Michael Bloomberg launches 2020 presidential bid

  
Via:  tig  •  2 weeks ago  •  567 comments

By:   Ali Vitali and Stephanie Ruhle

Michael Bloomberg launches 2020 presidential bid
The ad promotes Bloomberg's record as mayor and then promises "to rebuild the country and restore faith in the dream that defines us."
He is in.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


MANCHESTER, N.H. — Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg officially entered the 2020 race Sunday, ending several weeks of   will-he-or-won’t-he speculation   about a late entry into the already-crowded Democratic primary.

Bloomberg’s entry was preceded by news of a massive television ad buy — $31 million,   according to Advertising Analytics , which told NBC News it was the single largest single week expenditure the firm had ever tracked. A $30 million buy in the final weeks of the 2012 race for then-President Barack Obama held the previous record.

The ad promotes Bloomberg's record as mayor and then promises "to rebuild the country and restore faith in the dream that defines us: where the wealthy will pay more in taxes and the middle class get their fair share; everyone without health insurance can get it and everyone who likes theirs, keep it; where jobs won't just help you get by but get ahead. And on all those things, Mike Bloomberg intends to make good."

It’s Bloomberg’s deep pockets and willingness to spend that could help him make up the difference of getting in several months after most of the already-established Democratic field. But his strategy to win is a risky one:   skipping the early four nominating contests   and instead running what longtime Bloomberg aide Howard Wolfson called a "broad-based, national campaign."

He’ll also come up against a field stacked with strong competition, some with similar messaging to his own — like former Vice President Joe Biden, who has also hinged his candidacy on his ability to beat President Donald Trump next November — and progressive Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who are running on platforms of more structural change. And they’ve all been running for months, building organizing machinery as they go.

Still, Bloomberg Communications Director Jason Schecter said it’s not too late, citing polls that show Democratic voters have yet to firmly make up their minds on which candidates to support. Schecter said Bloomberg "has the skills to fix what is broken" and was motivated to run by concerns about "the possibility that we could lose next November" to Trump.

"We can’t afford another four years of this," he said.

Bloomberg declined to enter the race last March. At the time, sources close to him told NBC News that   they didn’t see a path to victory with Biden in the race . But consternation from certain Democratic circles about the strength of the field — Biden has lagged while Warren surged throughout the summer and early fall — reignited talk of a Bloomberg run.

Perhaps the clearest signal that he had decided to run was   Bloomberg’s recent disavowal of the stop-and-frisk policy   he implemented as mayor and fiercely defended for years. Speaking at a black megachurch in Brooklyn, New York, last weekend, Bloomberg said: "I got something really important wrong … I want you to know that I realized back then, I was wrong — and I’m sorry."

A key South Carolina politician — Columbia Mayor Steve Benjamin — was in the crowd that day and told NBC News a few days later that he was "moved" by the humility in Bloomberg’s apology. He said he planned to endorse him if the former mayor decided to officially run.

Other 2020 hopefuls who have been running for months, however, have reacted forcefully against Bloomberg’s foray into the field, even before Sunday’s official announcement.

"I don’t think a person, just because they have billions of dollars, should sit back and say, 'you know what, yeah, I think I’ll run for election right now and drop $100 million,'" Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., told a crowd in Concord, New Hampshire, on Saturday.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., also in New Hampshire on Saturday, said she doesn’t "believe you get the best candidate when there's such a bias in terms of money. I don't believe that's how this works."

Klobuchar,   who has joked   that she raised   $17,000 from her ex-boyfriends   during her first Senate run, joked Saturday of Bloomberg’s record ad buy: “Man, I’m not going to be able to make that up with the ex-boyfriends.”

Meanwhile, Warren — who hasn’t held back her feelings on billionaires, or Bloomberg — told said Saturday night “this election should not be for sale,” later adding that she doesn’t think the race “is going to be about TV ads versus TV ads” but instead about “grassroots movements.”

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
TᵢG
1  seeder  TᵢG    2 weeks ago
"We can’t afford another four years of this," he said.

This is a game changer.    Bloomberg is a strong candidate who enters the race very late with a massive war chest and an electorate with a substantial minority holding a grassroots mentality.

If he wins the nomination, he seems to have the means to beat Trump.   I cannot say that for any other candidate on the D side.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TᵢG @1    2 weeks ago

I'm with you Tig. He is smart, honest, and articulate and not extreme. A fiscal conservative and socially aware. The fact that he made his own money from being super smart is a credit to him, and while others talk he does. This year alone he gave 1.8 billion dollars to Johns Hopkins for financial aid, which is the largest endowment ever to a university, so the man is also philanthropic with his money, which shows his character.  

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  TᵢG @1    2 weeks ago

I hope he chooses Mayor Pete as his VP.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.2.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.2    2 weeks ago

Currently, I think Buttigieg would be considered.   But the ticket would be a weak draw for the important minority vote.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1    2 weeks ago
If he wins the nomination

I don't even think Bloomberg believes he can. Bloomberg seeks a brokered convention and he's placing a big time bet on it.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.3.1  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3    2 weeks ago

Bloomberg has a giagantic #metoo issue. Google Bloomberg Misogyny and pick your favorite source, should be 10 to 12 articles that are recent. It's an eye opener. He's a dirtbag.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3    2 weeks ago

A respectable hypothesis.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.3.1    2 weeks ago

#metoo is but one of a few issues. He did good for NYC with "stop & frisk", but then again, that's a bad thing with the radical left!  He's also a billionaire and that's another boo-boo.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
1.3.4  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.3    2 weeks ago

The way Bloomberg was using stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional. He violated thousands of people’s constitutional rights. 
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/michael-bloombergs-stop-and-frisk-violates-the-fourth-amendment

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.3.5  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Dean Moriarty @1.3.4    2 weeks ago

What is it with these guys, we have stop and frisk Bloomberg and sniff and frisk Biden.......

 
 
 
Krishna
1.3.6  Krishna  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.3    2 weeks ago
He did good for NYC with "stop & frisk", but then again, that's a bad thing with the radical left! 

I assume you are referring to people such as Dean-- who has always been such a strong defender of the rights of the downtrodden (especially when it comes to the victims of stop and frisk-- who were overwhelmingly Black and Hispanic!)

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dean Moriarty @1.3.4    one week ago

I do like the article you linked. It is a controversial program with many Conservatives claiming that it violates the 4th Amendment. Keep in mind it was ruled unconstitutional by a single judge.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.8  Vic Eldred  replied to  Krishna @1.3.6    one week ago
(especially when it comes to the victims of stop and frisk-- who were overwhelmingly Black and Hispanic!)

Minorities were "overwhelmingly" the subjects of "stop and frisk" and minorities were "overwhelmingly" the beneficiaries of the program. To put it simply: When any group has become so "overwhelmingly" represented in violent crime statistics such programs become vital for the protection of minority neighborhoods.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.3.9  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.3    one week ago

I like that he is personally financing his own campaign, unlike Trump who claimed he would but has been pimping himself to anyone with a spare buck in their pocket.  What he will be spending will barely put a dent in his net worth.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.10  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.3.1    one week ago

Gotta love your righteous indignation about both Biden and Bloomberg abut women while backing a guy that bragged about Pussy grabbing and was a multiple cheating husband. 

Ain't politics great?

 
 
 
CB
1.3.11  CB   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.10    one week ago

Donald moved on a friend's wife, "Like a bitch" while Baron was "precious cargo." I think that is the way it occurred.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.3.12  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.10    one week ago

Don't vet my candidate.......because Trump?

mmmmk

 
 
 
charger 383
1.3.13  charger 383  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.3.1    one week ago

thank you for pointing that out

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.14  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.3.12    one week ago

This isn't vetting. It is character assassination. One you only seem to do to Dems, while completely missed the same flaws of your favorite candidate. I just find it ironic. 

Carry on. 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.15  MUVA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.14    one week ago

So you admit that little Mikey has flaws?Because I know Trump does but one of his flaws isn’t drink size regulation.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.16  MUVA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.10    one week ago

You have have just given us a perfect example on righteous indignation thanks.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.3.17  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.14    one week ago

This isn't vetting. It is character assassination. One you only seem to do to Repubs, while completely missed the same flaws of your favorite candidate. I just find it ironic. 

Carry on. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.18  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MUVA @1.3.15    one week ago
So you admit that little Mikey has flaws?Because I know Trump does but one of his flaws isn’t drink size regulation.

Are you equating trying to bring down health costs due to the diabetes epidemic in NYC, to a cheating, foul mouth man? Really? And really, pointing out that Mike is short? How about Trump being fat?

I'm sick of this one way street, using women and male grossness to knock any male dem. You can't do it if you are supporting one who is pretty bad himself. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.19  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @1.3.15    one week ago

How does one compare 'drink size regulation' (you presume this is all bad) to falling flat on campaign promises such as eliminating the national debt in 8 years?   If Trump is going to accomplish that promise he is going in the wrong direction since the national debt has already increased $3T on his watch and deficit spending has increased as well.   And his progress towards his over-the-top-stupid campaign promise of building his wall and having Mexico pay for it should speak for itself.

For me, I focus on important factors such as being presidential and representing the office of the presidency with dignity rather than engaging in juvenile name-calling tweets.   It would be nice to have a PotUS who does not appear as a clown on the world stage.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.20  MUVA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.18    one week ago

I see Trump flaws and being vertically challenged isn’t one of them when. I call him little Mikey I mean it more like he has short man syndrome.

 
 
 
katrix
1.3.21  katrix  replied to  MUVA @1.3.15    one week ago
So you admit that little Mikey has flaws?Because I know Trump does but one of his flaws isn’t drink size regulation.

One of Trump's flaws is spouting out childish insults - a flaw his base has wholeheartedly adapted. MASA. Make America Stupid Again.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.3.22  sandy-2021492  replied to  MUVA @1.3.20    one week ago
I call him little Mikey I mean it more like he has short man syndrome.

How so?  I've always seen that as shorter men who went around looking for fights (sounds like Donald, huh?) just to prove they weren't weak.  I don't see that in Bloomberg at all.  He seems sure of himself.  I see Trump picking fights, and Trump afraid of looking weak, with really no reason at all to do so (except perhaps that he actually is weak).

 
 
 
katrix
1.3.23  katrix  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.3.22    one week ago

Yes, Trump certainly has "short man syndrome" which really just describes someone who tries to act tough due to insecurity. Trump is full of insecurity; he's never measured up to a real man and he knows it, and he hates it.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.24  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.19    one week ago
For me, I focus on important factors such as being presidential and representing the office of the presidency with dignity rather than engaging in juvenile name-calling tweets.   It would be nice to have a PotUS who does not appear as a clown on the world stage.

Exactly!

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.25  MUVA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.3.22    one week ago

He is compensating tor something greedy little Mikey had to change the rules so he could run for mayor again he has a Napoleon complex

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.26  MUVA  replied to  katrix @1.3.21    one week ago

Hey that is also a insult you and Trump two peas in a pod.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.27  MUVA  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.19    one week ago

You are blaming Trump the whole forest for the tree thing.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.28  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MUVA @1.3.25    one week ago

How anyone can accuse Bloomberg of being greedy is beyond me. He has donated the single largest endowment to a university ever, over 1 billion dollars, never mind all the charities he gives to. Who does Trump give to?

And for the record, he didn't change the rules and NYers overwhelmingly voted for him, as an independent. Try again.

 
 
 
katrix
1.3.29  katrix  replied to  MUVA @1.3.26    one week ago
Hey that is also a insult you and Trump two peas in a pod.

Pointing out that Trump is Making America Stupid is merely stating a fact.

But the incels love him.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.30  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @1.3.27    one week ago

Hardly, I stated two abysmal failures per his own campaign promises.    Is there nothing that you accept as legit criticism of Trump?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.31  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @1.3.20    one week ago
I call him little Mikey I mean it more like he has short man syndrome.

Do you presume all short men have this syndrome?

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.3.32  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.31    one week ago

According several studies, men of short stature do suffer from a variety of character flaws that we politely call short man syndrome.

https://www.psych.ox.ac.uk/news/short-man-syndrome-really-does-exist

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
1.3.33  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.28    one week ago

Greedy Bloomberg would like to raise taxes, generous Trump allowed people to keep more of their money.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.34  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dean Moriarty @1.3.33    one week ago
Greedy Bloomberg would like to raise taxes, generous Trump allowed people to keep more of their money.  

Based on what are you saying that about Bloomberg? In fact, I am paying more taxes with Trump than I did under any other president, and I am not rich. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.35  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.3.32    one week ago

Oh please. I have known many short men who don't fit any of those descriptions. Kind of sad that in this day and age we have to go there.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.3.36  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Dean Moriarty @1.3.33    one week ago

This guy is a real genius....

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
1.3.37  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.34    one week ago

Is that because greedy Bloomberg jacked up the property taxes there?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.38  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.3.32    one week ago

I asked if all short men have this syndrome.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.3.39  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.35    one week ago

Just be careful, the cdc says short men are angrier and more prone to violence.

https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2018/10/17/short-people-are-angrier-more-violent-than-tall-people-cdc-says/

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.40  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.3.36    one week ago

He is talking about the soda tax and his philosophy for it. NYC unlike a lot of other cities have city hospitals. We also have a diabetes epidemic and most of it is coming from the poorer communities, who have been themselves trying to fight sugary drinks due to the high mortality rates from obesity and diabetes. 

The title of this would lead you to believe he was talking about taxes in general, but that is quite purposeful since the youtube poster is anti Dem. 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1zUtGE1Z11OjdLqfg158sQ

 
 
 
Gulliver-Swift
1.3.41  Gulliver-Swift  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.40    one week ago
He is talking about the soda tax and his philosophy for it.

His war on sugar and war on cigarettes are just about the only things I like about Bloomberg,

I guess I like his stance on guns too. (I'm a New Yorker and I remember when this city was like the Wild West.)

But TBH, I think he has is own gun and carry license. And that is a window into understanding what he thinks he is entitled to vs. what the rest of us are.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.42  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Gulliver-Swift @1.3.41    one week ago

I am a New Yorker, too and I enjoyed the quality of life that he brought to the city. It is no easy job to keep a city of 8 million as crime free as he did and as pleasant to live in. 

I can find no information that he owns a gun. Not sure where you got that from.

But for the record, any NYer can apply to have a concealed carry permit for a handgun.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.3.43  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.40    one week ago

The soda tax is a tax is it not? And he is purposefully talking about taxing poor which is abhorrent. 

We are free people and we certainly don't need a guy that lives in an ivory tower telling us whey we should eat, drink, smoke and that we should submit to random searches. This guy is a nightmare for the Bill of Rights and our Constitution.

The country followed his time as mayor, all of his bad ideas and policy were debated as they made national news.

More Freedom less Bloomberg.....

 
 
 
Gulliver-Swift
1.3.44  Gulliver-Swift  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.42    one week ago
But for the record, any NYer can apply to have a concealed carry permit for a handgun.

And good luck getting it.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.45  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dean Moriarty @1.3.37    one week ago

As opposed to hypocritical Trump, who hicked up our taxes by capping our property taxes and then conveniently making his new primary property in Florida so he doesn't have to pay them? 

Unlike Trump, Bloomberg who is a real fiscal conservative believes in a balanced budget, which was why he did that across the board. Trump, on the other hand, has run our deficit into the trillions, on a wall that Mexico was supposed to pay for and can be cut down with tools that you can buy at the home depot. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.3.46  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.42    one week ago
I can find no information that he owns a gun. Not sure where you got that from.

You can google his well armed security. Many of us don't have a group of well armed men escorting us everywhere we go nor the Billions, a large clip for our firearm will do. It puts us on equal footing.

 
 
 
Gulliver-Swift
1.3.47  Gulliver-Swift  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.45    one week ago

I really need to cut to the chase here with regard to how I feel about Bloomberg.

If the resulting outcome of a brokered Democratic Convention is a ticket with Bloomberg at the top I will leave the party after the November election.

I would remain in the party long enough to vote against Trump but then I would never again in my life register as a Democrat.

And Bloomberg will likely lose against Trump. The only idea I can think of which might even be worse would be to run Chelsea Clinton.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.48  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.3.43    one week ago
We are free people and we certainly don't need a guy that lives in an ivory tower telling us whey we should eat, drink, smoke and that we should submit to random searches. This guy is a nightmare for the Bill of Rights and our Constitution.

He isn't telling anyone what to do. People still have a choice. He is taxing behavior. As a society, we moderate behavior all the time. Just look at our prisons. Loads of people in there for smoking pot. 

And you are exaggerating. He didn't stop anyone from eating anything. Smoking laws are everywhere. Don't put that on him. He didn't even get his soda law passed. Stop and frisk was wrong, and he has since apologized, 

 
 
 
Gulliver-Swift
1.3.49  Gulliver-Swift  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.42    one week ago
I can find no information that he owns a gun. Not sure where you got that from.

I might be getting him confused with Bill Maher on this point.

But Bloomberg definitely has armed guards.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.3.50  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.48    one week ago
“Under Bloomberg, NYPD increased stop and frisk from 100,000 stops to nearly 700,000 stops per year. 90% of those impacted were people of color — overwhelmingly black and brown men,” black activist and data scientist Samuel Sinyangwe tweeted on Sunday. “Bloomberg personally has the money to begin paying reparations for this harm. ‘Sorry’ isn’t enough.” https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/bloomberg-apologizes-stop-frisk-police-practice-n1084756

All of the incarcerated should be released, records expunged. Then restitution paid by the people who elected this guy, then we can talk apology.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.51  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Gulliver-Swift @1.3.47    one week ago

I am sorry you feel that way. Do you honestly think that there is another candidate that can beat Trump, because I don't think so, and I used to think it was Biden... 

As an independent, I accepted my 4 years of Trump with grace (other than my taxes going up) and I didn't want to go ahead with impeachment, but now I am done and I am looking for anyone who can have mass appeal. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.52  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.3.50    one week ago

Restitution for what? If they didn't do anything, nothing happened. If they did, then they deserved it. 

The ideal of stop and frisk is what is in question, not the outcome.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.3.53  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.52    one week ago

The ends do not justify the means, we have rights in this country. This racist law targeted minorities and deprived them of rights. They deserve to have the same rights Michel Bloomberg enjoys. 

No one is stopping the rich white guy and frisking him. No one should do that to anyone unless there is probable cause, which isn't skin color.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.54  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Gulliver-Swift @1.3.49    one week ago

I checked that out, too and he does not. What he did call for was more armed guards at Johns Hopkins. We could debate that, too. 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.55  MUVA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.45    one week ago

You are going full CNN it’s amusing.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.3.56  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.54    one week ago

Are we debating whether or not Bloomberg travels with an armed posse? You may want to hit google, he has 5 -7 every where the man goes. He even travels to Bermuda with his armed posse on vacation. They are a gun free island but his guards get to keep them.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.57  MUVA  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.31    one week ago

I was a bouncer for years so yes. I remember the old do you know how I am routine after you slapped them silly they usually ran away with their tail between their legs.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.58  MUVA  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.3.56    one week ago

It doesn’t matter he is a real billionaire.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.60  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.3.53    one week ago

This righteous indignation coming from a guy who states disproportionately kills blacks and Hispanics on death row. 

That's not racist?

I never approved of stop and frisk and I will not defend it, but I am glad he apologized. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.3.61  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.45    one week ago
Unlike Trump, Bloomberg who is a real fiscal conservative believes in a balanced budget, which was why he did that across the board.

I wouldnt go around bragging that Bloomberg is a real fiscal conservative,  if you want him to get the Democratic nomination. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.3.62  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.60    one week ago
This righteous indignation coming from a guy

You personally know I am opposed to the death penalty and always have been.

Make your argument less personal please. I have not made one personal comment to you and I am not going to start. I am talking about Michel Bloomberg.

That's the topic.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.63  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MUVA @1.3.55    one week ago

You're just throwing out personal comments to get a reaction from me, instead of adding any content. 

But please carry on and mods, don't remove his comments. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.3.64  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.61    one week ago
I wouldnt go around bragging that Bloomberg is a real fiscal conservative

There isn't much about this man that is fiscally conservative. He is however a neocon interventionist. That ought to excite the democrat base since all the code pinkos recently became huge fans of foreign intervention and war.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.3.65  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.63    one week ago

Please find a personal comment that I have made to you that wasn't about Michel Bloomberg so i can see it?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.66  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.3.62    one week ago

You are right, I shouldn't have made that comment personal to you. But let's talk about consistency. 

Are you against security at our airports? Let's start there. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.3.67  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.66    one week ago
Are you against security at our airports? Let's start there. 

What does that have to do with Michael Bloomberg's signature brainchild? Are we moving off topic? Would that be a slight derail?

Explain what you are specifically wanting to know pertaining to Stop and frisk?

Do I want to live in a police state? absolutely not.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.68  MUVA  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.3.65    one week ago

Same thing happens to me I make comments and instead addressing what I posted they attack me.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.3.69  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  MUVA @1.3.68    one week ago

Do you need a bro hug? 

jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.70  MUVA  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.3.69    one week ago

Yes a little one.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.71  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.3.64    one week ago
He is however a neocon interventionist.

Prove that.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.72  MUVA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.63    one week ago

I should have said your rhetoric is palpable or those be some democratic talking points.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.73  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MUVA @1.3.72    one week ago

Now this is funny. You insult me, I give you a pass, then you complain about being personally attacked (Not by me), and then you go in for part two. 

Priceless. 

Only made better by the hug from BF. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.3.74  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  MUVA @1.3.70    one week ago

ok but no pelvis.....shoulder only...

 
 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.76  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @1.3.57    one week ago

Your experience as a bouncer dealing with troublemakers causes you to presume all short men have short man syndrome.

My opinion is that this is an ill conceived stereotype based on a skewed sampling.   You have applied this stereotype to Bloomberg to infer negatives based solely on a single physical metric ... his height.

SMH

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.3.77  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.73    one week ago
Only made better by the hug from BF. 

My hugs heal.....

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.78  MUVA  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.76    one week ago

Wow you really get excited about tiny Mike .

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.79  MUVA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.73    one week ago

You consider that a insult maybe  I should have use your line you seem to like those were republican,NRA ,right wing  talking points right?

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.80  MUVA  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.3.74    one week ago

I was hoping for head to toe.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.81  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MUVA @1.3.79    one week ago
You consider that a insult maybe  I should have use your line you seem to like those were republican,NRA ,right wing  talking points right?

Wrong. Because I never talk about "Republicans", "the NRA", or "Right wing", ever. You can go through my whole comment history to see that I don't. So don't tell me those are my lines because they are not. 

And you won't get a pass on the next insult you make to me for that load of BS.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.82  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @1.3.78    one week ago
Wow you really get excited about tiny Mike .

What prompts you to write something like that?

I have to wonder what your (et. al.) position would be if Bloomberg was running as the R candidate in 2016 (instead of Trump).   Would you have wrapped your analysis around his height and talked about 'tiny Mike'?    Somehow I doubt it.   

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.83  MUVA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.81    one week ago

I will take that challenge.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.3.84  Kavika   replied to  TᵢG @1.3.76    one week ago

Here are a few so-called short men that have been pretty important in the history of the world. 

Winston Churchill

Mahatma Gandhi

Bob Dylan 

Charlie Chaplin 

Martin Luther King

James Madison

Picasso

Voltaire

Beethoven 

There are hundreds if not thousands more but that's a fairly good start. 

Pretty sad when a person's height is how they are defined not by their accomplishments or character.

If one were to look at so-called tall people and apply the same negative stereotype you could say someone that is 6' 2'' is simply a huge pile of bullshit.   

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.85  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Kavika @1.3.84    one week ago

Probably better to direct this to MUVA since he seems to think that a man's height necessarily determines his psychological stability.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.3.86  Kavika   replied to  TᵢG @1.3.85    one week ago

Sorry that was who I intended to address.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.87  MUVA  replied to  Kavika @1.3.84    one week ago

Wow what a contribution I bet tiny Mike would agree.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.88  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Kavika @1.3.86    one week ago

jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif  

I suspect you might get a response along the lines that these men were driven to greatness because of their psychological angst at being short.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.3.89  Kavika   replied to  MUVA @1.3.87    one week ago

Hmmmm, tiny Mike or Chump Change Trump. 

One is worth $50 billion and the other is simply Chump Change. 

Wow what a contribution I bet tiny Mike would agree.

Wow, thank you for that well thought out and articulate response.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.90  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.3.75    one week ago

I think that it's funny that you go to a very progressive news source for that. Like they don't want someone like Warren over a moderate like Bloomberg.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.91  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.3.67    one week ago

No, that is not a derail. It's to show societal hypocrisy. 

Oh, the outrage over stop and frisk. Except, there were guidelines to stop and frisk and it did make our streets in NY safer. But stop and frisk didn't pretend that they were profiling. 

We got the TSA after 9/11 because of terrorism, specifically, Muslim terrorists and at first, they were the only ones profiled. Then to stop the outcry that it was profiling, we started to frisk grandma and little kids. But we all knew who and what they were still looking for. Just better optics.

Now who would get on a plane after 9/11 without airport security, but hey, that's OK in airports. No violations of rights there, but not OK in NYC because of no pretense that they were profiling. 

And that is societal hypocrisy.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.92  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MUVA @1.3.83    one week ago

And after you see that I am right, I am hoping that you are a gentleman enough to admit it. Btw.. that goes for you too Jim. I see you voted up the comment.  

 
 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.94  MUVA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.92    one week ago

You need to look below checkmate. 

 
 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.96  MUVA  replied to  Kavika @1.3.89    one week ago

So it is net worth that that makes the man in your mind.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.3.97  Kavika   replied to  MUVA @1.3.96    one week ago
So it is net worth that that makes the man in your mind.

No, it isn't so I'll explain my comment to you...Trump has bragged many times how rich he is. The fact is that his daddy kept his head above water. Whereas Bloomberg is a self-made billionaire. Trump loves to name call so by his own standards he little more than chump change when compared to Bloomberg.

It seems as shown in your post that height is a really big deal for you. As I pointed out in another comment accomplishments and character mean a lot more than height to people that have a modicum on sense.

There ya go MUVA. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.98  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MUVA @1.3.95    one week ago

I am referencing another person's comment. That is not me talking about the NRA. Geeze, try again.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.99  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MUVA @1.3.93    one week ago

He does not want to ban guns. That disinformation came from the NRA. How else am I supposed to say that? I don't walk around bad-mouthing the NRA as an organization though. 

 
 
 
Gulliver-Swift
1.3.100  Gulliver-Swift  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.51    one week ago
I am sorry you feel that way. Do you honestly think that there is another candidate that can beat Trump, because I don't think so, and I used to think it was Biden...

I don't think Bloomberg can beat Trump.

But the rest of the Democratic field does have me nervous.

I honestly think Bernie has the chops to beat Trump but his willingness to raise middle class taxes to pay for Medicare for All sounds suicidal. He may have blown it with that.

That brings me back to Warren and whether the left can get out of its own way to listen to her ideas for how to scaffold to a Medicare for All attempt after basically "strengthening Obamacare." It's not a completely unreasonable position.

But Warren just had to go and talk up reparations for multiple groups and a complete cancellation of student debt. I don't consider myself to be a centrist but even I find the pandering offensive.

Michelle Obama, where are you when we need you?

 
 
 
CB
1.3.101  CB   replied to  Gulliver-Swift @1.3.100    one week ago

Hi Gulliver Swift!  Mrs. Obama has done her fill of living a 'tortured' existence in the White House! On the other hand, her daughers would have a private  role model, female edition, to look up to with all the other young school aged girls.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
1.3.102  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Gulliver-Swift @1.3.100    one week ago

Nikky Haley, where are you when we need you?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.103  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.3.102    one week ago

See, I would have voted for her, but she wouldn't run as a dem and she won't go against her party. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.104  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Gulliver-Swift @1.3.100    one week ago

See, this is the problem. Most of the Dems are unappealing to middle America and I think that Warren and Bernie are the worst of the lot. The Dems needed a solid moderate and they are there, but not getting any coverage. Blame the press for that. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
1.3.105  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.103    one week ago

I was just trying to echo Gulliver-Smith with a better and more realistic alternative, although she won't run in 2020 and I doubt will accept a VP appointment.  I don't know if I'll be around to see it, but I hope she's elected POTUS in 2024.

 
 
 
Gulliver-Swift
1.3.106  Gulliver-Swift  replied to  CB @1.3.101    one week ago
Mrs. Obama has done her fill of living a 'tortured' existence in the White House!

CB!

Michelle's got the talent, I think.

I remember the 2012 convention when Barack was a bit exhausted, her speech and Bill Clinton's speech pretty much turned things around.

 
 
 
Gulliver-Swift
1.3.107  Gulliver-Swift  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.104    one week ago
Blame the press for that. 

I also don't think people ever fully came to terms with why Hillary lost. She didn't lose because she was too centrist. She lost because people believed she was a corrupt tool for Wall Street interests.

And I say this as a person who spent the last three years thinking Hillary lost because she was too centrist and the people hungered for the real deal like a Bernie Sanders. Now I am confronted with the polling on Medicare for All and I have to conclude people want a more incremental approach.

But they don't want a Democrat billionaire. The reason they look the other way for Trump is because he represents a sledge-hammer taken to the Democratic Party's social agenda. (Obviously, many pages could be written to express this take on things, but it is clear to me there are limits to 2020 as being a watershed election for the Sanders and AOC wing of the party.)

 
 
 
CB
1.3.108  CB   replied to  Gulliver-Swift @1.3.106    one week ago

Gulliver, you would be asking the irresistible 'niceness' that is Michelle Obama to take on the immovable provocateur in a series of debates. She certainly will go high, while he most definitely go low. . . .It's anybody's guess which one could cross the 'presidential' line after that!  We need a candidate that will go toe-to-toe with Donald Trump.

That is, you know the low-down, dirty, impeachable stunt that Trump sent Rudy and AG Bar to do all the way back in second quarter of this year in Ukraine?  You see how diabolically Trump is 'crushing' Biden with the mere mentioning of his son?  Biden has not even laid a political punch on Donald for that one! Even though, Trump has nearly politically 'castrated' Joe Biden before the first caucus or primary vote. 

Someone who is wiling to politically 'cut the balls' off this opponent and smash each one with a political mallet:

1. Start a public countdown of the days since the Ukraine telephone transcript was improperly placed on an secure server in the White House erroneously.

2. As Congress to hold public hearings on how AG Barr, the nation's leading law enforcement agent  could be outside the country breaking our campaign laws on behalf of his boss.

And run ads with a 'thousand' other meat and potatoes questions about the crazy, but dangerously truth matters Trump is using to build his doctrine on.

Trump has not tired of his own BS, that is one thing he stated about himself correctly. Trump is nothing if he is not an all-around BSer. He has never ever tired on being on television, radio, press, 'hard-copy,' and social media talking about his favorite guy: Himself.

We need someone who will at least come in saying EVERYTHING Trump does not . Whatever Trump won't say; say that and own it!

Donald Trump lives each day to come out energetically to share the lies, half-truths, and innuendo he has arrived at overnight. Our candidate will need to fight Trump by exposing the truth Trump has 'thrown away' or left on his cutting room floor!

 
 
 
Gulliver-Swift
1.3.109  Gulliver-Swift  replied to  CB @1.3.108    one week ago
Gulliver, you would be asking the irresistible 'niceness' that is Michelle Obama to take on the immovable provocateur in a series of debates. She certainly will go high, while he most definitely go low. . . .It's anybody's guess which one could cross the 'presidential' line after that!  We need a candidate that will go toe-to-toe with Donald Trump.

Seeing you say all this what I realize is that I see in Michelle the talent to actually be a fine president but not necessarily the particular talents necessary to run for president.

And Trump shows us that in this twisted country the opposite can be true. He had the talent to run for president but no aptitude to actually be one.

 
 
 
CB
1.3.110  CB   replied to  Gulliver-Swift @1.3.109    one week ago

Interesting. Donald Trump is to politics what his gaudy and trashy lifestyle is. He is not ashamed, not abashed, to come to a microphone some day and hurl the most snarkliest lie he can about Michelle Obama's children in order for it to past through them and rattle her. If she were our candidate. He has done this to Joe Biden. Biden is stunned. "Who does that?" Who attacks a man damaged by life taking his wife/child/child away from him-only to have the political game he has known all his life reach out to grab and literally mess with the mental state of his last surviving son?

Trump is so cut-throat and dirty that I firmly believe though I can not prove it, he directed Lindsay Graham to turn on his "good friend" Joe Biden - if you like me, Lindsay. You're do this for me. Go investigate Joe for me. They say I can't do it through Ukraine, so you do it for me. Make-keep me happy, Lindsay.

I can imagine it going something like that a "king" detailing an activity to a knight. A boss talking down to a flunky.

The person who needs to take on Trump has to go for his political throat and clamp off the words. Deliberately and purposely counter every lie with contemplated truth. Whatever Donald is hiding >> go get it somehow. And throw in down on the table for all to see.

Back to Joe Biden. If Biden gets this nomination, you can bet your money that whatever 'shadow' Hunter Biden has produced in his life publicly or privately, his "sins" will be sitting in a set of seats directly across and in front of any Biden-Trump debate.

Now then, Biden would not do that to Trump. Why not? Biden is no Trump. Trump is no Biden.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.111  MUVA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.99    one week ago

Should I find more?

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.112  MUVA  replied to  Kavika @1.3.97    one week ago

You hate Trump I get it .

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.113  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MUVA @1.3.111    one week ago

Yes I would like you to find where I initiate nasty discussion. And while you are doing that, please count up how many comments I make where I say nothing of the sort, since you seem to think: 

You consider that a insult maybe  I should have use your line you seem to like those were republican,NRA ,right wing  talking points right? 

Btw.. before you do that... maybe you should understand what an independent is. We have no loyalty to any party. Now your party happens to be in right now, but I was not always pleased when Obama was in either and I said it. 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.114  MUVA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.113    one week ago

So I was right and you are angry I understand.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.115  MUVA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.3.113    one week ago

I will take that challenge also don’t you have a apology to make you said never ever.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.116  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @1.3.115    one week ago

Making a reference to the NRA is not the same as talking about the NRA.   It is unreasonable to interpret Perrie's statement to mean that she has never ever made a reference to the R or D party, etc.   Unless one is trying to play a weak gotcha game, most people would interpret Perrie's comment to mean that she does not make critical comments on the R or D party, NRA, political wings, etc. :  

Perrie @1.3.81 Wrong. Because I never talk about "Republicans", "the NRA", or "Right wing", ever. 

Talking about something is different than referencing it in a comment.   One can reference the R party in a sentence without talking about it.   For example:

Bloomberg is more of an R than a D but he will get no support from the NRA.

The above references R, D and NRA but does not talk about any of them (in fact this sentence talks about Bloomberg).   In contrast, consider this:

The R party is torn with Trump as PotUS because while he does support some of the platform, his demeanor and history flies in the face of the stereotypical 'family values' R politician image they seek to dishonestly promote.

The above is talking about the R party.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.117  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.116    one week ago

Thank you Tig for explaining what should be obvious!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.3.118  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MUVA @1.3.114    one week ago

MUVA,

I am not angry. I am shocked that you don't get the difference. 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.119  MUVA  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.116    one week ago

Nice try no cigar give me  a fucking break.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.120  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @1.3.119    one week ago

That is twice in a row that you have rejected a clear (and obvious) explanation and instead insist that the author is a liar.   It is that kind of tactic that motivates me to illustrate the obvious and call out the cheap tactics.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.3.121  Kavika   replied to  MUVA @1.3.112    one week ago
You hate Trump I get it .

No, you don't get it at all. I don't hate people because of their politics that would take way too much mental energy and be a total waste of time. I'll leave the hating to you. 

I explained the comment in the simplest terms I could and you choose to be willfully ignorant on the subject. 

That's on you MUVA.

Cheers

 
 
 
Gulliver-Swift
1.3.122  Gulliver-Swift  replied to  CB @1.3.110    one week ago
Trump is so cut-throat and dirty that I firmly believe though I can not prove it, he directed Lindsay Graham to turn on his "good friend" Joe Biden - if you like me, Lindsay. You're do this for me. Go investigate Joe for me. They say I can't do it through Ukraine, so you do it for me. Make-keep me happy, Lindsay.

I think you are onto something there. A few years ago I read a bunch of the popular books on sociopaths. The checklist books, the sociopath next-door type books, etc. One of the hallmarks of getting entangled with a sociopath is that they will separate you from whatever is most dear to you.

Now then, Biden would not do that to Trump. Why not? Biden is no Trump. Trump is no Biden.

I think I remember Hillary arranging to have some of Trump's accusers in the audience. Considering how well all that worked out, I'm not sure I would repeat the tactic.

It's not clear to me who the Democrat is that we need to send up against Trump. The most important thing they need, IMHO, is that they come across as genuine.

That may sound strange considering "genuine" is on of the last things I would say to describe Trump. But he IS a genuine asshole.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3.123  MUVA  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.120    one week ago

I disagree with your comment. The comment I made was clear her response was clear I don’t need your convoluted explanation.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.3.124  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @1.3.123    one week ago

Convoluted?   That suggests you do not understand the difference between referencing X and talking about X.    If so, this is a great time to solidify the difference in your mind.   I would offer clear examples, but I have already done so.

 
 
 
CB
1.3.125  CB   replied to  Gulliver-Swift @1.3.122    one week ago

Actually, it was the opposite outrage:

Trump Uses Bill Clinton's Accusers As Debate Stun t
original

The women blamed Hillary (as well) for her actions more or less during those years against them, too. So they lent themselves to this.

An example of the In your face approach or "assiness" of Donald Trump. If Michelle Obama were to run, or whomever the democratic candidate is, she or he will have to be willing to go WWE 'foul' with the truth as thier stagecraft.

Trump respects nothing else. You have politically put some 'woo-eee' bumps on his fake blond head, right out the gate, and not allow him space to breath afterwards. He gets mileage out of every break in the political heat.

 
 
 
Gulliver-Swift
1.3.126  Gulliver-Swift  replied to  CB @1.3.125    one week ago

Thanks for that refresher.

I think what I might be remembering is a Trump accuser or two speaking at the Democratic Convention back in 2012.

There's so much water under the bridge at this point.

 
 
 
Gulliver-Swift
1.3.127  Gulliver-Swift  replied to  Gulliver-Swift @1.3.126    one week ago

...err..back in 2016...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

People like Bloomberg have it on their "bucket list" to run for president of the United States. There is likely some truth to the belief that is the reason Trump ran in 2016, he wanted to do it before he died. 

Bloomberg's "path" to the Democratic nomination goes directly through the other moderates, Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Harris. For Bloomberg to go up in standing those others will have to go down, raising the likelihood that Warren and/or Sanders will go up. 

I dont object to Bloomberg , at all , and would vote for him ahead of any Republican in 2020, even a Republican other than Trump.  But frankly, no billionaire should be president of the United States , and there is no doubt his wealth will be a big point of contention in the Democratic primaries. 

Compared to Trump, he looks like FDR, and would be a huge step forward. I guess it's all relative. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.1  r.t..b...  replied to  JohnRussell @2    2 weeks ago
no billionaire should be president of the United States

I don't know...I'd take Teddy Roosevelt in a heartbeat. It's not the contents of their bank account, it is the content of their character (to coin an oft-quoted and yet oft-ignored phrase). Mr. Buttigieg fits the bill for this independent. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  r.t..b... @2.1    2 weeks ago

A billionaire has ties more to the ruling class than the working class, and in order to promote the working class over the ruling corporate class he has to go against the practices and beliefs that made him a billionaire in the first place. It is very unlikely any billionaire can do this. Bloomberg's would be an era of compromise and status quo in term of changing economic inequality. 

Yet, it would be a vast sigh of relief after the Trump fiasco.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  r.t..b... @2.1    2 weeks ago
I don't know...I'd take Teddy Roosevelt in a heartbeat.

I love Teddy! So would I. Bully for you!

It's not the contents of their bank account, it is the content of their character

True. But as a New Yorker, I think that Bloomberg has good character.

Mr. Buttigieg fits the bill for this independent. 

Personally I like Mayor Pete. But I am a realist, and he can't win over certain populations in this country that he needs to win the race. Sometimes we have to be pragmatic. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.1.3  r.t..b...  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.2    2 weeks ago
Sometimes we have to be pragmatic. 

Agreed. The big tent does not need become a three-ring circus however and it will take an extraordinary leader with the eloquence and gravitas to coalesce the traditionally fragmented Democrat factions. Here's to one emerging that can not only energize his/her party, but can speak to the voiceless majority in the middle who will ultimately decide who emerges the victor in 2020.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.2    2 weeks ago

Perrie, are you abandoning Joe Biden? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.5  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.4    2 weeks ago

Biden is not likely to beat Trump unless the economy goes south.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.5    2 weeks ago

Who would you vote for? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.7  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.6    2 weeks ago

Bloomberg over Trump

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.8  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.4    2 weeks ago

IDK, John. Personally I like Biden, but he doesn't seem to have his act together. But, I feel that Bloomberg appeals more to those who are not into party politics. He has to run as a Dem, since we only have a 2 party system, but he is really an independent. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.1.9  r.t..b...  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.5    2 weeks ago
Biden is not likely to beat Trump

My fear is that Biden and his supporters are looking forward to the brawl with the incumbent that would surely ensue. After four years of infantile behavior from this administration, we should expect more from any challenger than to lower the bar any further.

It is past time to elevate the discussion; to run on thought-out and sound policies, to assuage the doubts of our allies around the world and our agencies here at home, and get back to even a semblance of reasonable dialogue. trump will get his votes as some relish in the wrestling-in-the-muck dysfunction he has wrought, but his brand is and will always be a cheap, gilded knock-off of the original.

The office of the Presidency requires much, much more and we should demand much, much more.                                

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.7    2 weeks ago
Biden is not likely to beat Trump unless the economy goes south.

The question was Biden over Trump? 

 
 
 
PJ
2.1.11  PJ  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.7    2 weeks ago

So does that mean you would vote for Trump if Bloomberg wasn't in the race?

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.1.12  Freedom Warrior  replied to  r.t..b... @2.1.9    2 weeks ago

I don’t think you’re demanding more at all. What it appears to me is that you’re demanding less in the form of a more malevolent spirit killing bureaucracy such is the deep state favoring the jerk offs, the fukwads, the douchebags to run things rather than someone who can give us a snowballs chance in hell of stopping the monumentalI snowball turning into an avalanche of fukwadism.

I ain’t buying and nobody should be buying it. Oh we have this mamby pamby let’s by to be nice to each other hogwash that only applies to one group.  No we’re past the point of no return on that. This a country in decline and the Democrats are leading the charge. The country senses it’s going in the wrong direction and that’s why they elected the asshole to begin with. Yes,  somebody willing to brawl and not sitting around sucking up to self aggrandizing institutional power.  

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.1.13  r.t..b...  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.1.12    2 weeks ago
the deep state favoring the jerk offs, the fukwads, the douchebags to run things rather than someone who can give us a snowballs chance in hell of stopping the monumentalI snowball turning into an avalanche of fukwadism.

So...point made as to the assertion trump will get his percentage of votes from those that enjoy engaging in the infantile pursuit of the pejorative and the inflammatory.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.14  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  PJ @2.1.11    2 weeks ago
So does that mean you would vote for Trump if Bloomberg wasn't in the race?

I knew I should have never answered John's question.   One answer leads to more questions.   This is my last answer on personal politics.   Biden was my best reluctant choice prior to Bloomberg.   I hope Bloomberg emerges as a candidate I would want to vote for because voting for a PotUS who I would like to see in the office would be a nice change.   Bloomberg, however, is not my ideal candidate.   Ideally I would prefer a 50-60 year old individual who is privately successful, has a history of ethical behavior, is suited for secular governance and is socially liberal but fiscally conservative.

Done with personal politics.

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1.15  WallyW  replied to  r.t..b... @2.1.9    2 weeks ago

What policies will the Democrats be running on?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.16  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  WallyW @2.1.15    2 weeks ago
What policies will the Democrats be running on?

It seems that depends on the candidates. I don't think that there is one set of policies that any of them are running on. 

 
 
 
PJ
2.1.17  PJ  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.14    2 weeks ago

Well fear not, you didn't answer mine either.   Just a lot of gobbledygook.  Don't worry, I'm quite good at reading in between the lines. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.18  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  PJ @2.1.17    2 weeks ago
Well fear not, you didn't answer mine either.   

Gobbledygook?    Here, PJ, let me break it down for you:

PJ@2.1.11 - So does that mean you would vote for Trump if Bloomberg wasn't in the race?
TiG @2.1.14 - I knew I should have never answered John's question.   One answer leads to more questions.   This is my last answer on personal politics.   Biden was my best reluctant choice prior to Bloomberg.   I hope Bloomberg emerges as a candidate I would want to vote for because voting for a PotUS who I would like to see in the office would be a nice change.   Bloomberg, however, is not my ideal candidate.   Ideally I would prefer a 50-60 year old individual who is privately successful, has a history of ethical behavior, is suited for secular governance and is socially liberal but fiscally conservative.

Is my answer to your question clear now?   Note that I even answered more than you asked.

Don't worry, I'm quite good at reading in between the lines. 

I suggest you spend less time reading between the lines and more time reading the lines themselves.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.19  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.14    2 weeks ago

How about Warren vs. Trump?

That would be a good question to ask everybody on this forum. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.1.20  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.16    2 weeks ago

That’s not my perception and certainly isn’t  the perception of many people analyzing the array of unelectable candidates in Dem cohort.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.1.21  r.t..b...  replied to  WallyW @2.1.15    2 weeks ago
What policies will the Democrats be running on?

Gee, Wally, we're a ways out. Let's see who emerges from the field and give them the opportunity to present them. Only then can we compare them against the incumbent and come to a conclusion on who presents the best formula for moving us forward. Until then, it's all conjecture.

 
 
 
PJ
2.1.22  PJ  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.18    2 weeks ago

If you have to break it down then you aren't being as forthcoming as you think.  Quantity doesn't always equal quality.   Just because you say a lot doesn't make you smart.

How about, No that's not what I was saying.  It's simple and to the point.  jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.23  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  PJ @2.1.22    2 weeks ago

How about:  "Biden was my best reluctant choice prior to Bloomberg." ?

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.24  MUVA  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.23    2 weeks ago

You hate soda and guns?jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif  

 
 
 
PJ
2.1.25  PJ  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.23    2 weeks ago

You're getting closer  jrSmiley_68_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.26  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  PJ @2.1.25    2 weeks ago

That was my answer to your question in my first reply to you.

 
 
 
PJ
2.1.27  PJ  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.26    2 weeks ago

I know.  I went back and double checked.  Do you really think I'm going to admit I was wrong?  jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.28  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @2.1.24    2 weeks ago

Absolutely.   Large soda containers have been on my hit list for decades.   And the worst is when one combines large quantities of soda with guns.   Absolutely my number one issue.   You can tell based on the many articles I have written on the subject.  jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.29  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  PJ @2.1.27    2 weeks ago

No need to admit anything.   Not arguing about this is plenty good enough.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.30  MUVA  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.28    2 weeks ago

I eat fun dip and drink a soda every day and when I can find the energy I get out of my chair.I think Bloomberg  will have a hard time but I will he much better than any other Democrat on the economy , healthcare ,wealth redistribution.

 
 
 
PJ
2.1.31  PJ  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.29    2 weeks ago

Agreed.  Let's not speak of this any further.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.32  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @2.1.30    2 weeks ago

I am looking for an adult to sit in the oval office.   Preferably an adult who is socially liberal and who attempts to encourage our entirely out-of-control Congress that borrowing tax revenues (stealing) from our unborn great grandchildren to waste on ill-conceived initiatives largely for partisan political gain is doing the opposite of what they are supposed to do.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.33  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.32    2 weeks ago

You sound like you are a conservative.  The US is a sovereign nation that prints its own currency and cannot run out of money to pay its debts. 

The danger would be if the time came when US currency is not a standard for the rest of the world. If that happens debt would probably be the least of our problems. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.34  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.33    2 weeks ago
You sound like you are a conservative. 

Because I seek a government that responsibly uses tax revenues?

I suspect your opinion is based on a misunderstanding of the concept of independent thinking.   If one is not influenced by partisan views you should expect that they will have positions that are sometimes aligned with conservative ideology and sometimes aligned with liberal ideology.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.35  MUVA  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.32    2 weeks ago

I'm not against a socially liberal person financially liberal or vote buyer as I Like to call them is a different story tax and spend is not a plan making high earners the enemy is insidious.    

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.36  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  MUVA @2.1.35    2 weeks ago
I'm not against a socially liberal person financially liberal or vote buyer as I Like to call them is a different story tax and spend is not a plan making high earners the enemy is insidious.   

I am having difficulty parsing this.   I am against buying votes but our system currently makes that all too possible.   Many good candidates never make it to the stage due to this aspect of our system.   I would greatly prefer limitations on the time and spending of campaigns.   Way too much manipulation going on and the waste of money is absurd.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.37  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.33    2 weeks ago

Hey novel Idea we get the government to tighten the purse strings and stop spending more than they take in. Maybe  balance the budget.The problem in this country is some people want socialism but don't want to pay for it like in Europe where everyone pays more here some that are  for higher taxes  want their neighbor to pay but not themselves. 

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.38  MUVA  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.36    2 weeks ago

That I can agree.I will also say the size of this bureaucracy is its own problem the size of congressional staffs the travel the GSA contracting system it goes on and on.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.39  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.34    2 weeks ago

I think in general the budget should be balanced too. But I would not cut social programs and other needed agencies, I would cut the defense dept. budget or make business corporations pay for it.  We need higher taxes on wealth. We need to stop spending trillions on generational wars unless business interests who benefit most from these wars want to pay for them. 

Automation is going to increase the need for social safety net spending, not lessen it. 

Balance the budget on the backs of the wealthy who earned their riches through inheritance or financialization activities, not the poor or the middle or working classes.   

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.40  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.39    2 weeks ago

I would start with social programs excluding disabled and retirees there are also too many agencies too many Government employees too many pensions.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.41  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.39    2 weeks ago
I think in general the budget should be balanced too.

Thing is, Congress needs to have a responsible strategy.   A balanced budget is just commonsense.   What is in the budget and how it is paid for is the difficult part.   If taxes are raised now I am convinced the revenue will be wasted.   So for now I want to see Congress clean up its spending act before we turn over any more of our income to them.

Automation is going to increase the need for social safety net spending, not lessen it. 

Spot on.    The reason is that current automation (AI) is going to replace white collar jobs.   For the first time in our history we will not have the means to do enough retraining of individuals to do higher jobs.   We will necessarily face a continual increase in unemployment.

Balance the budget on the backs of the wealthy who earned their riches through inheritance or financialization activities, not the poor or the middle or working classes.  

In principle there is some sense to that.   In practice, I do not see it happening except through a long incremental process.   And note, people like Bloomberg, Gates, etc. who created their wealth through new markets which contribute to our society are not the focus you mentioned.   You are talking about inheritance and pure capitalism (growth of extreme wealth through investments of extreme wealth).   That is, you are touching on the runaway parts of capitalism and not small 'c' capitalism.

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.42  MUVA  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.41    2 weeks ago

Clean up congress first I agree set some limits on how much federal employees can make and how long they can stay in their jobs none of this military to civil service stuff.No lobbying  after leaving the military or public office for 5 years.Ground all this government officials from flying all around the country on the taxpayers dime including Trump.I'm just getting warmed up. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.1.43  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.32    2 weeks ago

Perfect. 

 
 
 
bugsy
2.1.44  bugsy  replied to  MUVA @2.1.42    2 weeks ago
No lobbying  after leaving the military or public office for 5 years

This I have a small issue with. Civil service I agree, since much of it is admin, however, there are many jobs the military requires that does not equate in the civilian sector. My job was one of them. Unless you go into another skill set, a government based job, especially defense contractors, may be the only source of employment after retirement from military.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.1.45  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.8    2 weeks ago
"...he is really an independent."

That being so, is it likely he will make necessary appointments without requiring their individual party (or independent) loyalties?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.1.46  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  r.t..b... @2.1.21    2 weeks ago

Good response. I would have said the same thing.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.47  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1.45    2 weeks ago
That being so, is it likely he will make necessary appointments without requiring their individual party (or independent) loyalties?

If I am understanding you correctly, independents appointment by who they feel is most qualified for a position, and not on which party they belong to. So I would expect Bloomberg's appointments to be a mixture.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.48  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.47    2 weeks ago

If Bloomberg is elected as a Democrat he better not stray too far from the left center base or he will be unsuccessful.  I wouldnt rule out a Republican or independent on the cabinet but he will not be governing as an independent. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.49  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.48    2 weeks ago

Given Bloomberg will run as a D his political base in DC will naturally be the Ds.    He can work well with the Rs but he necessarily must favor the Ds or he will not get anything done.   There is no realistic chance that he could favor the Rs and get the loyalty from them that is possible from the Ds.   (Although it would be cool to see a D PotUS working well with an R Congress.)

That said, he would indeed need to stay just left of center.   He has to reign in the younger Ds who fancy themselves ~~socialists~~ (they are actually social democrats), maintain a core with the older Ds and then try to appeal to the more flexible Rs.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.1.50  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.47    2 weeks ago

Yes, provided they are capable of respecting and working positively with each other. Never having studied the American political system, I did pick up some knowledge of it by watching The West Wing series, and I found it interesting that President-elect Matt Santos (Jimmy Smits), a Democrat, appointed Senator Arnold Vinick (Alan Alda), a Republican, to be his Secretary of State, and Chief of Staff Leo McGarry (John Spencer), a Democrat, hired attorney Ainsley Hayes (Emily Proctor), a Republican, to be staff counsel. Whether the characters were Democrats or Republicans, they showed each other courtesy and respect - a far cry from present reality.

By the way I watched every episode of that series - I really enjoyed it.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.51  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1.50    2 weeks ago

That was a great series. I watched it, too. 

But as to your questions, I think he will appoint the best people to the job, and yes probably more dems, but I think he will also appoint repub if they are right for the job. Unlike this president, I think he will have that done in the first 30 days, since the guy is always 1 step ahead.. if not more. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.52  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.39    2 weeks ago

If a wealth tax was employed, those multi-multi-multi-multi millionaires and billionaires would never feel the pinch but all you hear is - jealous of their wealth and they earned it and you don't pay any taxes then do you and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah to infinity.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.53  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    2 weeks ago
A billionaire has ties more to the ruling class than the working class, and in order to promote the working class over the ruling corporate class he has to go against the practices and beliefs that made him a billionaire in the first place. It is very unlikely any billionaire can do this. Bloomberg's would be an era of compromise and status quo in term of changing economic inequality. 

"Ruling class"?  Bullshit by the bucket. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.54  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.19    2 weeks ago
How about Warren vs. Trump? That would be a good question to ask everybody on this forum. 

Trump.   And I dislike Trump.

But I'm not voting for any single-payer advocate.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.55  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.53    2 weeks ago

Gotta agree with you there. He obviously doesn't have a clue about Bloomberg's background. He comes from a middle class family. His dad was an accountant for a dairy company. He went to Hopkins on his own brains. 

Is being smart now a detriment?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.56  Jack_TX  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.52    2 weeks ago
If a wealth tax was employed, those multi-multi-multi-multi millionaires and billionaires would never feel the pinch but all you hear is - jealous of their wealth and they earned it and you don't pay any taxes then do you and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah to infinity.

The objection is to the principle.  

Just because they have money and you want it does not give you the right to seize it over and over again until it's gone. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.57  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.56    2 weeks ago

That's what I thought.

Your usual nonsense.  

I don't want their money.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.58  Jack_TX  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.57    2 weeks ago
Your usual nonsense.  

Which is what you always say when you can't think of anything intelligent.

I don't want their money. 

OK fine.  No need for a wealth tax, then.  Excellent.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.59  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.55    2 weeks ago
Gotta agree with you there. He obviously doesn't have a clue about Bloomberg's background. He comes from a middle class family.

Perrie, what economic issues is Bloomberg going to compromise with the Democrats on? 

The Democrat Party is not largely made up of "socially liberal fiscally conservative" people. 

What is Bloomberg going to do for those who want to see a reduction in economic inequality? 

 
 
 
katrix
2.1.60  katrix  replied to  MUVA @2.1.42    2 weeks ago
Clean up congress first I agree set some limits on how much federal employees can make

High level federal employees make less than their counterparts in the private sector. And why do you object to former military folks being hired as civil servants? Why should our veterans be punished by not having the same job opportunities as any other citizen? I did have a problem with it, when if you were former military, you got such preference that you could be (and often were) hired for a job for which you weren't qualified; but the rules have changed and now former military have to have the job qualifications, although then they get preference over non-veterans who are equally qualified.

No lobbying  after leaving the military or public office for 5 years

I could get behind that one .. but I'd also change all the other damn conflicts of interest (industry execs becoming Cabinet members and using their power to help their former and future industries). Elected officials leaving office and getting cushy jobs, not just lobbying, from all the people who talked them into pushing their industry's policies. Basically they need to start representing US, not their own personal interests. I know, that's delusional.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.61  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.59    2 weeks ago

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/09/upshot/bloomberg-new-york-prosperity-inequality.html

Mr.   Bloomberg’s   record administering   New   York’s   dilapidated public housing system,   the   largest in   the   nation, got relatively little scrutiny   as   the   city   flourished . But living conditions   for   the   system’s 400,000 low-income residents deteriorated under his watch, contributing to   the   need today   for   more than $32 billion to replace broken elevators, antiquated boilers and leaky roofs, following years   of   federal disinvestment.

Mr. Bloomberg dedicated barely any city funding to  the  public housing agency, compared with  the  current  mayor , and  the  backlog  of  requests that tenants submitted  for  apartment repairs ballooned to record highs,  as  residents dealt with leaks and hazardous mold.

The   city also stopped checking   for   lead paint in public housing apartments during Mr.   Bloomberg’s   tenure,   a   decision that endangered   the   health   of   tens   of   thousands   of   young children.   The   inspection failures surfaced years later, once Mr. Bloomberg had left office, ultimately prompting   a   federal investigation that led to   the   appointment   of   a   federal monitor to oversee   the   city’s housing authority in 2019. Mr. Bloomberg hasn’t been pressed on his role in   the   crisis, but   a   presidential campaign would probably change that.

In other arenas,   the   mayor’s   supporters   say he made changes to   the   city that improved   the   quality   of   life   for   everyone, including poorer residents: He made   the   streets safer, invested in parks, tried to improve   the   public schools and banned smoking in restaurants and bars.

“It’s   a   mixed picture,” said Nancy Rankin,   the   vice   president   for   policy, research and advocacy with   the   Community Service Society, an anti-poverty organization. But she remembers in particular Mr. Bloomberg’s opposition to a paid sick leave law, which the New York City Council ultimately passed, overriding his veto, in 2013.

“That’s the kind of thing that shows concern for business over looking at the reality of what the day-to-day struggles of low-income New Yorkers are like,” she said.

Such decisions would get renewed scrutiny in   a   presidential campaign.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.62  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.59    2 weeks ago
Perrie, what economic issues is Bloomberg going to compromise with the Democrats on? 

Watch his ad.

The Democrat Party is not largely made up of "socially liberal fiscally conservative" people. 

I know many. But even if that isn't the case the dems need to win over the indies who are now over 40% of the electorate. 

What is Bloomberg going to do for those who want to see a reduction in economic inequality? 

Watch his ad. 

https://www.mikebloomberg.com/?gclid=CjwKCAiAlO7uBRANEiwA_vXQ-9TqAFQw6W3kL_R4ufcNMf1M9JFg9rYJUlIEVhP7s__eiP4wRSN7sRoCWjAQAvD_BwE

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.63  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.61    2 weeks ago

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/11/12/paul-krugman-america-is

My column today was devoted to debunking the idea that Democrats need a billionaire savior, so it was largely about the political delusions of the super-wealthy. I didn’t have much space to talk about the somewhat different question of how some people get that wealthy. So today’s newsletter tries to fill in some of the gaps.

In Economics 101, we teach the “marginal productivity” theory of income distribution: workers are paid what their activities add to the economy. That is, a worker whose work raises the total value of output $60,000 over the course of a year will get paid $60,000. Why? Competition. Employers would compete to hire such workers if they were paid less than $60K, replace them with other, comparable workers if they were paid more than $60K.

And some workers surely do have special talents that make them worth considerably more — in a pecuniary, not a moral sense — than the average. But how do we explain why some people make many times this amount, say $60 million? Are they really a thousand times   as   productive   as   the average worker? That’s extremely doubtful.

In fact, the most plausible stories about how individuals get very rich are also stories in which their compensation greatly exceeds the benefits they generate for the economy.

First of all, a large fraction of the world’s billionaires made their wealth through speculation in financial and real estate markets. Now, speculation serves a useful purpose: we want the market to anticipate likely future events, and someone has to be rewarded for the task of anticipating those events.

But as the great economist Paul Samuelson noted more than 60 years ago, speculation offers huge rewards to those who are just slightly quicker off the mark than others, even though society gains very little from the speed of their reactions: “Suppose my reactions are not better than those of other speculators but rather just one second quicker. (This may be because of the flying pigeons I own or quickness of my neurons.)” (Or, though he doesn’t mention it, because of insider trading.) In such a case, Samuelson pointed out, the speculator gets very rich even while adding little to G.D.P.

Another way to get very rich is to found a company that gets even slightly ahead of the curve and manages, thanks to the winner-takes-all nature of many markets, to establish a lucrative monopoly position.   As   billionaires go, Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos aren’t especially terrible people. But if Gates hadn’t existed, someone else would surely have come up with widely used computer operating systems about   as   good   as   Windows; if Bezos hadn’t existed, someone else would surely have created online retail platforms comparable to Amazon.

So big fortunes from founding companies, like big fortunes based on speculation, may bear little relationship to social contribution.

Finally, a lot of big incomes go to C.E.O.s of large companies. Who decides how much these executives are worth? Compensation committees appointed by the C.E.O.s themselves. Good leadership matters; but over the last half century C.E.O. compensation has risen from around 20 times average pay to a ratio of almost 300 to 1. Has the importance of leadership really increased that much?

Now, even if billionaires really did make extraordinary contributions to society, that wouldn’t make them morally entitled to keep all their money; it might still make sense to tax them heavily. But the fact is that they probably don’t contribute nearly   as   much   as   they make.


Quick Hits

The big increase in wealth   inequality   isn’t about the rise of the 1 percent — it’s about the rise of the 0.1 percent.

Who are these people, anyway?

Billionaires who seek office are rare. Mostly they exercise their political influence stealthily — on behalf of a very right-wing agenda.

People who think Elizabeth Warren is   too   radical in her critique of the rich should read Teddy Roosevelt

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.64  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.57    2 weeks ago

Do you want Medicaid Medicare for all free college tuition, free childcare?If so you want someone’s money.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.65  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.62    2 weeks ago
Perrie, what economic issues is Bloomberg going to compromise with the Democrats on? 
Watch his ad.

You dont want to put it in your own words? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.66  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.62    2 weeks ago

Here is a quote from his ad

We have an economy that is tilted against most Americans.

Really, Michael Bloomberg says that and believes that?  That would seem to require some sort of drastic action to correct, wouldnt it? An economy that is unfair to a majority of Americans?  

What is his plan to begin to correct this outrage?   A wealth tax? A tax on financialization transactions like stock trades?  A tax on incomes above 5 million a year? 

Didnt see anything like that on his page. 

He does say he is going to create good jobs. 

Every presidential candidate for the past 100 years has said that. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.67  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.66    2 weeks ago

Michael Bloomberg: I've Never Supported Raising Minimum Wage

original
1:24

29/07/2015  · July 29 -- Goldman Sachs   CEO Lloyd Blankfein   and   Bloomberg LP Founder   and   Majority Owner Michael Bloomberg discuss Fed policy and the   wealth gap . They speak ... Skip navigation

  • Author:   Bloomberg
  • Views:   2.4K
 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.68  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.62    2 weeks ago

https://www.crainsnewyork.com/greg-david-new-york/heres-what-bloombergs-tv-ad-leaves-out

Left out is one of the most important issues in the Democratic primary. During his time as mayor, the percentage of income in the city controlled by the top 1% soared twice past 40% twice. He also resisted all the measures successor Bill de Blasio has instituted to soften the impact of inequality on the very poor and the working poor especially Pre-K and the $15 minimum wage.

In truth, the attitude of the Bloomberg Administration in many ways mirrored the beliefs of conservatives and Republicans that the focus of government should be on growing the economy not redistributing the wealth.

I remember debating on WNYC’s Brian Lehrer show his former Deputy Mayor Howard Wolfson (still a close adviser) over the mayor’s enthusiasm for all the foreign billionaires snapping up the out-of-sight expensive apartments in the new towers soaring over Central Park. I pointed out they paid no income taxes, were assessed very low property taxes on those expensive apartments, and weren’t here enough to spend that money boosting the economy. My memory is that Wolfson has no credible response.

Bloomberg’s  new commercial  does say he will raise taxes on the rich, but not by how much and not by whether those taxes will actually narrow inequality.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.69  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.66    2 weeks ago
He does say he is going to create good jobs.  Every presidential candidate for the past 100 years has said that. 

Except he has proven he can. 

John just say it. You don't like the guy. I'm OK with that. I do. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.70  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.69    2 weeks ago

It might be interesting watching the support that Bloomberg will get from current naysayers if he wins the nomination and the choice is Bloomberg or Trump.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.71  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.68    2 weeks ago

There is not a single stat shown in that article. In fact, it reads as an op/ed. Another sad democrat that is mad that Bloomberg showed up on the scene. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.72  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.69    2 weeks ago

Yeah, I dont like him the same way I hate Trump, lol. 

I have no reason on earth to dislike Michael Bloomberg. I dont know him. 

He wants to be the Democratic presidential candidate and he doesnt even support a 15 dollar minimum wage? I dont think he even supports a 10 dollar minimum wage.   

If he makes some compromise on these economic issues he may get the chance to beat Trump.  Its probably going to come down to that. 

2020 was going to be the beginning of the time this country addresses income inequality. We saw the beginning of that with Bernie Sanders in 2016.  Now we probably have to put all that aside in order to beat Trump. So be it. But if you think Bloomberg will get the nomination without supporting a minimum wage or promising to grow unions or without laying out a specific plan to tax high wealth or high income , I think you are dreaming. 

You talk about the 40% of independents, but how many of them vote in Democratic primaries? 

I didnt know until today that Bloomberg does not support a minimum wage. To say the least that is a big problem. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.73  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.71    2 weeks ago
There is not a single stat shown in that article. In fact, it reads as an op/ed. Another sad democrat that is mad that Bloomberg showed up on the scene. 

It probably is an op ed, since it is written so much in the first person. So what? 

And actually there is a graph about the 40% of wealth controlled by the 1% in NY in the article. I didnt post it because it wasnt formatting properly. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.74  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.47    2 weeks ago
If I am understanding you correctly, independents appointment by who they feel is most qualified for a position, and not on which party they belong to. So I would expect Bloomberg's appointments to be a mixture.

He won't be an independent. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.75  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.74    2 weeks ago

I suspect Perrie was referring to the way Bloomberg thinks.   One can be an R or a D and still be an independent thinker.

If PotUS he would naturally have to cater more to the D party (given he ran as a D) but that is a practical calculation.   I would be surprised if a Bloomberg presidency operated on a partisan basis.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.76  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.75    2 weeks ago

Bloomberg's strategy will be to buy the election (primary). He wont be in any of the debates because he wont have the individual donors required. He is expected to spend at least 100 million dollars of his own money , probably much much more. 

Bloomberg would not be my first choice , but of course he is 1000 X  better than Trump. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.77  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.76    2 weeks ago
Bloomberg's strategy will be to buy the election (primary).

That's his wet dream.   He's essentially unknown outside of NY and even buying 30+ million of ad time a month will not do much since he'll never face his primary opponents personally and the voters won't be able to judge him.

All they'll see on the ads is another 78 year old billionaire white guy trying to buy his way to a position on the Democrat ticket.  And they'll have to wonder which party he represents since he'll have, from history, a D, R or I after his name.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.78  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.76    2 weeks ago
He wont be in any of the debates because he wont have the individual donors required.

That would be a strategic failure.   

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.79  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.76    2 weeks ago
He wont be in any of the debates because he wont have the individual donors required.

Don't kid yourself.  

LOTS of centrists will donate.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.80  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.77    2 weeks ago

I actually expect his strategy to be pretty successful. A lot of money on ads will mean more than being in the debates. CNN and MSNBC will give him "Town Halls", maybe even Fox News. 

He is sort of betting that after the first four primaries Democrats will still be looking. It's certainly possible.  The best thing that could happen for Bloomberg is if Biden drops out. I dont think that is impossible sometime after New Years. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.81  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.79    2 weeks ago

I heard he's not going to ask anyone for donations.  I guess we will find out. 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
2.1.82  Dean Moriarty  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.78    2 weeks ago

As of three days ago 538 was reporting his polling numbers are too low for him to gain access to the debates. 

"Bloomberg’s polling numbers have been uninspiring since pollsters started adding him to their 2020 surveys. He has not yet hit the 4 percent support he needs in any poll that would count toward qualifying him for the December Democratic debate"

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-michael-bloombergs-late-bid-for-the-democratic-nomination-could-go/

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.83  Jack_TX  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.77    2 weeks ago
He's essentially unknown outside of NY

There has never been another candidate in history with an entire TV network named after them.  He's known everywhere anybody has money.

All they'll see on the ads is another 78 year old billionaire white guy trying to buy his way to a position on the Democrat ticket.

Maybe.

But a lot of Americans are looking for a candidate who basically runs on the idea of "stop the stupid".  Bloomberg is the closest we have so far.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.84  Jack_TX  replied to  Dean Moriarty @2.1.82    2 weeks ago
"Bloomberg’s polling numbers have been uninspiring since pollsters started adding him to their 2020 surveys. He has not yet hit the 4 percent support he needs in any poll that would count toward qualifying him for the December Democratic debate"

He has yet to run an ad, hold a rally, or make a speech.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.85  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.81    2 weeks ago
Michael Bloomberg doesn’t plan to collect donations for his presidential campaign.

That means he won’t appear in the next Democratic debate — and risks missing the half-dozen debates planned for next year.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/25/bloomberg-2020-debates-073640
 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.1.86  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.72    2 weeks ago

John, I'm beginning to think that you would prefer Xi Jinping to be POTUS rather than either of the billionaires.  For sure you ain't no Ayn Rand fan.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.1.87  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.84    2 weeks ago

I saw an ad run here.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.88  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.61    2 weeks ago

Wow John you just don't like him, and that's OK. We could do this with every candidate. How perfect do you think they will come out?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.89  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.65    2 weeks ago
You dont want to put it in your own words? 

I think his words are more relevant.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.90  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.83    2 weeks ago
But a lot of Americans are looking for a candidate who basically runs on the idea of "stop the stupid".  Bloomberg is the closest we have so far.

There you go!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.91  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.85    2 weeks ago

Maybe yes and maybe no. We have to see, as he said in his press conference today.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.92  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.79    2 weeks ago
LOTS of centrists will donate.

Including independents from the R and D parties, other parties and non-affiliated.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.93  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Dean Moriarty @2.1.82    2 weeks ago

Like I noted last time you brought this up, I think we are waaaay too early to tell.   Let the news disseminate and be assimilated.   Let the system adjust to this and achieve a steady state.  Then measure, analyze and conclude.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.94  XDm9mm  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.83    2 weeks ago
He's known everywhere anybody has money.

That's part of his problem.  He's ONLY known by people that have money.  And you know how despicable money is to oh so many on the left!!  

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.95  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.58    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.96  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @2.1.64    2 weeks ago

Duh, no.  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.97  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.81    2 weeks ago
I heard he's not going to ask anyone for donations.  I guess we will find out. 

Yes.  It will be interesting to see.

Surely he's the wealthiest person to ever run for the presidency, so I guess we should expect some new paradigms.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.98  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.97    2 weeks ago

He also isn't going to take his pay for being president ( he has to take $1 by law)

Here is the first new item. Since he isn't going to take funds, then probably the DNC will not allow him at the debates. He knows that, and plans on taking his platform to the people through public address and townhall type events. 

This should be very interesting to see how this plays out.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.99  Jack_TX  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.98    2 weeks ago
He also isn't going to take his pay for being president ( he has to take $1 by law)

Well...to be fair... it's a trivial amount of money to the US and an equally trivial amount of money to most presidents.   What are they going to spend it on?

Here is the first new item. Since he isn't going to take funds, then probably the DNC will not allow him at the debates. He knows that, and plans on taking his platform to the people through public address and townhall type events. 

I kinda agree with John about that possibly being the better strategy.  It differentiates him from the career politicians.

This should be very interesting to see how this plays out.

I agree.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.100  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.94    2 weeks ago
That's part of his problem.  He's ONLY known by people that have money.  And you know how despicable money is to oh so many on the left!! 

He comes from a middle class family. I am sure he knows loads of middle class people. As for the left, I think he realizes that they would never vote for him. He is going after the centrists in both parties and the independents. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.101  Jack_TX  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.94    2 weeks ago
That's part of his problem.  He's ONLY known by people that have money.  And you know how despicable money is to oh so many on the left!! 

I think the far left will oppose him during the primaries and vote for him if he gets the nomination.

I cling to hope that there are enough sane Democrats remaining that Warren or Sanders will not get the nomination.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.102  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @2.1.101    2 weeks ago

I agree.   Unfortunately Bloomberg could also merely draw votes from Biden (and not have much effect on Warren).   This could grant Warren the D nomination much like Ross Perot enabled Bill Clinton to beat George H.W. Bush in the general by siphoning off votes that would have gone to Bush.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.1.103  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.102    2 weeks ago

It's certainly possible.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.1.104  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2.1.87    2 weeks ago

I saw another earlier.

 
 
 
Gulliver-Swift
2.1.105  Gulliver-Swift  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.10    2 weeks ago

The question was Biden over Trump? 

It's a related question.

The biggest reason to look at Bloomberg is that Biden looks kind of shaky.

I just listened to some really unhelpful reporting on how Biden used to stutter as a child and it looks like the stuttering might be coming back and Biden should just own it. Because apparently stuttering is an identity that needs to be dignified. (Eff that idiot for outing Biden on this. Period.)

I can see it coming a mile away: "Sleepy J-J-Joe."

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.1.106  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.63    2 weeks ago

John, I see that you're focusing a lot on Bloomberg's wealth as being unconscionable, but I had always thought that America was the land of opportunity.  Even China, which many must think is a "From each according to their ability to each according to their needs" country has many multi-billionaires and a lot more multi-millionaires, and not only are they respected, but considered by many (in particular one student I had) to be hero celebrities.  .

 
 
 
Krishna
2.1.107  Krishna  replied to  WallyW @2.1.15    2 weeks ago
What policies will the Democrats be running on?

I'm surprised you never read the news!

(Even more surprising that someone doesn't even attempt to stay informed-- especially in these perilous times in which we live!)

Seriously though, WallyW-- why does a supposedly intelligent person such as yourself not even know what policies the Democratic candidates will be running on?

After all, If one of them gets elected, they will be behind many policies that will shape our destiny-- so why stay ignorant of their positions???

Why, why, why Wally W....curious minds want to know!

 
 
 
Krishna
2.1.108  Krishna  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.1.12    2 weeks ago
The country senses it’s going in the wrong direction and that’s why they elected the asshole to begin with.

Well, not everyone elected him (most democrats I know didn't vote for Trump and never would).

 
 
 
CB
2.1.109  CB   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.2    2 weeks ago

I like Mayor Pete. Interesting man in many aspects. Authentic cool. However, Donald Trump, the bully, would unleash his 'wagging' tongue, and the Evangelical Right is currently keeping its 'powder' dry on this 'youthful' contender. Remember 'they' tried to turn a young republican on him in a botched sexual scandal and innuendo scheme last year.

 
 
 
CB
2.1.110  CB   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.2    2 weeks ago

I don't know much about Mr. Bloomberg. I do find it refreshing to see some people I trust (you and John Russell and Tig) speaking up for him. I like him—generally. I would not be opposed to a proper billionaire becoming president all things considered. Also, I certainly can see myself voting for this man over Trump.

I do dread that Bloomberg is mounting his campaign with the devastating absence of the debate stage. I would have loved to have seen this. Also, didn't Trump self-financing his own campaign or was it all or partially all a lie as is his norm?

A millionaire like Steyer and Bloomberg might be able to 'contain' the bombastic bully once and for all! They both seem 'firm' in their resolve to get rid of him no matter the personal cost, and oh the opposition research these men of affluence can put together from personal/private/inside revelations!

 
 
 
CB
2.1.111  CB   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.8    2 weeks ago

Trump and the conservatives are already using Biden's son in an unforgivable (and reckless fashion) to drag Joe Biden down. And frankly Joe is displaying a lack of capacity to pierce the republican Biden disinformation machine. Trump is a dirty dealer. He follows nobody's rules or expectations. Trump is chargeable on the charges of: Commission and Omission. For him winning is the only thing. 'Classy' Joe does not seem to have the "umph" to enter the pit with an indecent brawler. Trump has even attempted to handicap Biden simply for daring to be an early front-runner!

President Donald Trump has displayed all the 'hallmark' signs of a loser for a second-term president. That is, Trump is a political 'warthog.' And still, his opponents seem lost on how to play up how dirty this guy is! Where are the breaks into the 'vault' of Trump's secrets? Half of my 'kingdom' for someone who can display the fire in the belly to take on this faker. Trump is not tough - not even through his lawlessness. He is just loud, bombastic, and threatening. He can be whipped!

Will it take a billionaire contender to counteract the poison of a 'fake' billionaire? That is, Americans have always supported a success story even when it benefits on the 'teller.'  Well, Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg are bigger than life wealthy, and when it comes to Trump 'lieutenants' who want to come over from the "no trust between thieves express" they just might feel comfortable leaving 'the ship.'

So yes, I'm in on any good, decent, track record billionaire. Moreover, I am even wondering where the rest of the good ones are on our side! (Oprah, Cuban,. . .)

 
 
 
CB
2.1.112  CB   replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.1.12    2 weeks ago

Wow! I bet you say stuff like this to all your friends.

When did being nice, mean one can not be firm? The fact is constituents are pulling politicians limb from limb, on both sides. It's disgusting. And accordingly we have the government to prove it! People and policies going in every which of directions. This country is suffering from its extraordinary success turning in on it. Moreover, it is suffering from ASSHOLES who won't let it peacefully work where and when it can.

 
 
 
CB
2.1.113  CB   replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.19    2 weeks ago

Damn John, you R good! If I am being honest, I would vote for Warren -because Trump is low-brow despite his upbringing, holdings, and high-ranking status in life. Donald Trump is very trashy, tacky and his stated "brilliance" is in cut-throat business tactics- but, Warren does not 'play well' with all her high-flying plans which I honestly have trouble fathoming how she is going to get the loyal opposition on the Right to help her put into law.

As a result, I have all kinds of what fors and how comes on her abilities to persuade enough millions of voters to come out and remove Trump from office. Confused about it all or not, I would vote for Warren.

 
 
 
CB
2.1.114  CB   replied to  MUVA @2.1.40    2 weeks ago

And don't forget not high enough wages and of course, "some" people don't want other people to be treated equally in society - so they can not have good jobs in the careers they want. Forcing them to become outcasts in a land of plenty jobs and not enough active participants.

Remember the outcasts! Throw out without cause! Policies have consequences up and down the line!

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.1.115  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  CB @2.1.114    2 weeks ago

384

Snuffleupagus says Bloomberg open borders hurts wages in his neighborhood.

 
 
 
Krishna
2.1.116  Krishna  replied to  r.t..b... @2.1.3    2 weeks ago
Agreed. The big tent does not need become a three-ring circus however and it will take an extraordinary leader with the eloquence and gravitas to coalesce the traditionally fragmented Democrat factions. Here's to one emerging that can not only energize his/her party, but can speak to the voiceless majority in the middle who will ultimately decide who emerges the victor in 2020.

We need to figure out how to reincarnate JFK!

 
 
 
Krishna
2.1.117  Krishna  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.52    2 weeks ago
but all you hear is

What you hear depends upon what your preferred News Channel is. "All you hear" can be totally different-- depending on whether you tune into Fox News-- or MSNBC and CNN.

I watch both every day-- its quite an experience, like living in alternate universes!

 
 
 
Krishna
2.1.118  Krishna  replied to  MUVA @2.1.37    one week ago
Hey novel Idea we get the government to tighten the purse strings and stop spending more than they take in.

Tell it to Trump.

As a result of his policies the deficit is expanding like crazy!

 
 
 
CB
2.1.119  CB   replied to  Krishna @2.1.117    one week ago

Or, in Kelly Anne's and George T. Conway's home? Child, if walls could talk. . . .

Okay, politically-speaking, which would you prefer to take on a play date: Kelly Anne or George T.?

 
 
 
Krishna
2.1.120  Krishna  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    one week ago
A billionaire has ties more to the ruling class than the working class, and in order to promote the working class over the ruling corporate class he has to go against the practices and beliefs that made him a billionaire in the first place.

You are overly generalizing. People can become wealthy in more than one way. (BTW, I've researched this extensively-- at one point my goal was to earn a lot money!)

In some cases they don't even do anything for it-- for example if they inherit a fortune...or win the Lottery.

And some are just born with amazing abilities so excelling in a particular field comes easy for them..

And some do get their fortune through illegal means.

However, there are others who get it by hard work, and commitment. 

Others are just really brilliant, and get it by bringing to creation some extraordinary ideas.

(cont'd in next comment)

 
 
 
Krishna
2.1.121  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @2.1.120    one week ago

(cont'd from previous comment)

In other cases they realize the value of working with one's own consciousness and developing greater mental powers....

And of course in some cases its a combination of things.

But for some of them,  "the practices and beliefs that made them a billionaire in the first place" might include an unstoppable focus on their goals (never losing sight of the goal), lots of incredibly hard work and long hours (often to a degree most other people wouldn't want to make), , living an extremely  frugal life until they achieve their financial goals (again often to a degree that most people wouldn't want to make), and doing whatever it takes in gaining the sort education that assists in attaining their goals.

So for that type of person, he doesn't have to go against those things to help the working class-- in fact if he or she chooses, they can spend the rest of their life teaching working class people the ways they themselves got rich. (Of course they would only be successful in that endeavour if they choose "working class people" who would be capable of the degree of commitment it requires....

(Of course I have know quite a few people who erroneously assume that every wealthy person got that way by ripping off other people, by being extremely dishonest...and that all wealthy people are nasty and extremely selfish. And assuming that working  class people are all noble, hard-working, generous, enlightened beings.. who are just wonderful in every way.)

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1.122  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    one week ago

I agree he is compensating for something.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.1.123  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.2    one week ago

You love Teddy?

“I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every 10 are,” Roosevelt said during a January 1886 speech in New York. “And I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth.”
 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.124  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.1.123    one week ago

Wow.... that is a total bummer. History is always a rude awakening. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2    2 weeks ago
... even a Republican other than Trump

For me, I need to see the candidate.   Bloomberg over Trump is easy.   Bloomberg over any R makes no sense to me.

But frankly, no billionaire should be president of the United States ...

Why?   

 
 
 
Krishna
2.2.1  Krishna  replied to  TᵢG @2.2    2 weeks ago
For me, I need to see the candidate.   Bloomberg over Trump is easy.   Bloomberg over any R makes no sense to me

Well, at this point (barring any very unusual unforeseen circumstances) the Republican nominee will be Trump.

IMO its still to early to make any accurate predictions as to who the Dem nominee will be... I think the odds are still slightly in favour of a Biden nomination, but that's by no means certain).

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Krishna @2.2.1    2 weeks ago

I agree.   Trump is almost certainly the R.   Biden is the most likely D at the moment.   What remains to be seen is how Bloomberg fairs.   Very unusual entry and too soon to tell.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @2    2 weeks ago

John.

I have no problem with a self-made billionaire who has done good works with their money. There is no sin in being rich as long as you are thoughtful with your money. 

And yes he is a moderate like Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Harris. You know I was supporting Biden or Klobuchar, but Biden is slipping and doesn't have the money, Buttigieg has a major problem with black voters, no one notices Klobuchar and Harris is disliked. I am looking for a winner here. 

 
 
 
Krishna
2.3.1  Krishna  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.3    2 weeks ago
and Harris is disliked.

FWIW, interesting article in today's news:

Kamala Harris aide says in resignation letter: 'I've never seen staff treated so poorly'

"This is my third presidential campaign and I have never seen an organization treat its staff so poorly," wrote state operations director Kelly Mehlenbacher in the Nov. 11 letter, which was obtained by   The New York Times

"While I still believe that Senator Harris is the strongest candidate to win in the General Election in 2020, I no longer have confidence in our campaign or its leadership," she added. 

."

 
 
 
Krishna
2.4  Krishna  replied to  JohnRussell @2    2 weeks ago
But frankly, no billionaire should be president of the United States

I used to be politically active-- and a self-described "leftist". (At one point, many years ago,event when I was a very innocent young thing, I was proud to describe myself as a Socialist, LOL! :-)

But I've noticed a change in the Left in recent years-- for some reason a large segment of "progressives" have an unmitigated dislike of anyone who is personally very successful in life. (Its almost as if they feel anyone who knows how to be successful in their own life would be incapable of being a good leader).

I can't help but wonder...WHY???

 
 
 
CB
2.4.1  CB   replied to  Krishna @2.4    2 weeks ago

I can tell you what I think is happening. The two-party system is heaved up on both sides In every 'fight' scenario know throughout the history of the world, people (who are behind it systems) grow tire of speaking and talking to each other. Then comes into play yet another form of the struggle. Call it: When "Ying tries to mop the floor with Yang" And, vice-versa. Both sides have proponents yelling in the ranks: "Just do it already!"

All the trivial, trite, and familiar political game strategies have not dislodged what either extremes are long for, and so the 'combatants' in a series of elections have removed the "agreeable middle" and thrown up battlements and are preparing siege irons and holding camps for the captured.

We are in the dug-in stage. However, our extremists everywhere are threatening to attack. . . .

 
 
 
Krishna
2.5  Krishna  replied to  JohnRussell @2    2 weeks ago
he looks like FDR

Of course Roosevelt was a really nasty racist-- but as you just mentioned, its all relative.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3  Texan1211    2 weeks ago

I would venture that Bloomberg has less than a 10% chance at winning the Democratic nomination.

Might be interesting to see if he donates to the eventual Democratic candidate.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @3    2 weeks ago

Bloomberg's entry is about as much about the over 40% independent vote as it is about the democrats and I know a whole lot of indies like myself who want a moderate with a smart head. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1    2 weeks ago
Bloomberg's entry is about as much about the over 40% independent vote as it is about the democrats and I know a whole lot of indies like myself who want a moderate with a smart head. 

I can see that--if he were entering as an independent. But I don't see enough Democrats backing him, especially coming late to the dance.

And if he isn't the nominee, but enters as an independent, Democrats, I feel, will scorch him for it.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.1    2 weeks ago

Let's be real, Texan. If there was an independent party I would agree with you, but the two parties have made sure that there are only two parties. 

As for Dems backing him, only time will tell. If he is last man standing (so to speak), they will back him.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.2    2 weeks ago
As for Dems backing him, only time will tell. If he is last man standing (so to speak), they will back him.

I see no path for him to get the nomination.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.4  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.3    2 weeks ago
I see no path for him to get the nomination.

And I remember when people said the same thing about Trump. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.5  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.4    2 weeks ago
james-thurber-touche.jpg Touche
 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.6  Jack_TX  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.4    2 weeks ago
And I remember when people said the same thing about Trump. 

Trump was the media attention frontrunner from the first moment he announced.  He's good entertainment.

Bloomberg isn't.  

I like him, and I would definitely consider voting for him, but I'm not sure I see him getting past the looney left in the primaries.

 
 
 
Gulliver-Swift
3.1.7  Gulliver-Swift  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.3    2 weeks ago

"I see no path for him to get the nomination."

The Democratic primaries award delegates proportionately. If Bloomberg can get himself to the convention I can think of 50 billion reasons that whorehouse would put him on the ticket.

It may be a long shot but it's not ridiculous.

Winning the general election? I could see him easily losing to Trump.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.8  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.6    2 weeks ago

I would say this will be as different a paradigm as Trump was. 

Bloomberg doesn't want to be entertainment. He wants to eat Trump for lunch. How do I know? Hey, it was an almost daily event here in NY. Bloomberg always won. 

But the major part of the paradigm that is different is that I am getting the feeling from his press conference, is that he knows the Dems have a loony left to deal with, and his way of dealing with them, is not dealing with them at all. He said that if he doesn't make the DNC qualifications for being on the debates, he will take the message directly to the people. That makes him the master of his own destiny. It could be interesting.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.9  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Gulliver-Swift @3.1.7    2 weeks ago
Winning the general election? I could see him easily losing to Trump.

Why?

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.10  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.9    2 weeks ago

One issue voting mentality.   Depending upon how many voters base their votes on the economy (very critical for 2nd term votes), if the economy is still good then Trump has a major advantage on top of incumbency.    That is, their top priority might be not rocking the boat.    Not sure many people realize how little positive effect a PotUS has on our economy.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.11  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.10    2 weeks ago
Not sure many people realize how little positive effect a PotUS has on our economy.

But they can certainly have a very negative effect.

Trump has managed not to derail the train, which I agree would favor him in the general election no matter who the opponent is.

However unlike Sanders and Warren, Bloomberg certainly engenders the confidence that the economy would be in safe hand were he to win the WH.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.12  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.11    2 weeks ago
But they can certainly have a very negative effect.

Agreed!   Glad to see you carefully read what I wrote.   Appreciated.

However unlike Sanders and Warren, Bloomberg certainly engenders the confidence that the economy would be in safe hand were he to win the WH.

I agree.   I do not see Bloomberg causing suppliers or consumers to grow cautious (and thus slow the economy).   Proposed radical changes per Sanders and Warren (even though there is no chance that they will achieve their goals) would dissuade economic growth.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.13  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.12    2 weeks ago
I do not see Bloomberg causing suppliers or consumers to grow cautious (and thus slow the economy).   Proposed radical changes per Sanders and Warren (even though there is no chance that they will achieve their goals) would dissuade economic growth.

Exactly.

You understand completely.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.1.14  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.6    2 weeks ago

We don't need "entertainment".  We need someone who will put the country first and not himself, his family, and foreign dictators like Trump is doing.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.15  Jack_TX  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @3.1.14    2 weeks ago
We don't need "entertainment".  We need someone who will put the country first and not himself, his family, and foreign dictators like Trump is doing.

Do explain that to the "news" media who spent 18 hours/day covering him, and gave him enough free publicity to put him in the WH.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.1.16  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.15    2 weeks ago

As if they would listen.

 
 
 
Krishna
3.1.17  Krishna  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.4    2 weeks ago
And I remember when people said the same thing about Trump. 

I don't think henhas a chance.

There are two things going against him:

1. He's too intelligent-- the najority of voters are turned off by that.

2. He's too sucessful-- a significant segment of the Democratic Party has fairly recently developed a real hatred of people who are sucessful (well, with the possible exception of show business celebrities and athlete).

 
 
 
Krishna
3.1.18  Krishna  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.10    2 weeks ago
Not sure many people realize how little positive effect a PotUS has on our economy.

Have you checked your IRA since Trump was elected? 

Has there not been any significant change? I suppose that's possible...???)

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.19  XDm9mm  replied to  Krishna @3.1.17    2 weeks ago
I don't think henhas a chance.

On that point we totally agree.

There are two things going against him:

More than two. 

First as you note, he's beyond rich.  He's in the .0001 percentile of wealth not only in the country, but the world.  And wealth is anathema to a good portion of the left today.

Second,and again as you note, he's successful.  Of course that success came from the very thing, capitalism, that the left vehemently despises.  They will also note that he made is fortune trading on the work of the people he employed, and more importantly on the people investing making and or losing their own wealth.

He also has his tenure as mayor running against him as you KNOW Stop and Frisk will definitely become an issue and smack him down with the black and hispanic voters.

He also has essentially no recognition outside of the NYC metro area.  The vast majority of people in the country will say 'Michael who?  And exactly where did he come from?'  And to many outside of NYC, as soon as NYC is mentioned, they'll be immediately turned off.

Another factor is he has already essentially told, like Beto did, that he's coming for their guns.  That's about 80+ million Americans that will vote against him just for that.

Bloomberg is going to spend a lot of money to go nowhere.  But, he'll help stimulate the economy a little more with all of his ad buys, so GO MICHAEL GO.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.20  Jack_TX  replied to  Krishna @3.1.17    2 weeks ago
1. He's too intelligent-- the najority of voters are turned off by that.

Yes.  But I think it depends on how he presents himself.  If he's direct and plain spoken, he won't have a problem.

When you consider the last non-Ivy League president was Ronald Reagan, being "too intelligent" is clearly an obstacle people manage to overcome.

  • Trump - Wharton School of Business (Penn)
  • Obama - Harvard Law
  • GWB - Yale
  • Clinton - Yale Law 
  • GHWB - Yale
2. He's too sucessful-- a significant segment of the Democratic Party has fairly recently developed a real hatred of people who are sucessful (well, with the possible exception of show business celebrities and athlete).

The Democratic Party is struggling through finding an identity right now.  The weakness left by the Hillary campaign has opened the door for the radical nutjob left to move into the vacuum.  Biden, Bloomberg, Pete and Amy understand that the WH will be won by the party who best communicates with the rational center.  The intelligent people are currently prevailing, so that bodes well for Bloomberg.

The question becomes whether or not he's a better candidate than Biden.  I think he probably is, but I realize a lot of traditional Democrats won't agree because he's coming in from "the outside".  

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.21  XDm9mm  replied to  Krishna @3.1.18    2 weeks ago
Have you checked your IRA since Trump was elected? 

That would require one to have an IRA or other investments.  I know mine are and have been going gangbusters.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.22  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Krishna @3.1.18    2 weeks ago

Do you attribute stock market growth to Trump?   (That would surprise me if you did.)   Also, the stock market is not the economy so the question is a little off.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.23  Jack_TX  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.19    2 weeks ago
Another factor is he has already essentially told, like Beto did, that he's coming for their guns.

Has he?  Or is he just supporting background checks?

 
 
 
Krishna
3.1.24  Krishna  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.22    2 weeks ago
Do you attribute stock market growth to Trump? 

That's an interesting question. And the answer is not as simple as it might at first seem to be.

In most discussions here, the answers people give are based on their political biases, not any knowledge of the actual facts. Not surprisingly, most Democrats say any current rises in the market are mainly the results of earlier actions, i.e. Obama's policies set the market up for continued success-- its wasn't because of Trump. And some people actually claim that the market did better under the Obama administration than it does under Trump. 

Republicans, not surprisingly, say the opposite (its rise is due to Trump).

None of which surprises me-- because in most discussions, most people's views (On most political topics!) are shaped by their innate biases-- not by actual facts. Because most people online are fairly uninformed about most topics.

And that doesn't stop them from expressing their opinions (which more often than not they sincerely believe are actually facts-- even though they may not be factual.

Its a matter of values, actually. For some people its more important to prosteltyze. their polirical biases than to discover the truth-- the actual facts. For others (a minority) discovering the actual facts is the priority. 

And why not? There's really no downside on social media in posting things that aren't true. No matter what political POV you express, on sites such as NT that allow participation of people with varying opinions, no matter what you claim, there will inevitably be people who jump to your defense. 

Because the predominant vibe here is to prostelytize one's own political biases-- and not to discover the truth.

(cont'd in next comment).

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.25  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Krishna @3.1.24    2 weeks ago

My position is that the PotUS has a weak and indirect influence on the stock market (and on the economy for that matter).   The most potent thing a PotUS can do is always negative.   That is, a PotUS can screw things up, but making things better is largely just being lucky to be the one in office during the up cycle.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
3.1.26  Jack_TX  replied to  Krishna @3.1.18    2 weeks ago
Have you checked your IRA since Trump was elected?  Has there not been any significant change? I suppose that's possible...???)

The stock market is different from the economy, obviously.  

Trump has been excellent for the markets.  His influence on the economy has been very slight.

 
 
 
Krishna
3.1.27  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @3.1.24    2 weeks ago
Because the predominant vibe here is to prostelytize one's own political biases-- and not to discover the truth. (cont'd in next comment).

So, given those factors-- is the rise in the market due to Trump's policies-- or Obama's?

Or-- neither?

Well, first of all let me say that I've actually studied the matter. And there's both good news and bad news for political partisans of both parties!

Simply stated, when Obama started his first term the economy was in pretty bad shape. Throughout his term, however, the market basically moved upward-- by the end of his presidency, the stock market was much higher than when he begun! 

But what about Trump? Well, ironically the pattern has been similar-- over time the market has kept moving higher over time. 

Finally, it should be noted that the slope of the line (the rate of rise of the stock market averages) has been steeper starting shortly after Trump was elected. 

In other words-- a few  key points:

1. For both presidents from the beginning of their presidency their market has trended upwards over time. (of course there are always occasional short term corrections, but the overall upward trend has been undeniable).

2. Under Trump the market has moved upwards faster than under Obama-- but the overall trend under Obama had also been positive.

3. Of course the actions of the president are not the only factor. Basically, the reason the market (and the overall economy) has done so well is the creativity, innovation, and intelligence of American capitalist entrepreneurs, not any government. Exceptionally intelligent creative entrepreneurs have had the freedom to express their creativity in a way that is possible in few other places on earth, if any!

(The main role a government seems to possibly have is to restrict this ingenuity being expressed-- as is the case in totalitarian governments elsewhere-- of both the Left and the Right).

4. Despite criticism of Obama from the right, Capitalism has done quite well under Obama-- and even more so under Trump.

 
 
 
Krishna
3.1.28  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @3.1.27    2 weeks ago

(cont'd from comment # 3, 1, 27):

The reason the growth that the economy  has showed under Obama accelerated even more underTrump is mainly due to two factors under the Trump administration:

A-The Tax Cuts

B-Cutting of many regulations which hinder profits

(That being said, while I think both the tax cuts and the ending of some excessive regulations were basically good ideas, I take issue with the way in which they were done.

 
 
 
devangelical
3.1.29  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.25    2 weeks ago

I think the POTUS is in a position to manipulate the stock market at certain points for short term results to those in the loop. ie; chinese and WH public communications regarding trade/tariff  negotiations and accompanying temporary effect on the market. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.30  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  devangelical @3.1.29    2 weeks ago

I agree but only to the degree that the PotUS can affect (vs 'manipulate' which implies control) the stock market.    It is indirect at best with no guarantee of achieving the desired results.   Kind of like trying to guide a N polarity magnet on a table using another N polarity magnet.   You will cause the magnet to move but the direction is almost unpredictable and your corrections will typically miss the mark.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.31  XDm9mm  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.23    2 weeks ago
Has he?  Or is he just supporting background checks?

While this is dated, here's some reading from 2014 in of all places The New York Times.  He has gotten even more anti-gun in the ensuing years, although he always couches his hopes for potential future political endeavors and recognizes that admitting his desires is political suicide.

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/04/17/can-bloomberg-take-on-the-nra/bloombergs-gun-control-that-goes-too-far-for-the-average-citizen

 
 
 
CB
3.1.32  CB   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.5    2 weeks ago

I take your meaning, Sir! Now that is a 'handicap.'

 
 
 
Krishna
3.1.33  Krishna  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1    2 weeks ago
Bloomberg's entry is about as much about the over 40% independent vote as it is about the democrats and I know a whole lot of indies like myself who want a moderate with a smart head. 

Of course by choosing to be an "independent" and not registering as a Democrat, those moderates don't have a say in whether or not Bloomberg gets the nomination.

And since he says he won't run as an independent, Bloomberg has very little chance of running. 

(The issue at this point re: Bloomberg is not the general election--  since he'llonly run if he get's the Dem. nomination. (And "independents" will be no help in that regard as only registered democrats can vots in the dem primaries-- at least in most states).

 
 
 
Krishna
3.1.34  Krishna  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.19    2 weeks ago

They will also note that he made is fortune trading on the work of the people he employed,

But you could say that about every business-- even a small one once the hire their first employee!

That's how a business works. Even one that starts as a "one man or one woman show" decides to expand so they hire a person. Without extra help they can't grow. But if they pay a decent wage and provide decent working conditions I don't se it as unfairly "exploiting' the person they hire. (In fact they are helping them bgy providing a job).

and more importantly on the people investing making and or losing their own wealth.

I own apart (a tiny part) of several businesses. I.e. I own ther stocks. As a stockholder I don't feel unfairly exploited-- in fact I am happy to have the opportunity to invest in well run businesses. Which means choosing to risk some of my money by investing in a well run business which also provides the opportunity to share in the profits. Over the years I've invested enough so that now they've given me the opportunity to increase my income by investing in their companies (they do all the work-- I just invest some money!) 

Its my choice to invest-- no one is forcing me to buy their stock! (But I am grateful for the opportunity they've given me to increase my income as well as my net worth.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3    2 weeks ago
I would venture that Bloomberg has less than a 10% chance at winning the Democratic nomination.

Bloomberg is charting an original course and at this point I do not know how the D electorate will react.   Thus I will wait for some data before making any predictions.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
3.2.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  TᵢG @3.2    2 weeks ago
 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Dean Moriarty @3.2.1    2 weeks ago

We need to let this news disseminate and give people a chance to digest it.   Critically, we need to see Bloomberg respond to media questions and to engage in at least one debate.   At that point the polling data will start to be relevant to me.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.2.3  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.2    2 weeks ago

Oh digest it like they did the 32 ounce soft drink policy that he’s famous for, yeah that’s going to go for a really freaking big. 

Anytime now somebody can step in with some actual real political analysis please.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.4  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.2.3    2 weeks ago

Brilliant analysis:  all based on soft drinks.   Well, that will certainly open eyes - such a valuable (and predictable) contribution.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.2.5  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.4    2 weeks ago

You know it wouldn’t be too hard for you to recognize the accuracy of my comment and the manner in which I just distilled  down Bloomberg candidacy to a simple joke. 

One thing you that you seemingly  will never get when it comes to these types of discussions is that less is more. That’s true for the short attention span viewers and the media knows it everybody fucking knows it but somehow I’m supposed to pretend that verbal diarrhea is the holy grail.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.6  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.2.5    2 weeks ago

Less is more only if your 'less' offers information.  

I just distilled  down Bloomberg candidacy to a simple joke.

Yes, a joke; no analysis just simplistic snark.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.2.7  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.6    2 weeks ago

Yeah it got the message across that you didn’t want to get apparently and by the way I could go through your posts and cite the same exact response that you gave me to at least 50% of them so do you really want to do tit for tat.

Maybe I should’ve thrown in the distaste for billionaire assholes from New York.  Maybe that would’ve put me over the top in your view.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.8  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.2.7    2 weeks ago

Fabricating claims ... another slimy tactic of intellectual dishonesty. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.9  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.2.7    2 weeks ago
Maybe I should’ve thrown in the distaste for billionaire assholes from New York.  Maybe that would’ve put me over the top in your view.

You presume I have something against billionaires in general?   

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.2.10  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.9    2 weeks ago
You presume I have something against billionaires in general?   

NO!   And it's billionaire a-holes from NY.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.11  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.2.10    2 weeks ago

I am against a-holes regardless of their wealth and regardless of their origins.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.2.12  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.11    2 weeks ago

Well I'm definitely not.  And for good reason.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.13  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.2.12    2 weeks ago
Well I'm definitely not [against a-holes].

Now that I believe.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.14  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.2.10    2 weeks ago
NO!   And it's billionaire a-holes from NY.

As opposed to fake million a-hole from NY that you seem to have voted for?

I'll go with the self-made billionaire every time, from anywhere, if he is qualified. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.2.15  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.14    2 weeks ago

Yeah but you’re from New York and anybody from New York is automatically  disqualified in my opinion, but beyond that some old fucking white billionaire Democrat from New York, not a fucking chance DOA.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.16  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.2.15    2 weeks ago
Yeah but you’re from New York and anybody from New York is automatically  disqualified in my opinion, but beyond that some old fucking white billionaire Democrat from New York, not a fucking chance DOA.

Then you didn't vote for Trump then, right?

And if you're going to talk to me, stop with the potty mouth.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.17  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.2.15    2 weeks ago
anybody from New York is automatically  disqualified

Life is much easier if one thinks in terms of large simple blocks rather than deal with details and analysis.    Reasoning via stereotype ... brilliant.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.18  Tessylo  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.2.15    2 weeks ago

So you didn't vote for tRump because he's not a billionaire.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.2.19  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.16    2 weeks ago

 Well why don’t we just stick to the topic.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.2.20  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.17    2 weeks ago

No it’s not about stereotype this is about personal experience but how would you know that you just leap to some erroneous conclusion which is par for the course.

But clearly anybody with the rudimentary understanding of democratic politics now would come to the same conclusion that some old late to party billionaire geezer from New York is not going to land the Dem nomination at this point, it’s DOA and most likely the stake through the heart of the Biteme campaign.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.21  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.2.20    2 weeks ago

My comment was regarding this (which I quoted to you for clarity):

FW @3.2.145 - anybody from New York is automatically  disqualified

You come back talking specifically about Bloomberg coming late to the party.    That does not explain your automatic rejection of anybody from New York.

See?   

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.2.22  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.21    2 weeks ago

Yeah and apparently you’re incapable of separating my personal opinion of NY D-Bags from that of political analysis.

The first representing my opinion of people from New York in general based on personal experience and the latter representing Democrat politics. See!

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.23  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.2.22    2 weeks ago

If you want to express your personal opinion distinct from your political analysis then you should actually do so in words.    This, which I explicitly quoted in my comment for clarity on what I was referring to, ...

FW @3.2.145 - anybody from New York is automatically disqualified

... is stereotypical and simplistic.   If you wish to retract or amend your comment that is fine with me (in fact, I recommend it).   But pretending you did not write this is not going to fool anyone.  

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.2.24  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.21    2 weeks ago

I love how you cause FW to keep onjrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Krishna
3.2.25  Krishna  replied to  TᵢG @3.2    2 weeks ago
Bloomberg is charting an original course and at this point I do not know how the D electorate will react.

I have a pretty good idea. 

One major problem for him:isthe recent increase of hatred towards successful people amongst many Dems.

(Not t mention the oiverwhelming influence Black voters have in Dem. primaries-- much, much more than they have in the general election BTW). And what many of them are talking about now is Bloomberg's policies (and comments!) about "Stop and Frisk" when he was mayor. 

(Yes, he's apologized--but that won't cut it with most Black voters)

 
 
 
Krishna
3.2.26  Krishna  replied to  TᵢG @3.2    2 weeks ago
Bloomberg is charting an original course and at this point I do not know how the D electorate will react.   Thus I will wait for some data before making any predictions.

I agree-- its too early to make accurate predictions as to who will win the Dem, nomination.

But it pays to keep a few things in mind-- factors that will hurt Bloomberg's chances to some degree:

1. While the percentage of African-Americans in the overall population is relatively small, its large amongst Democrats. Blacks play a significant role in the Dem. Primary. And the vast majority of them prefer Biden (because he was picked by the first Black president to be his V.P.).

2, In addition, many Blacks remain upset by Bloomberg's support of "Stop and Frisk" policies while he was mayor. (They disproportionately targeted Blacks and Hispanics).

3. There is a strong (and recently increasing) level of dislike-- even hatred-- in the Dem. Party against successful people. 

4. While anti-Semitism is not not nearly as prevalent in the U.S. as it is in many other cuntries, its definitely been increasing in recent years. (IMO while this country was open to electing a partly African-American as president, we are not yet ready to elect a Jew).

In other words, while I could be wrong, the odds of Bloomberg winning the Dem. nomination are close to nil.

 
 
 
CB
3.2.27  CB   replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.2.5    2 weeks ago
You know it wouldn’t be too hard for you to recognize the accuracy of my comment and the manner in which I just distilled  down Bloomberg candidacy to a simple joke. 

That you did! And it is a warning to the aware (I hope Bloomberg has 'got' wind of it) that 'oppo' research, talking points and soundbites about Bloomberg are deliverables already! ("Arise Sarah Palin! there is work for you and your "Nanny state' repertoire.")

 
 
 
Krishna
3.2.28  Krishna  replied to  TᵢG @3.2    2 weeks ago
Bloomberg is charting an original course and at this point I do not know how the D electorate will react.   Thus I will wait for some data before making any predictions.

Between the three of them, Sanders, Warren and Biden currently have the bulk of Democratic support. Sanders and Warren supporters won't like Bloomberg for the same reason they don't like Biden-- too moderate for their tastes.

And while much of Biden's support comes from peoplewho prefer a moderate that's not the whole story-- much of his support comes from Black Democrats who like him because he was Obama's pick for V.P. And most Black voters do not like Bloomberg at all (they still haven't forgiven him for "Stop and frisk). 

Finally, in many states self-declared "independents" who might like Bloombergs more moderate policies have given up their power to influence the outcome becasuer only registered Democrats can vote in the primaries. (While these "independents" might want to vote for Bloomberg in ther general election, they won't be able to do that unless he wins the Dem primary. (he's said he wopn'trun as an independent and I totally believe him).

So basically his odds of getting elected are closed to zero.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.2.29  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Krishna @3.2.28    2 weeks ago
"Sanders and Warren supporters won't like Bloomberg for the same reason they don't like Biden-- too moderate for their tastes."

The ignorant will vote for whoever promises the most (that will be impossible to fulfill).

 
 
 
Krishna
3.2.30  Krishna  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.2.10    2 weeks ago

 And it's billionaire a-holes from NY.

OK. So you hate Bloomberg and Trump.

But how do you feel about billionaires from other places? Say, for example, Billionaires from Texas?

 
 
 
Krishna
3.2.31  Krishna  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.2.15    2 weeks ago
but beyond that some old fucking white billionaire Democrat from New York

So you're not a Trump supporter after all!

(And he used to be a Democrat-- here's is is at a wedding of some of his very dear Democratic friends-- he and Hillary are all smiles!):

320

320

 
 
 
Krishna
3.2.32  Krishna  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.2.19    one week ago
Well why don’t we just stick to the topic.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.2.33  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Krishna @3.2.30    one week ago

Always amazed that people can never pick up on any of the nuance that I lay out there

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.2.34  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Freedom Warrior @3.2.33    one week ago
Always amazed that people can never pick up on any of the nuance that I lay out there

You are amazed, eh?   Well let me clear up your confusion.   

You are the only one who knows fully what you mean.   If you express your meaning in a vague fashion you have left out critical information necessary for your readers to disambiguate — to narrow down the many possible meanings of your comment.   They will naturally ask you to be more specific.   Your typical response to that is to imply your readers are stupid.   I think most here know that this is not a result of stupid readers but rather intentional ambiguity so that you can slither out of a challenge.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
3.2.35  Freedom Warrior  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.34    one week ago

🉐㊙️㊗️🈸🈺🈷️✴️🆚🈚️🈶📳📴☣️♐️♋️♏️♎️♉️☯️☦️🛐⛎♈️♒️🕉☸️🆖🆖🚮🚮

 
 
 
Kathleen
4  Kathleen    2 weeks ago

I really don’t know much about him, but I would like to see him debate along with the other Democrats.  I would like to see what he has to offer and if he is strong enough.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Kathleen @4    2 weeks ago

Yes, I, too, would be interested in seeing his platform - we really don't know that much about what his intentions are as yet, just some generalizations.  As I'm not an American, I would like to know how he will apply foreign affairs with respect to Canada, Israel, and China.  Since he's Jewish (although pretty well assimilated), it will be interesting to see how he deals with persons like The Squad.  I'm aware that Bernie Sanders would probably kow-tow to them.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.1    2 weeks ago
I would like to know how he will apply foreign affairs with respect to Canada, Israel, and China.  Since he's Jewish (although pretty well assimilated)

Says the Jew living in China. He doesn't kow-tow to anyone, I can promise you that.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.1.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.1    2 weeks ago

I am hoping if he does win that he will tell Putin and Kim to pound sand.

 
 
 
Krishna
4.1.3  Krishna  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.1    2 weeks ago
Since he's Jewish (although pretty well assimilated), it will be interesting to see how he deals with persons like The Squad. 

Its understandable that as a Canadian you might not be well informed about U.S. politics. However its worth pointing out that "the Squad" consists of merely 4 elected representatives-- out of a total of 535 representative in Congress. (obviously a long way from a majority...).

But in addition, IIRC I believe they are all freshman. And those with seniority have a lot more weight for several reasons.

 
 
 
Krishna
4.1.4  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @4.1.3    2 weeks ago

Aside from the other things he's got going against his nomination in a Democratic primary:

1. He's been very successful in business due to his intelligence and hard work, which is definitely a negative in today's Dem. party-- the times they are a changin'!

2. Also his policies on "Stop and Frisk" while mayor. Which totally kills any chance he has for "the Black vote")

Aside from those obstacles to getting the nomination, IMO there's no way a Jew can be elected president at this point in history. (Ironicly its easier for an African American than a Jew.  and that's also probably true for a woman at this point, although that may be changing).

 
 
 
CB
4.1.5  CB   replied to  Krishna @4.1.4    2 weeks ago

Krishna, I have been following your comments for a few months now and I hate to admit it, but I feel there are double-entendres, truth with no 'chaser,' and/or straight-talk involved. I can not quite figure out which is 'jockeying'. . . thus, I mostly do not know where you stand on issues. For example, I am not quite sure how long it would have taken me to hone in on Bloomberg's heritage (which is providentially 'lit' politically in this country), but you have mentioned in several times over. And, the 'black thing.' And, the 'questionable' democratic party thing of hating people who it is implied earn money the old fashion way. I know I am standing on a land mine. . . But, what's life without a couple of 'thrills' eh?

Had to throw that out to see what comes back. . . .

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.1.6  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Krishna @4.1.4    2 weeks ago
"IMO there's no way a Jew can be elected president at this point in history."

Gentleman's Agreement.  Sad but true.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
4.1.7  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Krishna @4.1.3    2 weeks ago

More than 100 Democrat Congressmen, including Jewish ones, are anti-Israel.  IMO being anti-Israel is tantamount to being a BDS supporter, in other words, antisemitic.  There are world leaders, such as Trudeau who have declared publicly that BDS is an antisemitic organization. 

 
 
 
Krishna
4.1.8  Krishna  replied to  CB @4.1.5    2 weeks ago
Krishna, I have been following your comments for a few months now and I hate to admit it, but I feel there are double-entendres, truth with no 'chaser,' and/or straight-talk involved. I can not quite figure out which is 'jockeying'. . . thus, I mostly do not know where you stand on issues. For example, I am not quite sure how long it would have taken me to hone in on Bloomberg's heritage (which is providentially 'lit' politically in this country), but you have mentioned in several times over. And, the 'black thing.' And, the 'questionable' democratic party thing of hating people who it is implied earn money the old fashion way. I know I am standing on a land mine. . . But, what's life without a couple of 'thrills' eh? Had to throw that out to see what comes back.

Well, first of all IMO its nice that if you didn't understand my political views, rather than doing what most people would do (make assumptions not based on any facts) you did the rational thing-- you asked! :-)

When I was on the Newsvine site, there was a space for a descriptive phrase about yourself. Someone who knew me fairly well suggested I use the phrase "I march to the beat of a different drummer' which I thought was accurate so I used it. (I later changed it to words to the effect of "My motto is "Question Everything")..Which I do-- even tho' it often pisses people off.

In the MBTI system of personality typologies (AKA "The MBTI"), my personality is pretty typical of the "ENTP type". Our main motivating force is seeking truth-- we want to learn about the world, know the facts, even if they seem to be unpleasant and at frist seem at first to be in conflict with our goals.. (ENTPs are intensely curious),

None of the 16 types is better or worse-- they're all just different. Each type has its strengths and weaknesses. ENTP weaknesses (or "Challenges").

Among our challenges is to act rather than only research and analyze. (We tend to let practical matters slide). And many ENTPs are so fascinated with learning about people that if we have trouble figuring someone out we might tend to provoke them with some gentle trolling. (And by their response learn more about who they are). As ENTPs evolve (and get older) they usually tend to moderate this.

Currently to the best of my knowledge there are 4 ENTPs on this site: Myself, Badfish, Bob Nelson,all of whom are fairly typical of different expressions of ENTP-ness,  and Kavika who is a somewhat more "evolved" ENTP.. 

But wait-- weren't you asking about my political views?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.9  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.1.7    2 weeks ago

Buzz,

If you could, please list them and put an * next to the Jewish ones you are claiming to be almost BDS. Thanks.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.10  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Krishna @4.1.4    2 weeks ago

I totally disagree with that Krish. I don't even think it's an issue. I think it would be harder for a gay man to be elected than a Jew, (at least here in the US). 

I realize that the rash on antisemitic attacks could have people believe that, but those are the acts of extremist, and I don't think that we have that many here.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.11  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Krishna @4.1.8    2 weeks ago
But wait-- weren't you asking about my political views?

Says the ENTP, LOL!

 
 
 
Krishna
4.1.12  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @4.1.8    2 weeks ago

But wait-- weren't you asking about my political views?

So I shall respond to that query.

Krishna, I have been following your comments for a few months now and I hate to admit it, but I feel there are double-entendres, truth with no 'chaser,' and/or straight-talk involved.

Unfortunately I've spent a good deal of my life as a teacher. Adults. Also children of various ages. During that time I was under the delusion that my job was to make people think. Which in most cases was a challenge-- and usually pissed off my surpervisors and bosses no end! So its kind of become a habit....

I can not quite figure out which is 'jockeying'. . . thus, I mostly do not know where you stand on issues.

Well, ask-- and you shall receive! Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

But OTOH< he that only maketh assumptions and assumith that he already knowith it all (as is donith so oftently and bigly on social media sites!) shall burneth in the Hellfires of Ignorance for all Eternity.(Figuratively speaking, of course).

For example, I am not quite sure how long it would have taken me to hone in on Bloomberg's heritage (which is providentially 'lit' politically in this country), but you have mentioned in several times over. And, the 'black thing.'.

(cont'd in next comment)

 
 
 
Krishna
4.1.13  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @4.1.12    2 weeks ago

(cont'd from comment # 4. 1. 12)

For example, I am not quite sure how long it would have taken me to hone in on Bloomberg's heritage (which is providentially 'lit' politically in this country), but you have mentioned in several times over. And, the 'black thing.'.

Well personally I would prefer that everyone judge people not by the colour of their skin, nor by their religious views, but by the content of their character. However that being said,  after extensive experience as a political activist in days gone by I've come to realize that to make the world a better place-- and specificaly to win elections, one must acknowlege reality, no matter how unpleasant.

Since what we are discussing here seems to be the topic of who's gonna win the Dem. nomination-- and the election, it is necessary to consider all factors. And one that definitely has a strong impact on many voters is a candidates race, religion, and ethnicity (in addition tho his/her political views. Heck, even their style of speaking... or they hairstyle). Being in denial of those facts won't make them go away.

And, the 'questionable' democratic party thing of hating people who it is implied earn money the old fashion way. I know I am standing on a land mine.

Well, my point is that its a fact--  major factors (for some people) in determining how they vote. And it seems to me that the number of people for whom that is a major factor has been generally increasing-- mainly fairly recently.. .

Personally I am not in favour of racism-- and I'm not  opposing the election of good people if they happen to be successful and/pr wealthy. But OTOH if you deny realities its hard to get to the heart of the matter.

But, what's life without a couple of 'thrills' eh?  Had to throw that out to see what comes back.

Well it should lead to an interesting discussion.

 
 
 
Krishna
4.1.14  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @4.1.8    2 weeks ago
In the MBTI system of personality typologies (AKA "The MBTI"),

For anyone who's unfamiliar with The MBTI and would like to learn a bit about it, here's a link to the first in an excellent series of articles about that on NT:

What Personality Type Are You? The MBTI ("Myers Briggs Type Indicator") 

 
 
 
Krishna
4.1.15  Krishna  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.1.7    2 weeks ago
More than 100 Democrat Congressmen, including Jewish ones, are anti-Israel.  IMO being anti-Israel is tantamount to being a BDS supporter, in other words, antisemitic.  There are world leaders, such as Trudeau who have declared publicly that BDS is an antisemitic organization. 

So what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

(To coin a phrase)

I realize that that phrase is a bit dated.. so here's the link.

 
 
 
Krishna
4.1.16  Krishna  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.1.2    2 weeks ago

I am hoping if he does win that he will tell Putin and Kim to pound sand.

Well one thing is certain-- he won't kow-tow to those "good friends" of his the way Trump does!

 
 
 
Krishna
4.1.17  Krishna  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @4.1.7    2 weeks ago
There are world leaders, such as Trudeau who have declared publicly that BDS is an antisemitic organization. 

I wasn't aware that you were such a big fan of trudeau, eh?

 
 
 
CB
4.1.18  CB   replied to&n