidsirota, 2/5/20]

“I may not have a PhD (yet!) but I DO have the good sense of knowing what makes for Oligarchy. Anyone caping for a BILLIONAIRE (with a media company) able to buy endless ads & influence party rules halfway through is PRECISELY a perpetuator of the corrupt system — ie an Oligarch!” [Twitter, @ninaturner, 2/3/20]
Click to expand...

Where's the lie here? These all seem like spot-on criticisms of Mike and very much fair play.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
https://twitter.com/amandawgolden/status/1229775145490776064?s=20



https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/1229778451508449281?s=20
Click to expand...

That second tweet doesn't seem fair or rational to me, even as a joke.

Bloomberg isn't cheating the way the Laughlins cheated.

The DNC made certain rules at the start of the primary season, based on the size of the field and the way it looked like that field would race at that time. Bloomberg entered the field later, and is running his race a bit differently. But he's getting support. Should he and his supporters be locked out of the official DNC campaign events, just because the original rules didn't provide for this contingency?

I don't think so. I don't think it's cheating for the DNC to say, "here's a candidate who entered the race by a route we didn't foresee; we should recognize that he's in the race, and include him in the debates."
 
theprestige said:
That second tweet doesn't seem fair or rational to me, even as a joke.

Bloomberg isn't cheating the way the Laughlins cheated.

The DNC made certain rules at the start of the primary season, based on the size of the field and the way it looked like that field would race at that time. Bloomberg entered the field later, and is running his race a bit differently. But he's getting support. Should he and his supporters be locked out of the official DNC campaign events, just because the original rules didn't provide for this contingency?

I don't think so. I don't think it's cheating for the DNC to say, "here's a candidate who entered the race by a route we didn't foresee; we should recognize that he's in the race, and include him in the debates."
Click to expand...

Have to agree. Since the party doesn't really have any real way from preventing him from running as a Democrat, they shouldn't be trying to exclude him from the debate. The point of debate cut-off rules is to prevent the stage from being clogged with non-viable candidates that would take time away from real contenders.

Like it or not, he's polling as a viable candidate.

It's probably a good thing that he's going to be in the debate. It's a good opportunity for his opponents to counter his ad narrative.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Have to agree. Since the party doesn't really have any real way from preventing him from running as a Democrat, they shouldn't be trying to exclude him from the debate. The point of debate cut-off rules is to prevent the stage from being clogged with non-viable candidates that would take time away from real contenders.

Like it or not, he's polling as a viable candidate.

It's probably a good thing that he's going to be in the debate. It's a good opportunity for his opponents to counter his ad narrative.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, since the race is no longer so clogged and he is achieving some traction, it would be foolish to leave Bloomberg out of the debate. And as you say, leaving him out will only be an advantage for him.
 
I think being in the debate is the worst thing that can happen to Bloomberg. His budget and ads aren't gonna help him up there, and he'll have to answer for his years of racist policies.
 
The question is how hard do they want to come after him? I'm sure they'd love to leave him whimpering, curled up in the fetal position, but at the same time they want his resources to be available in the event they get the nomination. It's kind of the same balancing act they've been trying to do with Bernie. They know they have to attack him, but at the same time they're terrified of losing the election if the Bernie Bros get so pissed off that they sit on their hands in November.

Warren has no choice but to go after Bloomberg, and she's probably in the best position to do it, because she doesn't have a lot of racial issues in her past, unlike Klobuchar (former prosecutor) and Buttigieg (the whole police and fire chief thing).

Bernie may elect to stay above the fray; since the others will be doing the heavy lifting for him. He's probably hoping that the race boils down to him and Bloomberg, since he can frame it as a war for the soul of the Democrats.
 
Brainster said:
Bernie may elect to stay above the fray; since the others will be doing the heavy lifting for him. He's probably hoping that the race boils down to him and Bloomberg, since he can frame it as a war for the soul of the Democrats.
Click to expand...
Great.. the "soul of the democrats" will be a race between a journeyman politician who has shifted from the republicans to the democrats, and an individual who only associates with the democrats when he thinks it will be beneficial.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
He's already shown he can effectively answer charges.
Click to expand...

I strenuously disagree. His claim that he was “unaware” of the damage Stop and Frisk was causing, despite the interviews, testimonies, protests, and lawsuits, is either a lie or an admission of absolute incompetence, for example. His Muslim spy program, which produced nothing of value has also not been explained as far as I know, as another (of several).
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
He's already shown he can effectively answer charges.
Click to expand...

That's it then? Just handwaved away?

Mumbles said:
I strenuously disagree. His claim that he was “unaware” of the damage Stop and Frisk was causing, despite the interviews, testimonies, protests, and lawsuits, is either a lie or an admission of absolute incompetence, for example. His Muslim spy program, which produced nothing of value has also not been explained as far as I know, as another (of several).
Click to expand...

Yeah, someone posted a video of Bloomberg saying that he wants to be the kind of person where the buck stops on his desk. To claim that he didn't know what was going on or didn't know what was in this or that report, or how people felt about the policies he implemented as mayor is a textbook example of buck-passing.
 
The case for Bloomberg is essentially "vote for me, I'm not quite as racist as Trump"....
 
Mumbles said:
I strenuously disagree. His claim that he was “unaware” of the damage Stop and Frisk was causing, despite the interviews, testimonies, protests, and lawsuits, is either a lie or an admission of absolute incompetence, for example. His Muslim spy program, which produced nothing of value has also not been explained as far as I know, as another (of several).
Click to expand...
This is the skeptic version, we look at the details and challenge assertions.

Bloomberg only has to convince the low information voter.
 
angrysoba said:
That's it then? Just handwaved away?



Yeah, someone posted a video of Bloomberg saying that he wants to be the kind of person where the buck stops on his desk. To claim that he didn't know what was going on or didn't know what was in this or that report, or how people felt about the policies he implemented as mayor is a textbook example of buck-passing.
Click to expand...
Same answer as above.

Bloomberg can handle himself in a debate. I will be looking closely to see if Klobuchar can rehabilitate her dismal showing on Telemundo.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I think Bloomberg's message will be, vote for me, I can stop that ignorant Trump and I'm not sure the others on this stage can.
Click to expand...

That's the same message they all are making. Bloomberg has way too much baggage to be nominated. I do appreciate his plan to spend money attacking Trump no matter who wins though.
 
Bloomberg started campaigning long ago: plenty of NGOs dear to the heart of Democrats have been receiving millions from Bloomberg for years. Many candidates have voiced their support, but only Bloomberg has put his money where is mouth is.
And, of course, many of those elected in 2018 have to thank Bloomberg for his financial support. Bloomberg has amassed a mountain of goodwill that he is spending now.
Realist Democrats and their supporters would much rather have the certain support of Bloomberg's money than the uncertain support of a progressive Agenda that might never pass Congress.

Bloomberg has no qualms about buying support for his schemes from either party.

And do you know who won't have the money to match Bloomberg?
The NRA.

Bloomberg is by far the best chance there is to pass far-reaching gun legislation.

No, from an ideological perspective you absolutely shouldn't vote for Bloomberg.
From a pragmatic POV, you absolutely should.
 
Last edited:
thaiboxerken said:
Bloomberg has way too much baggage to be nominated.
Click to expand...

So did Trump.

Honestly, if I were American I'd be pretty worried about now. There's a lot about Bloomberg's quest that reminds me of Trump's - including the number of people who are treating it as an impossible joke - and if he does win the nomination and especially if he goes on to win the presidency, then who knows what that will ultimately do to the US political system?
 
Bloomberg in 2012:

Bloomberg called paid sick "a godawful law," & Living wage reminds Bloomberg of Soviet communism; he says he'll stop it in court if he has to.
Click to expand...

https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2012/04/living-wage-reminds-bloomberg-of-soviet-communism-he-says-hell-stop-it-in-court-if-he-has-to-003389

It's pretty wild. The Democratic party has spent the last 4 years rightly chastising the Republican party for selling out all of its core principals in order to enable Trump. Now the party is on the edge of doing the same thing with Bloomberg.

Bloomberg is the only candidate in the race right now that I can say is totally unacceptable as a nominee. If he succeeds, I honestly expect that the Democratic party will fracture, and they will 100% deserve it.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Bloomberg in 2012:



https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2012/04/living-wage-reminds-bloomberg-of-soviet-communism-he-says-hell-stop-it-in-court-if-he-has-to-003389

It's pretty wild. The Democratic party has spent the last 4 years rightly chastising the Republican party for selling out all of its core principals in order to enable Trump. Now the party is on the edge of doing the same thing with Bloomberg.

Bloomberg is the only candidate in the race right now that I can say is totally unacceptable as a nominee. If he succeeds, I honestly expect that the Democratic party will fracture, and they will 100% deserve it.
Click to expand...


The powers that be in the Republican party are crapping themselves.

It's between maintaining the status quo, where both sides are funded by billionaires and make policy for the benefit of billionaires or letting Bernie in who's just going to try to break the game and try to arrange for - and this is innovative, I don't know why nobody's thought of this before - Government of the people, by the people, for the people, rather than the current, government of the people, by the super-elite, for the super-elite.

It's a bold strategy, Cotton...
 
ERFrQ9IVUAASVIz


Bloomberg media, owned and controlled by Mike Bloomberg, says that Mike Bloomberg is in a two-man race for nomination.

Absolutely dystopian. If the Democratic party can't rightly reject this cynical billionaire trying to buy the election, it has no future.
 
I think it is clear who DJT wants to run against: Mike Bloomberg

He is mentioning Mike in a lot of tweets, DJT knows this is giving him more coverage than a weekend of ad buys, it also gives Mike coverage in the media, who will cover DJT's tweets.

I think DJT's goal is to ruin the DNC for future terms, this goal is accomplished if Bernie appears to get screwed out of the nomination by big money Mike and the complicit DNC.
 
Drewbot said:
I think it is clear who DJT wants to run against: Mike Bloomberg

He is mentioning Mike in a lot of tweets, DJT knows this is giving him more coverage than a weekend of ad buys, it also gives Mike coverage in the media, who will cover DJT's tweets.

I think DJT's goal is to ruin the DNC for future terms, this goal is accomplished if Bernie appears to get screwed out of the nomination by big money Mike and the complicit DNC.
Click to expand...

Just like Hillary did.
 
Trump doesn't want to run against Bloomberg - he doesn't want to be reminded how poor he is and how much New York despises him.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Bloomberg is the only candidate in the race right now that I can say is totally unacceptable as a nominee. If he succeeds, I honestly expect that the Democratic party will fracture, and they will 100% deserve it.
Click to expand...
Trump is a candidate in the race as well. Just sayin'.
The Great Zaganza said:
Trump doesn't want to run against Bloomberg - he doesn't want to be reminded how poor he is and how much New York despises him.
Click to expand...
Right. Trump wants to run against Bernie, because SOCIALISM!!!
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Bloomberg started campaigning long ago: plenty of NGOs dear to the heart of Democrats have been receiving millions from Bloomberg for years. Many candidates have voiced their support, but only Bloomberg has put his money where is mouth is.
And, of course, many of those elected in 2018 have to thank Bloomberg for his financial support. Bloomberg has amassed a mountain of goodwill that he is spending now.
Realist Democrats and their supporters would much rather have the certain support of Bloomberg's money than the uncertain support of a progressive Agenda that might never pass Congress.

Bloomberg has no qualms about buying support for his schemes from either party.

And do you know who won't have the money to match Bloomberg?
The NRA.

Bloomberg is by far the best chance there is to pass far-reaching gun legislation.

No, from an ideological perspective you absolutely shouldn't vote for Bloomberg.
From a pragmatic POV, you absolutely should.
Click to expand...
Maybe that wasn't campaigning so much as supporting the causes he believes in.

It would appear the press (or whoever gives them their stories) aren't being exactly honest. For example the supposed ~40 accusations from women were not accusations about Bloomberg, but rather of his business meaning employees not himself.

Other stuff is being cherry picked.

The worst thing I've heard him say was that government regulations hurt business. That concerns me. ;)

But hearing all the Progressive causes he's supported for years, I will keep an open mind.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
Trump doesn't want to run against Bloomberg - he doesn't want to be reminded how poor he is and how much New York despises him.
Click to expand...
The idea Trump could easily beat Bloomberg is foolish. Of course he can't. Bloomberg probably has the best chance of beating Trump and Trump knows it.

For every Democrat that will stay home if Sanders is not on the ballot, two Republicans will vote for Bloomberg.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The idea Trump could easily beat Bloomberg is foolish. Of course he can't. Bloomberg probably has the best chance of beating Trump and Trump knows it.

For every Democrat that will stay home if Sanders is not on the ballot, two Republicans will vote for Bloomberg.
Click to expand...

Telling Bernie supporters "we don't need you" seems like a hell of a gamble. Safer bet is just to back Sanders!
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Telling Bernie supporters "we don't need you" seems like a hell of a gamble. Safer bet is just to back Sanders!
Click to expand...

Safer for who?

There's a lot of denial still that the socialism fear mongering will be a big deal. I think it could get Trump reelected.

Though I will admit there are more positive stories about it lately.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Sanders supporters. Vote with us or lose to Trump again.
Click to expand...
A part of me almost homes that Sanders wins the Democratic nomination but loses to Trump in the general election, just so all the BernieBros might see that No, going extreme isn't always the best option for winning an election.
I don't know why they expect loyalty from other members of the party but won't give that loyalty back.
Click to expand...
Yeah, some of the BernieBros do seem to be a bit... hypocritcal.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Telling Bernie supporters "we don't need you" seems like a hell of a gamble. Safer bet is just to back Sanders!
Click to expand...

I'm not even a Sanders supporter, and given Bloomberg's record as mayor, there's no chance I'd vote for him. In, fact, I'll amend it to "vote blue no matter who, except Bloomberg".

Want to change this? You can't. That's up to him, and thus far he's done nothing at all to move me from this position, while even more damaging info comes out about him. He needs to explain how he changed in the past 5 years from "It's good to send cops out to beat up protestors, spy on muslims, or have people beaten up and possibly sexually assaulted in their own neighborhoods for being black or brown." to "I will protect the rights of all Americans and immigrants and move the US into the future.", and so far all I've heard is "Oopsie doopsie."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom