How Michael Bloomberg could win

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  tig  •  8 months ago  •  446 comments

By:    Aaron Blake

How Michael Bloomberg could win
It has been abundantly clear throughout this process that the Democratic Party is terrified — terrified — of picking the wrong candidate, only to see them lose to President Trump.

The D field is pretty messed up.   Bloomberg, as a candidate, still seems to have the best chance of defeating Trump.   But he has to counteract:

  • Incumbancy
  • Great economy
  • A content electorate that does not want to rock the boat

Bloomberg, IMO, can make an effective argument that his presidency will not disrupt the good economic times.   On top of that, he is a bright, grounded adult who will actually give much deserved dignity back to the office of PotUS.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Back in 2016, a wealthy New Yorker got into a crowded presidential race and was immediately dismissed. Virtually   nobody   actually liked the candidate, polls showed, and there were also questions about how serious he was about the whole thing. Then that candidate won.

Could it happen again in 2020?

The   results of the Iowa caucuses   have fed speculation that former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg might actually have a shot at the Democratic nomination. He wasn’t on the ballot, mind you, but the results — with a democratic socialist senator and the young former mayor of a relatively small city finishing in the top two slots — seem to have cracked the door ajar to a wild card. Couple that with the “ gut punch ” suffered by the leading “establishment” candidate — Joe Biden’s fourth-place finish — and it’s not unreasonable to think a lane could open for Bloomberg.

It’s anything but likely, but it’s hardly the punchline it once was.

Let’s break it down. First is what happened in Iowa and what it means. It has been abundantly clear throughout this process that the Democratic Party is terrified —   terrified   — of picking the wrong candidate, only to see them lose to President Trump. Iowa Democrats liked Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg so much that they combined for more than half the vote, but it’s not difficult to see voters confronting the reality of those two actually facing Trump and, rightly or wrongly, suddenly getting skittish.

And that goes double now that   Trump’s numbers are creeping up . There was a time when Democrats seemed to have the luxury of picking any number of hopefuls who would be favored against Trump, because they all led him in the polls. That’s not so clearly the case anymore. Trump’s approval rating has hit or tied new highs in several polls in recent weeks — including 49 percent in the latest Gallup poll — and the general election matchups are suddenly tight. In other words, a party that has long said electability is Priority No. 1 may move even further in that direction and really think hard about its options once the front-runners solidify.

The answer for those voters, throughout the race, has been consistent: Biden. But not only did he fare poorly in Iowa, he’s been an unsteady candidate. Biden is hardly sunk, but if the longtime top candidate in this race can’t notch a win in the first three contests before he gets to the South Carolina primary, you wonder how much of an option he’ll be in the fourth.

Which brings us to Super Tuesday, on March 3. That’s the first date on which Bloomberg will be on ballots, thanks to his late entry into the 2020 race and his unorthodox strategy of spurning the first four states. He has gambled that he doesn’t need the “momentum” that candidates covet from those early states, perhaps in part because his lavishly self-funded campaign doesn’t need the money that usually comes with it. He’s also betting that not even   trying   in those four states will help him avoid the kind of potentially negative narrative that Biden is confronting. It’s a novel strategy, but if anyone could pull it off, it would be a mega-billionaire like Bloomberg.

So can he? Super Tuesday will be make-or-break for Bloomberg, no doubt — as it will be pretty much for everyone else. That’s because 14 states are holding contests, and about 1 out of every 3 delegates is at stake. As the other candidates have focused on Iowa and New Hampshire, Bloomberg has blanketed these other states with ads and hired unheard-of amounts of staff in them. The combined investment so far is   more than a quarter-billion dollars .

And there are signs that it’s working — at least somewhat. There are very few polls in the Super Tuesday states, but the few we have suggest he’s a player. To wit, some recent polls:

He’s done worse in   California , which is by far Super Tuesday’s biggest delegate prize, but he’s making   huge investments there now .

Beyond that, we haven’t seen many Super Tuesday polls. But if you look at states in the two weeks that follow, the trend holds. In the March 10 mini-Super Tuesday:

And on March 17:

By that point, more than 3 out of every 5 delegates will have been selected. And pretty much every poll we have suggests he’s at least on voters’ radars in most of these states. If the contest is still open after the first four states and/or the party starts to wonder about a front-runner like Sanders or Buttigieg being able to win, Bloomberg has set himself up as an option.

Part of the resistance to Bloomberg undoubtedly owes to his wealth. This is a Democratic Party where an anti-billionaire message has suited some of the candidates quite well, after all. But if this become a “just win, baby” election, you wonder what those same voters might come to believe about what that wealth could do for their chances — especially from a candidate who is very much on their side on issues of gun violence and climate change. Bloomberg could also very plausibly present himself as a pragmatic pick on other issues, like the economy.

There’s a lot of what-ifs built into the case for Bloomberg winning the nomination, but there remain a lot of questions about the 2020 Democratic field, and the party’s unquenchable thirst for getting Trump out of the Oval Office could make for a unique campaign.

Bloomberg has a credible case to make that he can provide them something that they didn’t even know they wanted. And if 2016 showed us anything, that’s sometimes what the moment calls for.


Article is LOCKED by moderator [smarty_function_ntUser_get_name: user_id or profile_id parameter required]
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
TᵢG
1  seeder  TᵢG    8 months ago

Bloomberg will be in the next debate.    This should be good.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TᵢG @1    8 months ago

I think he will prove himself in debate. It will be worth more than what he has spent on his ads. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1    8 months ago

I agree.   The electorate needs to see the man, not the ads.   From what I have seen of the D debates, Bloomberg will change the dynamic.

 
 
 
MAGA
1.1.2  MAGA  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.1    8 months ago

I can’t wait for for him to fall on his face in a debate.  Should be quite entertaining now that he bought his way into a debate over the existing issues.  There is no one in that party among the contenders that I have more contempt for than Bloomberg.  He ain’t taking my big gulps or guns. The 2A will destroy him in battle ground States. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.3  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  MAGA @1.1.2    8 months ago

images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcS-nLsmAlXofBQNR2sE2

IMO, if Bloomberg was running as the R candidate you would be worshiping the man.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.4  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.3    8 months ago

And here is the irony... Trump and Bloomberg are both New Yorkers, and have both been Rep, Dem, and Indies. 

The only difference I see is that Bloomberg has made his own money and speaks English. That is very good and a huge, really huge difference. jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.5  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.4    8 months ago

Bloomberg is competent and presidential.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.6  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.3    8 months ago

...  after all you are the Donald Trump fan 1.   To me that implies that the greatest candidate in the world (as you see things) is whoever has the R besides their name.       jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MAGA
1.1.7  MAGA  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.3    8 months ago

He could never have run as a Republican after his ridiculous position on guns and gun rights.  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
1.1.8  Thrawn 31  replied to  MAGA @1.1.2    8 months ago

Yeah, [removed,] no Democrat is going for it.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
1.1.9  Thrawn 31  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.4    8 months ago

I do respect Bloomberg for making his own money, and not inheriting it and relying of good bankruptcy lawyers to keep it. 

 
 
 
CB
1.1.10  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.1    8 months ago

Bloomberg will need to shine, because the D's have not properly challenged each others heft in prior debates. Now this 'party' will be properly set with two billionaires to wail at-two men by virtue of their stations in life whom can take the licking-and we will be able to determine what mettle and measure each man possesses. This debate needs to rise to and if possible exceed expectations! We need to see some sparks fly. We're looking for several choice candidates to lift out of the lot!

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.1.11  Ronin2  replied to  MAGA @1.1.7    8 months ago

You are forgetting about his ridiculous $15 minimum wage. Maybe he should as the workers in Seattle how they feel about it now?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.12  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  MAGA @1.1.7    8 months ago

ma4zn7lwfuo11.jpg

 
 
 
CB
1.2  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1    8 months ago

I am a Biden supporter. But, I and I know some folks, who are open to the billionaires.  Trump has no clue. You know what is funny, I got my ballot and it had all these names on it and only three names interest me—I can't remember the last time in a primary when I was 'conflicted' about choosing my candidate! It happened.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  CB @1.2    8 months ago

Unlike Mr.s Trump, Mr. Bloomberg is self-made. He came from a middle class family and turned the adversity of losing his job, into Bloomberg PC. What is wrong with a person who proves you can still do it by yourself? Being a billionaire shouldn't be a dirty word if you worked for it and do good with it. 

 
 
 
CB
1.2.2  CB   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.1    8 months ago

I agree. I have no problem with Mr. Bloomberg and his good name that I know of (out this far West). I like what I hear and I am interested (and so is my 'crowd'); we're watching what shakes out of the primaries. Is it too early to ask what damaging oppo research is there about Bloomberg? After all, Trump is 'raining' on Joe Biden indirectly through his son and I didn't even see it coming!

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.2.3  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.1    8 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2.4  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.2.3    8 months ago

So is Trump. And mind your mouth when you talk to me.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.2.5  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.4    8 months ago
And mind your mouth when you talk to me.

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
CB
1.2.7  CB   replied to    8 months ago

Context is your friend. Goodtime Charlie. Out of context is not, it's a pretext. Please understand the meaning internal to the expression, "self-made" it has little to nothing to do with 'doing it on one's own.'

The former is everybody ultimately who is a winner; the latter is someone, or everyone, who has helped lay a foundation for achievement and acquisition.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.2.8  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.1    8 months ago

I don't know if Mr. B plays golf or not, but I bet that if he is elected and states that he will put the citizens first over it, he will actually mean it, unlike the liar in chief.  He won't line his pockets with tax payer money, price gouging us every time he golfs at his own resorts either.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.2.9  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.4    8 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.2.10  Freedom Warrior  replied to    8 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.2.11  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.2.9    8 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2.12  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.2.9    8 months ago
And just for clarification why in the hell would I want to pull my punches for you?

Because I told you not to talk to me that way, and if you continue it is grounds for a ticket once a request has been made, per the CoC. I hope we clarified that.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2.13  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to    8 months ago

And why do you think I care what Elizabeth Warren says? 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2.14  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.2.8    8 months ago
I don't know if Mr. B plays golf or not, but I bet that if he is elected and states that he will put the citizens first over it, he will actually mean it, unlike the liar in chief.  He won't line his pockets with tax payer money, price gouging us every time he golfs at his own resorts either.

I have to agree with you, Paula. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
1.2.15  Sunshine  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.1    8 months ago
What is wrong with a person who proves you can still do it by yourself?

no no...he didn't build that!  

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.2.16  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.1    8 months ago

Trump...daddy made millionaire

Bloomberg...self made millionaire.

Nuff said.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.2.17  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2.12    8 months ago

The only thing clear to me here is that someone doesn't want hear the unvarnished truth.

 
 
 
CB
1.3  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1    8 months ago

I am so looking forward to this debate with  OIP.ZsVNcJ1EqVHls0Anj0XG4QHaFp?w=276&h=1 .

Bloomberg is taking it on the chin hard from those who dislike or want to repeat mention his financial expenditures to introduce himself. It's a decent slam and he needs to be prepared to answer! I repeat: He knows this "question-comment" is heading to a debate near him-so he "better" be prepared with a 'closer.'

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2  Nerm_L    8 months ago

Michael Bloomberg advertisements have been airing in Minnesota.  From the ads, it seems Bloomberg is running for Governor of New York rather than running for President.  Bloomberg seems a bit too insular; he is going to need to learn how to speak to the heartland.

The Nevada debate should be interesting.  Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have been running against what Bloomberg represents.  I expect that Bloomberg will provide a platform for Sanders and Warren and boost their grassroots support.  I don't think Sanders and Warren supporters would accept Bloomberg as the nominee.  IMO the beneficiaries of having Bloomberg on the debate stage will be Buttigieg and Biden.

 
 
 
CB
2.1  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @2    8 months ago

Nerm, you are a bonafide republican (Trump) supporter, yes? So how should we process your state of the "D" party 'analysis'? I have seen a Bloomberg ad in the West; Trump is in it and it's clear who Bloomberg is targeting: this President. The ad is powerful.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @2.1    8 months ago
Nerm, you are a bonafide republican (Trump) supporter, yes?

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, and a thousand times NO.  I've been a life-long Roosevelt Democrat.  Hillary Clinton convinced me I have been an idiot to support the Democratic Party for decades.  

I don't care what Trump or Republicans do.  I seek vengeance for Democrats rigging an election to put someone like Hillary Clinton in the White House.  No matter how much you may dislike Donald Trump, my dislike for Hillary Clinton will always be greater.  IMO Democrats need finger-of-God judgement.

I have seen a Bloomberg ad in the West; Trump is in it and it's clear who Bloomberg is targeting: this President. The ad is powerful.

The ads airing in Minnesota have been touting Michael Bloomberg's record as mayor of New York, particularly healthcare.  I live close to the Mayo clinic so the emphasis on healthcare isn't surprising.  But healthcare, particularly Obamacare, is a sore point in Minnesota.  Minnesota had a better system than Obamacare.  And Democrats modeled Obamacare after Romney's fubar system while ignoring what we had in Minnesota.  East and west coast Democrats obviously don't give a damn about what Democrats are doing in the heartland.  A pox on them.

 
 
 
CB
2.1.2  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.1    8 months ago

Wow! Eight "thousand" nos. You don't care what Trump or Republicans do? And, Democrats need the "finger-of-God judgment"? I detect a definite conservative bias, eh?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.1.3  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @2.1.2    8 months ago
Wow! Eight "thousand" nos. You don't care what Trump or Republicans do? And, Democrats need the "finger-of-God judgment"? I detect a definite conservative bias, eh?

And that is why I have been an idiot for supporting the Democratic Party over decades.  I am a progressive, not a liberal and not a conservative.  There isn't any room in the Democratic Party for progressives any longer.  Democrats replaced Roosevelt with Reagan.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.4  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.1    8 months ago

What makes you think that Bloomberg's plan would be like Obamacare?

You do realize that NYC had the first public health system, right? Nothing like the ACA. 

Let the man speak and listen. 

And for the record, I resented what happened with Hillary, too, but that doesn't take Bloomberg off the table. Both parties are corrupt. He is running as a Dem for the same reason that Trump ran as a Repub. No indie could ever win in this lousy two party system.

 
 
 
CB
2.1.5  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.3    8 months ago

Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay. Now, you are confusing me.

 
 
 
MAGA
2.1.6  MAGA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.4    8 months ago

Mike Bloomberg: Those Uneducated Midwest Rubes Are Just Too Stupid for Trans Bathrooms

BY  TYLER O'NEIL   FEBRUARY 8, 2020
3668124847_db89b2b1b7_k.sized-770x415xc.
Michael Bloomberg wants to become the 46th president of the United States. Source: Boss Tweed / Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

Back in 2016, former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg made elitist and demeaning comments about Midwestern rubes who are too uneducated to support transgender bathroom access. The remarks, which resurfaced on Friday, illustrate the patronizing attitude many pro-transgender activists have toward those who dare to disagree with the view that gender identity overrides biological sex. Ironically, transgender activists were triggered by how the former mayor insulted the Midwesterners who disagree with them.

Speaking to an audience at Oxford University and addressing the Brexit vote, Bloomberg said, "We, the intelligentsia, the people who could make it into this room, we believe a lot of things in terms of equality and protecting individual rights that make no sense to the vast bulk of people."

"They are not opposed to you having some rights, but there's a fundamental disconnect between us believing the rights of the individual come first and the general belief around the world, I think it's fair to say, that the rights of society comes first," Bloomberg continued.

Then came the geographical snobbery.

"If you want to know if somebody is a good salesman, give him the job of going to the Midwest and picking a town and selling to that town the concept that some man wearing a dress should be in a locker room with their daughter. If you can sell that, you can sell anything," he said.

"They just look at you and they say, 'What on Earth are you talking about?' And you say, 'Well this person identifies his or her gender as different than what’s on their birth certificate.' And they say, 'What do you mean? You’re either born this or you’re born that.'"

Trans Backlash: Lesbian Veteran Asks Elizabeth Warren to 'Stop With the Pronoun Silliness'

These remarks managed to trigger transgender activists while insulting both Midwesterners and those who believe biological sex takes precedence over gender identity.   Activists like Clymer objected to the idea that biological men who identify as women and use the women's restroom should be referred to as "some man." In their eyes, such a person is a woman because he identifies as a woman, regardless of his male DNA, the effects of testosterone on his body from the womb onward, and the fact that his body developed differently from that of a woman.

Yet Bloomberg appeared to suggest that any disagreement with transgender ideology comes from a lack of education and sophistication. He insulted an entire geographic region of the country — the Midwest — by associating it with a lack of education and sophistication.

Yet a broad coalition of conservatives, feminists, and lesbians have allied against this ideology, for a whole host of reasons.

Feminists have condemned the transgender movement as a " men's rights movement " since it involves biological men forcing their way into women's spaces. A group of British lesbians tried to separate the LGB from the T, but eventually settled on removing the L from the acronym instead. " Let the L Out " accused the transgender movement of promoting "rape culture" because it "promotes the right of heterosexual males who 'identify' as women and lesbians (despite most of them still retaining their male genitals) over the right of lesbians to choose their sexual partners. This new 'queer' LGBT politics thus coerces lesbians to accept the pen*s as a female organ and promotes heterosexual intercourse between male and female as a form of lesbian sex."

It is very rational to oppose the transgender movement on the bathroom issue, specifically. After Target infamously opened its women's restrooms and changing rooms to biological men who identify as women, voyeurs across the country reportedly  took advantage of the policy . In 2017, a 5-year-old boy allegedly  sexually assaulted  a 5-year-old girl in a girl's bathroom — after getting in by claiming he was "non-binary." Transgender provocateur Jessica Yaniv has allegedly used his transgender identity to  prey on girls in bathrooms .

Bloomberg does need to apologize, not just for his smug attitude or his politically incorrect phrasing, but also for promoting a movement that puts girls and women in danger. Sadly, he is far from alone among Democratic presidential candidates on this issue — and the others have become savvier in their pandering to this  dangerous movement .

Tyler O'Neil is the author of  Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center . Follow him on Twitter at  @Tyler2ONeil .

'Moderate' Joe Biden Says Anti-Feminist Trans Movement Is 'The Civil Rights Issue of Our Time'

https://pjmedia.com/election/mike-bloomberg-those-uneducated-midwest-rubes-are-just-too-stupid-for-trans-bathrooms/

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.7  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MAGA @2.1.6    8 months ago
"If you want to know if somebody is a good salesman, give him the job of going to the Midwest and picking a town and selling to that town the concept that some man wearing a dress should be in a locker room with their daughter. If you can sell that, you can sell anything," he said. "They just look at you and they say, 'What on Earth are you talking about?' And you say, 'Well this person identifies his or her gender as different than what’s on their birth certificate.' And they say, 'What do you mean? You’re either born this or you’re born that.'"

He's not insulting them. He is saying that they are a hard sell. That is quite the opposite. Only PJ media could twist that into an insult. In fact, the speech was criticized because he said, "man wearing a dress" during the speech which the LGBGQ is now upset about. It seems that anyone can get upset when looking for reasons.  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.1.8  Nerm_L  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.4    8 months ago
What makes you think that Bloomberg's plan would be like Obamacare?

Michael Bloomberg is advocating a financial solution to a cost problem.  That approach won't work.  New York was a beneficiary of Obamacare; New York's health care system was becoming unaffordable.  Obamacare provided the means to throw more money at the system.

Let the man speak and listen. 

By all means, let Michael Bloomberg speak.  I haven't been opposing Bloomberg's participation.  My worry is that those who oppose Bloomberg (within the Democratic Party) will be labeled 'Republicans' or 'deplorable' or 'Trump lovers'.  Letting Bloomberg speak is one thing; trying to rig the game is another.  And Democrats are allowing Bloomberg to bypass their own requirements to be on the stage. 

Bloomberg is exceptional because Democrats are making exceptions.  Bloomberg isn't being allowed on the stage because of his ideas, support, or presidential qualities.  Bloomberg is being allowed on the stage because he is a billionaire from New York.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.1.9  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @2.1.5    8 months ago
Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay. Now, you are confusing me.

What confuses you?  

 
 
 
CB
2.1.10  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.9    8 months ago

Your conversation is all over the place! Try grounding it! How the heaven are you a "progressive" who is not a liberal or even a "progressive" conservative for that matter? Make sense or its simply frustrating to pin you down. It is simply too much effort to try to follow your ideas around as they cut new paths to other vistas!

I am someone who is a news "junkie." If it takes a person more than a handful of comments to get his or her ideas, agendas, and positions across to me that person is hiding his or her true views for whatever reason, is not laying out his or her political view successfully, or trying to be too politically cute by half.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.11  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  CB @2.1.10    8 months ago
Make sense or its simply frustrating to pin you down

An understatement IMO.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.1.12  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @2.1.10    8 months ago
Your conversation is all over the place! Try grounding it! How the heaven are you a "progressive" who is not a liberal or even a "progressive" conservative for that matter? Make sense or its simply frustrating to pin you down. It is simply too much effort to try to follow your ideas around as they cut new paths to other vistas!

Were Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt liberals or conservatives?  Attempting to shoehorn progressives into political boots that don't fit isn't confusion.  I refuse to be forced into those stereotypes any longer.

I am a progressive.  I am not a liberal and I am not a conservative.  And I am not a hyphenated progressive, either.

 
 
 
CB
2.1.13  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.12    8 months ago

What does all this have to do with this discussion? I'm not connecting with you. Franklin Roosevelt's policies set well with the modern Democracy Party and  Progressives are a party subset. Conservatives have never wanted any thing to do with Franklin Roosevelt's policies in particular. This is a distraction. What's your game?

 
 
 
dennis smith
2.1.14  dennis smith  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.4    8 months ago

Spot on Perrie, the two party system we have is what has divided America. Been coming for years perhaps decades. It is unfortunate but there far too many in both parties (and their supporters) who refuse to accept that change in the political structure . America is doomed to failure unless that changes.

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.1.15  Split Personality  replied to  dennis smith @2.1.14    8 months ago
Spot on Perrie, the two party system we have is what has divided America.

Been successful for 244 years......what pray tell is different? Social media.  pfftttt.

SSDD.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.1.16  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @2.1.13    8 months ago
What does all this have to do with this discussion? I'm not connecting with you. Franklin Roosevelt's policies set well with the modern Democracy Party and  Progressives are a party subset. Conservatives have never wanted any thing to do with Franklin Roosevelt's policies in particular. This is a distraction. What's your game?

Let's illustrate with an example from current news.  Wages are increasing, unemployment is very low, and people are re-entering the labor force.  That's all good news.

Liberals claim that increasing the minimum wage was responsible; there is little doubt that has been a large contributing factor.  Conservatives claim that cutting business taxes was responsible; there is little doubt that has been a large contributing factor.

What the results shows is that it was necessary to be liberal and conservative at the same time.  That's progressive.

We aren't engaged in an endless, mindless debate about how increasing wages kills jobs, are we?  We aren't arguing about how higher wages makes business less competitive, are we?

A progressive approach provides real, measurable results without mind numbing ideological arguments.  That is one of the reasons that people can't wrap their heads around what being progressive means.  In simple terms, a progressive is liberal and conservative at the same time.  A progressive is not one or the other; a progressive must be both.  

 
 
 
CB
2.1.17  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.16    8 months ago
What the results shows is that it was necessary to be liberal and conservative at the same time.  That's progressive.

Define, "moderate politics" in your own words. And then compare the two political stances: Moderate and progressive. Be concise, please.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.1.18  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @2.1.17    8 months ago
Define, "moderate politics" in your own words. And then compare the two political stances: Moderate and progressive. Be concise, please.

Why should I define "moderate politics" if that is your talking point?  

Aren't moderates about achieving political compromises that provide political benefits?  Aren't moderates focused on obtaining political benefit rather than results?  Isn't moderate politics about kicking the can down the road?

Progressives won't accept political compromises that do not deliver desired results.  Progressives aren't moderates; progressives are uncompromising concerning results.  

 
 
 
CB
2.1.19  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.18    8 months ago
In simple terms, a progressive is liberal and conservative at the same time

Okay for flips and giggles, how is the above pairing not resolved in the center of politics? Warning: I am going to move on if you persist in these wild of field statements of yours.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.1.20  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @2.1.19    8 months ago
Okay for flips and giggles, how is the above pairing not resolved in the center of politics? Warning: I am going to move on if you persist in these wild of field statements of yours.

A desirable result isn't necessarily centered.  Liberals and conservatives achieving a compromise position that is acceptable to both may take important parts of a solution off the table.

Achieving compromise ends up with something that is less liberal and less conservative.  But that compromise places limits on the effectiveness of solutions, too.  Using the example I provided, moderates would argue for a smaller minimum wage increase and a smaller tax cut so the compromise is more acceptable for both sides; but that compromise would only kick the can.

 
 
 
CB
2.1.21  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.20    8 months ago

You have yet to clarify this statement:

In simple terms, a progressive is liberal and conservative at the same time

Explaining how being a moderate possibly could slow or stop action at crucial points, in the policy-making process, does not clarify why you are attempting to define progressivism in this manner above!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.1.22  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.1    8 months ago

Roosevelt died.  What next?

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2    8 months ago
I don't think Sanders and Warren supporters would accept Bloomberg as the nominee. 

I think you are correct for a large minority of them.   But if the general comes down to Bloomberg v. Trump who do you think they will vote for?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.2.1  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @2.2    8 months ago
I think you are correct for a large minority of them.   But if the general comes down to Bloomberg v. Trump who do you think they will vote for?

I expect they'll stay home.  Bernie supporters aren't party-first Democrats.  Why bother voting for a well spoken Trump?  Michael Bloomberg is just another New York billionaire, after all.

IMO Pete Buttigieg could hold Bernie supporters.  Biden is too establishment.  And Warren isn't going to make it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2.1    8 months ago
I expect they'll stay home.

I do not see that.   Who would protest Bernie losing by allowing Trump to be re-elected?

 
 
 
CB
2.2.3  CB   replied to  TᵢG @2.2.2    8 months ago

Moreover, just last Friday eve, Bernie stated the end of campaigning is a unified challenger to Donald Trump. Buckle up, Bernie is going to fight for what he perceived to be his. Still, this time he knows (and his surrogates have had explained to them I hope) not to poison the well when and if he can not possess it.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.2.4  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.2    8 months ago
I do not see that.   Who would protest Bernie losing by allowing Trump to be re-elected?

From the viewpoint of Sanders' supporters, Michael Bloomberg is another Trump.  What's the diff?  

Minnesota chose Sanders and Rubio by large margins in the 2016 primaries.  I don't see Bloomberg doing well in Minnesota.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.5  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2.4    8 months ago
From the viewpoint of Sanders' supporters, Michael Bloomberg is another Trump.

One is a presidential adult, the other is a juvenile bully.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.2.6  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2.1    8 months ago
Michael Bloomberg is just another New York billionaire, after all.

Then you don't know Bloomberg.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.2.7  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.5    8 months ago
One is a presidential adult, the other is a juvenile bully.

Which makes the presidential adult far more dangerous.  Ronald Reagan was the epitome of presidential.  How'd that work out?

If the choice was between Trump and another Reagan, I'd certainly stay home.  Not voting is a vote of no confidence, too.

Trump is more progressive than any of the Democratic candidates.  But Trump is such a sleaze I can't vote for him.  I certainly wouldn't vote for Michael Bloomberg, either.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.2.8  Nerm_L  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.2.6    8 months ago
Then you don't know Bloomberg.

Michael Bloomberg was mayor of New York City; a city with a population of 8.6 million that occupies an area of 320 square miles.  I live in Minnesota; a state with a population of 5.6 million that occupies an area of 89,000 square miles.  

What does Michael Bloomberg know?  My experience tells me is that Michael Bloomberg lives on a different planet than I do.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.2.9  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.2    8 months ago
I do not see that.   Who would protest Bernie losing by allowing Trump to be re-elected?

The idea of 'protest' assumes party loyalty.  Bernie Sanders is an independent; Bernie's supporters are more independent, too.

Sanders' revolution has been trying to change the Democratic Party which is a rejection of the establishment status quo.  Why would those trying to change the party accept an establishment candidate just because they have a D behind their name?

Sanders' grassroots support is a natural evolution of the Occupy Wall Street movement.  OWS was not partisan; OWS was voicing dissatisfaction with establishment politics by both parties.  Sanders' supporters are not party-first Democrats.  Just electing Democrats is not their priority.  The grassroots movement is attempting to infiltrate the Democratic Party and take power away from the establishment.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a Bernie supporter.  AOC is not a politician; she is more an OWS activist.  AOC is about changing the Democratic Party and not about being a party-first loyalist.  AOC is challenging Nancy Pelosi.  The fight is about far more than just winning the next election.

When the Democratic establishment loses then they are weaker and more vulnerable.  That creates a power vacuum that Bernie's supporters want to fill.  Activists play the long game, they aren't trying to score political points.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.10  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2.9    8 months ago
The idea of 'protest' assumes party loyalty. 

What?   No the concept of 'protest' does not assume party loyalty.   One can protest for any reason.   Stick with the common meaning of common words, okay?

Why would those trying to change the party accept an establishment candidate just because they have a D behind their name?

Because, as I noted, they would be choosing between Bloomberg and Trump.   Since they clearly are more aligned with the D than R they would almost certainly favor Bloomberg over Trump for that reason alone.    I am amazed that you would think otherwise.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.2.12  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.10    8 months ago
Because, as I noted, they would be choosing between Bloomberg and Trump.   Since they clearly are more aligned with the D than R they would almost certainly favor Bloomberg over Trump for that reason alone.    I am amazed that you would think otherwise.

Well, that's the point.  Bernie's supporters are NOT clearly more aligned with the D than R.  Bernie's supporters are not that partisan.  OWS activists weren't partisan, they were trying to change both parties.  In case you haven't noticed, the Republican Party is slowly creeping toward becoming more progressive.  The party may remain more conservative than progressive but adding that hyphen really is a tectonic shift in the Republican Party.  Ronald Reagan is finally and truly dead in the Republican Party.  Now its time to exorcise Ronald Reagan from the Democratic Party.

Politically Donald Trump has been advancing the goals of the OWS movement.  Trump has been weakening the political establishment.  Trump bashes everything associated with the establishment; military, foreign policy, free trade, foreign alliances, finance, bureaucracy, political correctness, and the elite.  By weakening the establishment, Trump has been shifting political power back towards the grassroots.  Trump has removed Reagan's ideology from the Republican Party.  Trump has created a political vacuum that provides an opportunity to change the Republican Party.  That's the goal of activism.

Trump would attract more support if he weren't such a shallow, obnoxious, self-serving, ego-maniac.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.13  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2.12    8 months ago
Bernie's supporters are NOT clearly more aligned with the D than R. 

They are.   

I would explain, but this is too obvious to bother.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.2.14  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.13    8 months ago
They are.    I would explain, but this is too obvious to bother.

That's a point of irreconcilable difference.  Besides, the point of discussion is how Michael Bloomberg can win the Democratic nomination.

Bernie Sanders is in a leading position because he is putting forward ideas and those ideas are apparently sufficiently appealing to attract support.  IMO Bloomberg should embrace those ideas but make a contrast in how to achieve the goals.  That eliminates the argument that the ideas are too extreme and shifts the debate toward who is best capable of achieving those goals.  Sanders is arguing that we need to do big things; Bloomberg should agree and argue about who is more capable.

Bloomberg should avoid making 'defeating Trump' the theme of his campaign.  Again, Bloomberg should embrace some facets of Trump's political arguments and make the case that he is more capable.  Trump will tout a strong economy; Bloomberg should congratulate Trump and shift the debate toward how to maintain that strong economy while addressing inequalities that persist.  One obvious distinction that Bloomberg could make would be championing the building of factories to manufacture solar panels and wind turbines; to both create jobs and address climate change.  That would be a nod toward Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal.  Tying jobs and climate change together makes a grassroots economic case for addressing both problems.

Bloomberg should argue that healthcare is a complex problem that can't be fixed with easy solutions.  Addressing healthcare will require a lot of work that must include bipartisan input.  Again, that makes the argument about capability to manage difficult problems rather than arguing about a single solution for the problem.  Healthcare is not a Democrat or Republican issue; healthcare is a grassroots issue.

Michael Bloomberg's main selling point is his ability to govern; not his ability to think outside the box.  Bloomberg shouldn't be arguing about the impracticality of big ideas or arguing for a pragmatic approach.  Instead of arguing that free college is impractical, Bloomberg should embrace that as a worthy goal that will need someone capable of governing to accomplish.  

 
 
 
MAGA
2.2.15  MAGA  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.5    8 months ago

Bloomberg is a juvenile bully.  His position on soda and gun rights are proof of that.  Trump is the adult in the room

 
 
 
MAGA
2.2.16  MAGA  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.10    8 months ago

you would be surprised to know how many Bernie primary voters in 2016 as well as 2x Obama voters voted for Trump instead of Hillary.  You all have virtually written those voters out of the party.  Many will support Trump again because of all the jobs and income increases due to growth and tax cuts

 
 
 
lady in black
2.2.17  lady in black  replied to  MAGA @2.2.15    8 months ago

Crooked donnie is an uncouth loud mouth bully, a disgusting dictator wanna be and is the child in the room

 
 
 
lady in black
2.2.18  lady in black  replied to  MAGA @2.2.16    8 months ago

You didn't even vote for him now did you.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.2.19  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MAGA @2.2.15    8 months ago

Now that is really funny. I know you got confused and meant to say Trump. It's OK.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.20  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  MAGA @2.2.15    8 months ago
Bloomberg is a juvenile bully.  His position on soda and gun rights are proof of that.  Trump is the adult in the room

It is amazing to watch someone state the exact opposite of simple, observable reality.   To compare Trump with Bloomberg and conclude that Trump is the adult is fascinating.   But, then again, you also claim that evolution is pseudoscience — a worldwide conspiracy of godless scientists — so this is not all that surprising.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.21  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  MAGA @2.2.16    8 months ago
you would be surprised to know how many Bernie primary voters in 2016 as well as 2x Obama voters voted for Trump instead of Hillary.

12% of Bernie supporters voted for Trump.    The hatred for Hillary was profound.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.2.22  Nerm_L  replied to  lady in black @2.2.17    8 months ago
Crooked donnie is an uncouth loud mouth bully, a disgusting dictator wanna be and is the child in the room

Yes, Trump is all that and more.  But people knew who and what Donald Trump is/was before he was elected.

Trump didn't pretend to be anything other than what he is.  What people saw during the Republican primaries is what people got for a President.

Donald Trump did not act presidential during the 2016 campaign and was elected anyway.  Trump has not changed since the 2016 Republican primaries.  

Democrats stating the obvious won't help their chances against Trump.  In fact, Democrat's hair-on-fire outrage over Trump not being politically correct only reminds voters why Trump was elected.

 
 
 
lady in black
2.2.23  lady in black  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2.22    8 months ago

The people didn't elect him the EC did, he LOST the popular vote.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.24  Texan1211  replied to  lady in black @2.2.23    8 months ago
The people didn't elect him the EC did

So, Trump got elected like EVERY President, by the EC, as required by the Constitution.

he LOST the popular vote.

I wasn't aware that candidates tried to win the popular vote. I thought they wanted to win office. Is THAT what went wrong for Hillary?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.2.25  Nerm_L  replied to  lady in black @2.2.23    8 months ago
The people didn't elect him the EC did, he LOST the popular vote.

If Hillary Clinton could not manage something as simple as the Electoral College then why was she the best choice for President?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.2.26  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.21    8 months ago
12% of Bernie supporters voted for Trump.    The hatred for Hillary was profound.

Yes, the dislike of Hillary Clinton was profound.

Registered Voters Who Stayed Home Probably Cost Clinton The Election

Bernie supporters defected and Bernie supporters stayed home.  Sanders' revolution isn't a cult that just blindly follows Sanders.  And they aren't party-first loyalists.  

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.2.27  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2.14    8 months ago

Why do you care what he does or not do anyway?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.2.28  Nerm_L  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2.2.27    8 months ago
Why do you care what he does or not do anyway?

Because Michael Bloomberg could become President.  The question was how Bloomberg could win the Democratic nomination.  As I pointed out, Bloomberg's selling point is ability to govern.  I doubt Bloomberg will follow the strategy I proposed. 

Pete Buttigieg is sort of following that strategy.  But being mayor of South Bend is being dismissed as real governing experience by the party establishment.

The political conflict will be between Bloomberg and Sanders.  Bloomberg's ego and Sanders persistent devotion to his ideals will be a source of constant conflict; the contrasts are too large to ignore.  Sanders will have to directly challenge Bloomberg; Sanders grassroots base will expect that.  Warren is trying to insert herself into the debate but is failing; Warren has started resorting to gimmicks to attract attention.  Biden is trying to run on Obama's coattails but Biden wasn't that prominent in Obama's legacy.  Biden has already demonstrated that electing him won't be a re-election of Obama.  Amy Klobuchar is positioning herself to be the pragmatic choice; safe, reliable, presidential, and not willing to rock the boat. 

The real challenger to Bloomberg is Buttigieg.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.29  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2.26    8 months ago
Bernie supporters defected and Bernie supporters stayed home. 

Some did.   But the point remains that Bernie supporters are clearly (obviously) more aligned with the D party than the R party:

Nerm @2.2.12 ☞ Bernie's supporters are NOT clearly more aligned with the D than R. 
TiG @2.2.13 ☞ They are.   I would explain, but this is too obvious to bother.

This is ideologically obvious yet you still try to argue the point.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.2.30  MrFrost  replied to  MAGA @2.2.15    8 months ago
Bloomberg is a juvenile bully.

Right? Trump has never bullied anyone.... Oh wait.. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.2.31  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.29    8 months ago
This is ideologically obvious yet you still try to argue the point.  

Is it ideologically obvious or are you only seeing what you want to see?  Do you know Sanders' position on issues?

Sanders and Trump are pretty much on the same page regarding foreign policy.  Sanders and Trump are pretty much on the same page regarding small business and manufacturing.  Sanders and Trump share many goals; they differ on how to achieve a common set of goals.

If Sanders does win the Democratic nomination then Republicans are going to be in for a shock (as will many Democrats).  Sanders and Trump agree on many policy issues.  The contrast between Sanders and Trump is not as ideologically stark as is being assumed.

Donald Trump is not a Reagan Republican.  Bernie Sanders is not a Reagan Democrat.  Both are leading a grassroots revolution to change the political landscape.  And both are succeeding.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.32  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2.31    8 months ago
Is it ideologically obvious or are you only seeing what you want to see? 

It is obvious that Sanders supporters are closer to the ideologies supported by the D party than the ideologies supported by the R party.    That you do not see this is amazing.

Sanders and Trump share many goals; they differ on how to achieve a common set of goals.

That is the crucial difference in politics Nerm.   Politics is not so much about goals but rather means to achieve goals.   All politicians, for example, speak of human rights and ensuring all are content with sufficient resources to lead decent lives.   They differ (greatly) in how they would achieve these ends.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.2.33  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.32    8 months ago
That is the crucial difference in politics Nerm.   Politics is not so much about goals but rather means to achieve goals.   All politicians, for example, speak of human rights and ensuring all are content with sufficient resources to lead decent lives.   They differ (greatly) in how they would achieve these ends.

384

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.34  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2.33    8 months ago

I even gave you an example (part of what you quoted) so why pretend you could not understand what I wrote?:

TiG @2.2.32 ☞ All politicians, for example, speak of human rights and ensuring all are content with sufficient resources to lead decent lives.   They differ (greatly) in how they would achieve these ends.
 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.2.35  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.34    8 months ago
I even gave you an example (part of what you quoted) so why pretend you could not understand what I wrote?:

Not all politicians speak of human rights or speak of ensuring all are content with sufficient resources to lead decent lives.  While those can certainly be goals; they are not necessarily common goals.  Some claim that the authority of the state supersede human rights; the rights of the state are greater than the rights of individuals.   Some claim that allocation of resources are best determined through competition; life isn't fair and those who cannot compete will be denied resources to lead decent lives.

Not all goals are created in common.  That's why political parties create a platform to delineate and prioritize goals.

What I said is that Sanders and Trump share several common goals.  The differences between their platforms is not as stark as people are assuming.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.36  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2.35    8 months ago

You are still talking methods rather than goals.   

What I said is that Sanders and Trump share several common goals. 

And I pointed out that sharing common general goals is to be expected.   It is obvious, Nerm.   The crucial difference in politics is not the general goals as many share the same goals (e.g. happiness, good standard of living, health, etc.);  the difference in politics is the means by which the goals are achieved.

You pointing out that Sanders and Trump share common abstract goals is pointing out the obvious.   And as the goals become more abstract the more commonality you will find.   

Recognize that there are profound differences in approach between Sanders and Trump and those difference in approach is where the politics lie.


Note also that Sanders and Trump differ in more concrete (less abstract) goals that apply to their different methods.   Sanders has a specific goal of redistributing wealth from the uber-rich.   Clearly Trump's does not have that as a goal.   These less abstract (concrete, method-tied) goals represent differences in method.   They are goals of the method, not end goals (general goals) for society (e.g. happiness).  ]

 
 
 
TᵢG
3  seeder  TᵢG    8 months ago

Could Bloomberg Win the Democratic Nomination?

There are three big reasons Bloomberg could stage a last-minute rally and make a serious bid for the nomination.

One : In the Ponnuru scenario, the Democrats could use every trick in the book, or indeed rewrite the book, to stop Sanders. Step forward, superdelegates! Hail, change in debate rules! The downside risk of this is a replay of the 1968 Chicago convention chaos, this time in Milwaukee. But it’s not like even the Bolshiest of Bernie Bros are going to stay home on November 3 if their choice is between a capitalist Democrat and Donald Trump, and the party knows this.

Two : Given Biden’s continual struggles and Elizabeth Warren’s rapid fade, the race could narrow to a Sanders–Bloomberg contest quickly if Buttigieg’s momentum were to stall. Some of Warren’s fans among technocrats and the highly educated will even defect to Bloomberg, on the grounds that he’s the sort of managerial-class mandarin they feel an affinity with. (Warren’s anti-capitalist rhetoric is, I think, seen as merely performative by a significant percentage of her devotees.)

Three : Money. It’s preposterous how rich Bloomberg is. Because of the way his wealth is generated, via subscriptions to his eponymous financial-services terminals, it comes in faster than he can spend it. He could spend $5 billion on this race and emerge from it  richer than he was when he entered . Last year,  Forbes  put his net worth at $55.5 billion; this year he’s at $61.7 billion. For comparison, saturation advertising for a blockbuster movie that everyone wants to see runs a studio about $50 million. No one knows what a Bloombergian level of advertising spending on a single idea might look like because it’s never been done before . And that’s not counting all the other ways money can be useful in a political campaign. As other candidates drop out of the race, Bloomberg will be able to buy up organizers and pollsters and canvassers and everybody else who wants a job in politics. He’ll be able to put them up at the Four Seasons, rent them Cadillac Escalades, and feed them so much lobster thermidor it’ll make  Lego Batman envious . He’ll be able to buy up activists and agitators too. Last week he evidently bought a ticket to the Super Bowl for the Houston-area woman, an anti-gun activist, who also starred in the $11 million gun-control  commercial  he ran during the game. Bloomberg has so far steered clear of using his fortune to tear down fellow Democrats, but the most effective political ads are attacks. If it comes down to him vs. Sanders, a declared enemy of capitalism, will he continue to avoid going negative? And how well would Sanders hold up against $100 million in attack ads?
 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
3.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TᵢG @3    8 months ago

Attack ads can backfire.  That was proven in Canada with the ad pointing out Jean Chretien's facial disfigurement due to Bells Palsy, and since the people of Canada are relatively fair minded, Chretien won a landslide victory and the party posting the attack ad almost got wiped out, notwithstanding that (I believe) it was the incumbent. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
4  Thrawn 31    8 months ago

How Michael Bloomberg Could Win

Just buy all the "Trump" properties. Bloomnberg has the money, and I get that he would be hesitant to take on all that garbage debt, but still. Buy dip shit out of his own business. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Thrawn 31 @4    8 months ago

Wouldn't it be a hoot if he would buy all of Trump's resorts and then have him trespassed.

 
 
 
Jordan G
5  Jordan G    8 months ago

I'm leaning towards Mayor Pete in the primary, but I'm okay with voting for Bloomberg if it gets rid of Trump.

 
 
 
Ender
5.1  Ender  replied to  Jordan G @5    8 months ago

I am liking him more and more.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
6  Buzz of the Orient    8 months ago

To the tune of Five Foot Two, Eyes of Blue...

Five foot six, eyes of brown
But oh, what that five foot does own
Has anybody seen Bloomberg?
Self made man, wears a tan,
To be POTUS is his plan
Has anybody spent so much?
Now if you run into a 
Five foot six, full of tricks,
Bern he'll beat and Mayor Pete
Biden hasn't got the feet,
But could he win, be candidate?
Could he, could he, could he rate?
Has anybody seen Bloomberg?

Five Foot Two, Eyes of Blue:

https://video.tudou.com/v/XMTMyNTc0NzU2OA==.html?spm=a2h0k.8191414.0.0&from=s1.8-1-1.2

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6    8 months ago

Bloomberg is 5'8", not 5'6".

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
6.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6.1    8 months ago

Some say eight, some say six

Use whatever gets you kicks

Some say six, some say eight

Makes no difference for his fate.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.1.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @6.1.1    8 months ago

I "use" facts that I look up.  I do like how you rhyme though.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
6.1.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6.1.2    8 months ago

I wasn't putting him down, Paula.  Well, maybe I did downsize him a bit.  Although I have no vote in America I think Bloomberg would be the best choice as the POTUS candidate for the Democratic Party, but having seen all the bad moves they've already made I doubt that will happen.  From afar, the person I would really love to see as POTUS is Nikki Haley.  I am not burdened with American party loyalties. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
7  Sparty On    8 months ago

I couldn’t vote for the man.

From his attempts to control behavior via totalitarian style bans to his lack of understanding of “common sense” gun laws he’s proven to me his interests don’t even remotely align with my belief system.

Like any good politician, he’s pandering to his base.   No doubt about it.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @7    8 months ago
From his attempts to control behavior via totalitarian style bans

What do you call Trump's attempt to have abortion made illegal? Feels pretty controlling to me.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1    8 months ago

When did Trump try and make abortion illegal? 

That's big news!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.1    8 months ago

Sean, did you seem to miss him at the "March for Life'?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.2    8 months ago

Speaking in public is an attempt to make abortion illegal now? I don't think that how the  law works.

Also, he never even advocated for making abortion illegal during his march for life speech.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.4  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.3    8 months ago

Sean don't play coy. What do you think that march was about? It's just harder to do since they have to go through SCOTUS.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.5    8 months ago

So he hasn't tried to make abortion illegal.  Thanks for making that clear.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.7  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.6    8 months ago

Yes Sean, and that is trying to control women's behavior. Thanks for making that clear.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.7    8 months ago

What are you talking about?

speaking about a hypothetical (which he walked back) is now an actual attempt to control women’s behavior?  If trump used that type of  “logic” , against a democrat  the fact checkers would call that a lie. 
 
your “proof” of Trump’s  supposed attempt to make abortion illegal is to cite a SPEECH where he didn’t even advocate for making abortion illegal and an answer to a hypothetical about a mythical world where abortion is already illegal. 

he’s been the president for 3 years. You can’t cite a single actual attempt to make abortion illegal.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
7.1.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.8    8 months ago

The interviewer asked if he wanted it (abortion) banned, and he said yes.

He's appeared at the March for Life.

Sounds like working toward an abortion ban to me.

If a bill crossed his desk banning abortion (and specifying penalties for it), given what he's said since he became a candidate, would you expect him to sign or veto?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.9    8 months ago

He would veto it on federalism grounds. He's said states should set their own abortion policies.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
7.1.12  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.10    8 months ago
He would veto it on federalism grounds.

Frankly, I doubt he knows what "federalism" is.

I'd say it would depend entirely on whether the bill were to reach him before or after an election.  If before, he would sign it, because he would know that to do otherwise would be political suicide.

He knows diddly squat about civics, but he can pander with the worst of them.

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.13  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1    8 months ago

The day Trump makes abortion illegal, I’ll be right next to you to protest it and I’m not pro choice per se.    I think abortion can be an abhorrent practice but also don’t feel it’s my position or the governments to tell other people what they should or shouldn’t do in such instances.

When it comes to forced control of behavior, that is exactly what Bloomberg HAS actually done before and not just talked about it.

So your turn.    You okay with that?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
7.1.14  sandy-2021492  replied to    8 months ago
MATTHEWS: No I’m asking you because you say you want to ban it. What does that mean?

TRUMP: I am against. I am pro-life. Yes. I am pro-life.

That's not "Trump not supporting abortion", loki.  It's him saying he wants to ban abortion.  Nobody is putting words in his mouth.  He was being asked for clarification, and he confirmed.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.15  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.13    8 months ago

Yes and no. Given NYC public health system (we have public hospitals) I totally understand why he tried to do it. I don't think it's applicable nationwide though and I am sure he will explain that. I think the fiscal conservative in him tried to bring costs down in the city, but the idea didn't float. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.18  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to    8 months ago

His past tweets:

As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions - Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother - the same position taken by Ronald Reagan. We have come very far in the last two years with 105 wonderful new.....

....Federal Judges (many more to come), two great new Supreme Court Justices, the Mexico City Policy, and a whole new & positive attitude about the Right to Life. The Radical Left, with late term abortion (and worse), is imploding on this issue. We must stick together and Win....

....for Life in 2020. If we are foolish and do not stay UNITED as one, all of our hard fought gains for Life can, and will, rapidly disappear!

Get real. He is trying to ban abortion by any method possible.

 
 
 
MAGA
7.1.19  MAGA  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.3    8 months ago

You are right.  He’s only spoken about making 3rd trimester abortions illegal except to save the life of the mother.  

 
 
 
MAGA
7.1.20  MAGA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.18    8 months ago

Limits are not bans.  Nowhere ever did he ever say he wanted to ban all abortions.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.21  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.15    8 months ago

You clearly trust him, I don’t.    

If he’s willing to take a liberty like that away in NYC, he’ll have no problem doing it on a larger scale in the US and deep down you know it.     There’s no end to the potential totalitarianism for those willing to act in such a manner.

Thats how liberties are.    They are easy to accept when you agree with them.    They only get hard when you don’t.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.22  Sean Treacy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.18    8 months ago
Get real. He is trying to ban abortion by any method possible.

Do you not get what the word ban means?  Your own post  proved yourself wrong. 

I also have no idea how you equate calling oneself pro-life as an "attempt to ban abortion."  Where is the actual attempt to ban abortion?  An executive order? Did he order the military to shoot people trying to get abortions?  After three years in office, what executive power has he used to ban abortion? You'd think Courts would have noticed a President attempting to ban abortion, but I can't find a single case where that was even alleged. 

If you apply that standard to Bloomberg, he's in favor of banning pop, food, the first amendment, the second amendment etc etc...

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
7.1.23  sandy-2021492  replied to    8 months ago

"You say you want to ban it."  Trump had every opportunity to say that no, he did not want to ban abortion.  He did not.  He said he was pro-life.  He tried to make the question about Matthews' religion.  He squirmed.  He agreed with legal penalties.  But he affirmed that he is against abortion, and at no point did he contradict Matthews' statement, although he had ample opportunity.

What Matthews was trying to do was get a straight answer out of Trump.  It's a hard job, nailing Jello to a tree.  Is getting a straight answer something only liberal journalists and anchors do?

You can try to deny he said it, loki.  But he did say it.  Hell, he may not even believe it himself - after all, when he knocks up a mistress, he supports abortion.  Ask Marla.  But he knows what his base wants to hear, and he tries to give it to them.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
7.1.24  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.22    8 months ago

You really think it would boil down to just one action on his part, Sean?  You know better than that.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.25  Sean Treacy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.24    8 months ago
You really think it would boil down to just one action on his part, Sean?  You know better than t

It was originally claimed that Trump tried to make abortion illegal.  That's obviously never happened. Whether he calls himself pro-life or not doesn't  have anything to do with his supposed attempt to make  abortion illegal, which is what this discussion has devolved to.   

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
7.1.26  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.25    8 months ago

You're ignoring what he's already done.  He's setting the stage, attempting to create a favorable environment for the attempt.  Like I said, it won't be ONE discrete attempt to illegalize abortion.  He (or more likely, his advisors) know that he'll need a judicial branch willing to buck the precedent set by Roe v. Wade.

He has not "tried", past tense.  He is actively engaging in the attempt, now.  It's an ongoing process.  And I'm fairly sure you know that.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.1.28  Sean Treacy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.26    8 months ago
You're ignoring what he's already done.

I've been asking for examples of what he's done to  outlaw abortion.  The sum total of the responses has been he's called himself pro-life and attended a pro-life rally.  That's it.  Not a single use of the powers of the Presidency to actually make abortion illegal, as was claimed.

  He's setting the stage to create a favorable environment...

As I said, if that's the standard you are going to use, then you can claim Bloomberg is trying to outlaw everything from soda, to free speech, to automobiles etc etc.. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
7.1.29  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.28    8 months ago
I've been asking for examples of what he's done to  outlaw abortion.

Your refusal to acknowledge the answers does not mean they don't exist, and doesn't invalidate them.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.30  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.22    8 months ago

Sean,

You know how this is done, and only done through either the states or SCOTUS. If he gets another 4 years it will be done.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.31  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.21    8 months ago
If he’s willing to take a liberty like that away in NYC, he’ll have no problem doing it on a larger scale in the US and deep down you know it.

Oh please. Trump has done a ton by executive order and has had them overturned. What are those but totalitarian? And in the case with the Soda, he was overturned by the court. That is why we have checks and balances. 

I value my liberties. One of the reproductive rights which will not make it another 4 years if RBG retires. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.32  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.31    8 months ago

Yes you value the liberties you value but not the one you don’t. I’m for all choice.    What I drink, what I eat and what gun I choose to own.    And yes, your choice on reproductive rights.    Anything less is hypocritical and you know it.

And save me the self righteous indignation.    Had Hillary won things would have likely already swung the other way on SCOTUS appointments.    RBG1 would have already bailed and been replaced with another liberal minded judge along with the others already selected by Trump.

To quote our last POTUS ..... “elections have consequences.   Tough luck, get over it ......”

 
 
 
MAGA
7.1.33  MAGA  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.1.29    8 months ago

there has been no trump attempt to ban abortion. Period. End of story.  Making it more difficult to get third trimester abortions and limiting tax payer exposure to paying for them per Hyde, and making sure no federal tax dollars go do agencies providing those contemptible villainous procedures is not banning abortion.  I think that the pro life movement is making some uncomfortable and getting into the guilty consciences of some people.  We love babies 👶 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
7.1.34  sandy-2021492  replied to  MAGA @7.1.33    8 months ago
there has been no trump attempt to ban abortion. Period. End of story.

Sure, sure.

If you really believed that, you wouldn't like him as much.

 
 
 
MAGA
7.1.35  MAGA  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.32    8 months ago

they will never get over it.  TDS is incurable for four more years! 

 
 
 
CB
7.1.36  CB   replied to  Sparty On @7.1.21    8 months ago

Funny, deep down you know the republican majority Senate literally gave up its liberties to President Donald Trump and his millions of Twitter followers.

Yet, you don't want us to internalize that; just look where you 'point.'

Where we are as a nation today is a president office holder who has his hands wrapped around the throat of the republican party through wiles, intimidation, and a promise of politically killing off disloyal (out of line) members using his large cadre of voters.

And now he wants to extend his control over the rest of the country. And here you are trying to project Trump's character and actions onto a man who wants Trump's job, so as to release Trump to return to private life!

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.37  Sparty On  replied to  CB @7.1.36    8 months ago
Funny, deep down you know the republican majority Senate literally gave up its liberties to President Donald Trump and his millions of Twitter followers.

I know of no such thing but then again I’m not delusional like so many others here .....

 
 
 
MAGA
7.1.38  MAGA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.18    8 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
CB
7.1.39  CB   replied to  Sparty On @7.1.37    8 months ago

You are clearly not standing in the shoes of a republican politician—they know lots about such things. Donald Trump's got them and their political power in his hands. Mitt Romney is something special (keep an eye on him). Mitt answers to a higher authority.

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.40  Sparty On  replied to  CB @7.1.39    8 months ago

Lol .... my belief system doesn’t answer to a political party narrative like many here and I understand that Romney is the flavor or the day for many Dems.   Not so much in 2012 when they were calling him all sorts of bad things.    You probably were as well .....

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
7.1.42  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.18    8 months ago

Of course he supports abortion as a result of incest, just in case.

 
 
 
CB
7.1.43  CB   replied to  Sparty On @7.1.40    8 months ago

This is not about 'you' is it? It is about the collective-a party. Republicans are sold out to Donald Trump and deep down you know it. Thus, you are not on an island with your belief system to comfort you: Sparty On, you are surrounded and possibly overwhelmed by a unified republican tone. Yet, you persist to listen.

Romney is not a democrat or any subset of democrat! You will be reminded of this very thing the next time Romney has to issue a vote. Then, you will have to determine how you feel about Romney all over again.

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.44  Sparty On  replied to  CB @7.1.43    8 months ago

Ah but it is and it’s also about the TDS ridden on the left.    Still following their failed “resist” narrative.

Sad but true .......

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.45  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.32    8 months ago
And save me the self righteous indignation.

OK what the heck? I am expressing my POV and you get all snarky because I care about reproductive rights. 

Yes you value the liberties you value but not the one you don’t. I’m for all choice.    What I drink, what I eat and what gun I choose to own.    And yes, your choice on reproductive rights.    Anything less is hypocritical and you know it.

We have laws and government for a reason. Without them there is anarchy. But I believe in doing them within the confines of the Constitution. 

And save me the self righteous indignation.    Had Hillary won things would have likely already swung the other way on SCOTUS appointments.  

I didn't say otherwise. Don't put words in my mouth. I want balance in the Supreme Court. 

To quote our last POTUS ..... “elections have consequences.   Tough luck, get over it ......”

I am well aware of that, and hence why I am going with who I feel is the best bet to get Trump out. Oh and for the record, I didn't vote for Obama.

 
 
 
CB
7.1.46  CB   replied to  Sparty On @7.1.44    8 months ago

Okay, well, that happened. (Smile.)

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.47  Sparty On  replied to  CB @7.1.46    8 months ago

Glad we finally found agreement on something 

 
 
 
CB
7.1.48  CB   replied to  Sparty On @7.1.47    8 months ago

Okay, that happened too. There was nothing in your comment which was relevant to my comment. TDS is a so-called distraction. I will tear Donald Trump 'a new one' any time I wish or not and you have the liberty to call that anything which floats. You want to fix your so-called, "TDS" —get Donald off media pronto. Otherwise, color me: On that "A**" as needed.

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.1.49  MrFrost  replied to  MAGA @7.1.35    8 months ago
TDS is incurable for four more years! 

I wouldn't worry too much, the right has suffered from ODS for the last 12 years. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.1.50  MrFrost  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.32    8 months ago

To quote our last POTUS ..... “elections have consequences.   Tough luck, get over it ......”

True. Had Dems not won the midterms, trump wouldn't have been impeached for his crimes. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1.51  Sparty On  replied to  MrFrost @7.1.50    8 months ago

C’mon frosty ..... you know better than that ........

 
 
 
Ender
8  Ender    8 months ago

At this rate, it seems like there will be primaries up until the general election.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9  JohnRussell    8 months ago

I will vote for Bloomberg in a heartbeat over Trump, and I think he would be a good president. 

Bloomberg will have to make some compromises with the progressives though, either to get the nomination in the first place or to get these young sanders and Warren supporters out to vote in November. 

I'm still waiting , also, for the seed about Bloomberg where the non Democrats  (independents) acknowledge that defeating Trump , not electing Bloomberg, is the cause we need to fight for this year. 

Everyone should be denouncing Trump and saying they will vote for whoever emerges as the main general election opponent to Trump. 

I havent seen that in these pro-Bloomberg seeds here yet. 

 
 
 
bugsy
9.1  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @9    8 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
bugsy
9.1.1  bugsy  replied to  bugsy @9.1    8 months ago

Can someone please clear this up....I am under the impression that if a mod is participating in a seed, they cannot moderate same seed.

Am I wrong about this?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
9.1.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  bugsy @9.1.1    8 months ago

Mods can't moderate a thread in which they're participating - they're prevented from doing so by the site itself.  It's better if they don't moderate on a seed where they're participating, but sometimes, there are few mods online when a violation occurs, so whichever mod is present has to take care of it. 

That being said, your ticket was issued before I commented on this seed (in a different thread).

 
 
 
bugsy
9.1.3  bugsy  replied to  sandy-2021492 @9.1.2    8 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
bugsy
9.1.4  bugsy  replied to  bugsy @9.1.3    8 months ago

Nevermind. I Reread your post. My understanding was the entire seed cannot be moderated if that mod posts anywhere within it.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
9.2  Dean Moriarty  replied to  JohnRussell @9    8 months ago

No the focus should be on keeping Trump in power as a roadblock to the progressives theft and redistribution programs like cash for clunkers or free crap for the lazy at the expense of the working man. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
9.2.1  Sparty On  replied to  Dean Moriarty @9.2    8 months ago

Spot on Dean, spot on.

 
 
 
TᵢG
9.3  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @9    8 months ago
Everyone should be denouncing Trump and saying they will vote for whoever emerges as the main general election opponent to Trump.  I havent seen that in these pro-Bloomberg seeds here yet. 

Good grief John, Bloomberg seeds are not required to discuss (or even mention) Trump nor are the participants required to take a pledge.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @9.3    8 months ago
Everyone should be denouncing Trump and saying they will vote for whoever emerges as the main general election opponent to Trump.  I havent seen that in these pro-Bloomberg seeds here yet. 
Good grief John, Bloomberg seeds are not required to discuss (or even mention) Trump nor are the participants required to take a pledge.  

People who want Trump out of office more than they want a third party will readily take such a "pledge". 

 
 
 
TᵢG
9.3.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @9.3.1    8 months ago

No+sir+i+dont+look+at+the+sesame+seeds+o

TiG @ 9.3 ☞   ... Bloomberg seeds are not required to discuss (or even mention) Trump nor are the participants required to take a pledge.  
 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.3.3  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @9.3.2    8 months ago
TiG @   9.3   ☞    ...  Bloomberg seeds are not required to discuss (or even mention) Trump nor are the participants required to take a pledge.  

People who want Trump out of office more than they want a third party will readily take such a "pledge". 

 
 
 
cjcold
9.3.4  cjcold  replied to  JohnRussell @9.3.3    8 months ago

Sorry JR I don't do 'pledges' but this independent centrist will be voting for whoever is nominated by the dems to run against Trump. Thinking that Bloomberg might just be the smart and pragmatic choice.

 
 
 
Kathleen
10  Kathleen    8 months ago

I really don’t know enough about Bloomberg. I will be eager to see what he has to say in the debate. He seems to be the most moderate candidate running. I don’t care for any of the other candidates, so I will see what he has to offer.

 
 
 
Tacos!
12  Tacos!    8 months ago

I feel like he could beat Trump in a general election between just the two of them. However, I don't think enough Democrats will vote for him in the primaries for him to get the nomination.

Alternatively, even though he could do well as an independent, I think Trump wins a three-way race. Not enough people can stomach voting for the independent in a presidential race. I think it strikes them as weak or illegitimate somehow. And since there will obviously also be a Democratic nominee, I suspect Bloomberg would take more votes from that candidate than he would from Trump.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13  Perrie Halpern R.A.    8 months ago

Hi Tacos,

Bloomberg will not run as an independent. He will only run as a dem. I think we will get a better idea of how he will do, after the next debate.

 
 
 
Tacos!
13.1  Tacos!  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13    8 months ago

His money is probably the biggest factor in his favor. He can hang in the fight longer than some of the others. If some a couple of the top 4 drop out after Super Tuesday, I feel better about his chances. I could see at least two of Pete, Joe, or Elizabeth Warren dropping out by then. I think Bloomberg could do very well if his main competition is Bernie and just one of the others. 

I foresee Joe dropping out sooner than he ever planned and Bloomberg picking up most of those voters.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
13.1.2  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to    8 months ago
he is driving the costs up to the point that other candidates are being priced out of the market. Literally buying the election.

and so far he has not moved the needle.

he is just throwing away money while blocking other dems.

win win :)

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.1.4  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to    8 months ago

That is not buying the election. He made his own money and now he is spending it as he sees fit. The people who are voting will decide if they want him or not. And frankly, I like that he is using his own money. That means no one has bought him.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.1.5  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @13.1.2    8 months ago

That's odd. He went from 16th place to 4th in less than a month. I think that is quite a needle move. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.1.7  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to    8 months ago

He is spending his money on ads, not trying to push agendas in back rooms. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
13.1.8  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.1.5    8 months ago
He went from 16th place to 4th in less than a month

my bad, I should have been more specific.

I was not talking about the democrat primary results

I was talking about nov 2020 

when bloomberg can fill a football stadium at one of his campaign events he might have a shot.

 
 
 
MAGA
13.1.9  MAGA  replied to    8 months ago

And he’d cause a national 2nd amendment sanctuary movement that would be far larger than the one for criminal illegal alien invaders.  We will totally defy him on the gun issue to the point of goading him to try to call out the national guard to try to compel our compliance.  Then he won’t be able to accomplish anything else.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.1.11  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @13.1.8    8 months ago
when bloomberg can fill a football stadium at one of his campaign events he might have a shot.

Is that the measurement now? History has shown us some other people who could do that, but I wouldn't say that was a sign of character. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
13.1.12  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.1.11    8 months ago
Is that the measurement now?

it has been a measurement in every election in my lifetime.

how did that become new? crowd size matters

History has shown us some other people who could do that

like obama...  and unlike clinton

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.1.13  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MAGA @13.1.9    8 months ago
And he’d cause a national 2nd amendment sanctuary movement that would be far larger than the one for criminal illegal alien invaders.  We will totally defy him on the gun issue to the point of goading him to try to call out the national guard to try to compel our compliance.

You realize that you have nothing to base that on or can prove, but I guess it sounded scary, so you said it. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
13.1.14  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.1.4    8 months ago

Unlike a certain POTUS who claimed he is rich and didn't need contributors,  Bloomberg is putting his money where his mouth is and not using campaign money for personal use.

 
 
 
MAGA
13.2  MAGA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13    8 months ago

The debate he didn’t have to follow the rules and bought his way into? 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MAGA @13.2    8 months ago

That is just a petty comment with zero proof.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to    8 months ago

Bloomberg is as short as Trump is wide. I'll take the thin short guy any day.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.5  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to    8 months ago

You realize how ridiculous that statement is? The man was the Mayor of New York. He never had to stand on anything. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.7  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to    8 months ago

Ummm.. yeah OK. We're done here. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
13.2.9  sandy-2021492  replied to    8 months ago
the runt

Why does his height bother you so much?

 
 
 
Ender
13.2.10  Ender  replied to  sandy-2021492 @13.2.9    8 months ago

Come on now, donald tweeted about him standing on a box so they have to follow suit.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
13.2.11  Sean Treacy  replied to    8 months ago

Having to stand on a box to seem authoritative...

Sad

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
13.2.12  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ender @13.2.10    8 months ago

Another thing to remember next time some folks complain about incivility.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
13.2.14  sandy-2021492  replied to    8 months ago

If it didn't bother you, you wouldn't insult him about it.  Frankly, it's a silly thing to worry about.

 
 
 
Ender
13.2.15  Ender  replied to    8 months ago

donald...is that you?

 
 
 
CB
13.2.16  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @13.2.11    8 months ago

I hear Bloomberg can stand on his great tax returns. How about that other guy? Can he stand on his tax returns for us?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.17  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to    8 months ago

What a pile of BS. Here is the pic from your own article:

384

Joe Biden is 6 feet and Bloomberg is 5'7" and clearly about a 5 inch difference is showing in this photo. No box. It seems you guys are the only one obsessed with his hight and not him. 

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
13.2.20  sandy-2021492  replied to    8 months ago
he has short man psychological issues

Yes, you've provided us with a most informed and unbiased diagnosis /s

 
 
 
Ender
13.2.21  Ender  replied to  sandy-2021492 @13.2.20    8 months ago

Sounds like he might have some a little nervous.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
13.2.22  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ender @13.2.21    8 months ago

Sounds like.

It's a little sad that nervousness causes a reversion to schoolyard insults.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.23  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to    8 months ago

And my SS says my name is Parrie L. Berlin.... opps.. their mistake.

I'm out on this discussion. It's ridiculous and you wouldn't be carrying on if you were not worried.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
13.2.26  sandy-2021492  replied to    8 months ago
It's a little sad that nervousness causes a reversion to schoolyard insults.
 
 
 
sandy-2021492
13.2.28  sandy-2021492  replied to    8 months ago

You don't see "runt" as an insult?  And a childish one, at that?

You're the one worried about a Napoleonic complex, and you're accusing me of projecting my fears?  Laughable.

I think you need a good dictionary.  Look up "insult", "childish", and "projection", for starters.

 
 
 
TᵢG
13.2.29  seeder  TᵢG  replied to    8 months ago
He is a short man with a complex

Citation on the complex diagnosis?   

Or do you simply presume all short men have a complex?

 
 
 
Ender
13.2.31  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @13.2.29    8 months ago

Don't ya know, everyone that posts on the internet is 6'3.

 
 
 
TᵢG
13.2.32  seeder  TᵢG  replied to    8 months ago

removed for context

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
13.2.33  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @13.2.32    8 months ago

removed for context

 
 
 
pat wilson
13.2.35  pat wilson  replied to  sandy-2021492 @13.2.33    8 months ago

I LOVE the ignore function !!!!

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
13.2.36  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to    8 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.38  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to    8 months ago

I like Joe. I like Mike. I like anyone who is a moderate. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
13.2.39  seeder  TᵢG  replied to    8 months ago

Perrie is primarily supporting Bloomberg (at least currently).   (I am as well.)

 
 
 
Ender
13.2.42  Ender  replied to    8 months ago

I'll rise up
Rise like the day
I'll rise up
In spite of the ache
I will rise a thousands times again
And we'll rise up
Rise like the waves
We'll rise up
In spite of the ache
We'll rise up
And we'll do it a thousand times again

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
13.2.44  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.3    8 months ago

5'8" is not short except to most basketball players.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
13.2.45  KDMichigan  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @13.2.44    8 months ago

Seems like little Mike has a short man complex, even he can't decide what it is.

Bloomberg's actual height has long been a source of speculation and conflicting news reports, including from the man himself. His driver's license lists him as 5-foot-10. In 2001, the billionaire told a Newsday reporter that he was "in the ballpark" of six-foot-one. A few days later, he told the press, "When you're 5-[foot]-10 like me, you want to make sure the podium isn't too low." His account of his height has changed over time. In 2006, he said, "What chance does a five-foot-seven billionaire Jew who’s divorced really have of becoming president?" A 2003 Daily News article placed him at five-foot-six, as did a 2013 Post piece.
 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.46  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  KDMichigan @13.2.45    8 months ago

Source please.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.47  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to    8 months ago

IDK. It's just two primaries in two small states. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.48  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TᵢG @13.2.39    8 months ago

Indeedy.

 
 
 
Sparty On
13.2.49  Sparty On  replied to  KDMichigan @13.2.45    8 months ago

We all know height has nothing to do with character but lying about it sure can.

Very telling if true ...... 

 
 
 
CB
13.2.50  CB   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.46    8 months ago

You see what that is right? It's smear. Did you catch the 'introduction' of the Jewish factor? Keywords: Short, complex, low, lies about size, divorced, and so on and so forth. Down below in the Steve Bannon interview I posted is added: rich oligarch to the list.

The tear-down game has been engaged in earnest. I hope Mr. Bloomberg has his waders on so he can step out into the middle of Trump 'waters' and pull the plug up by its blond strands!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.51  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  CB @13.2.50    8 months ago

There were a lot of things he said in that interview that I found ....errr.... questionable, but I didn't pick that up at all. 

 
 
 
CB
13.2.52  CB   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.51    8 months ago

13.2.45   KDMichigan   replied to  Paula Bartholomew @ 13.2.44     an hour ago

Seems like little Mike has a short man complex , even he can't decide what it is.

Bloomberg's actual height has long been a source of speculation and conflicting news reports, including from the man himself. His driver's license lists him as 5-foot-10. In 2001, the billionaire told a Newsday reporter that he was "in the ballpark" of six-foot-one. A few days later, he told the press, "When you're 5-[foot]-10 like me, you want to make sure the podium isn't too low ." His account of his height has changed over time . In 2006, he said, "What chance does a five-foot-seven billionaire Jew who’s divorced really have of becoming president?" A 2003 Daily News article placed him at five-foot-six, as did a 2013 Post piece.
Keywords: Short , complex , low , lies about size , divorced . And to those for which it can possibly matter [a] Jew is rather innocuously brought into this discussion. . . . (above).
From the video of 'Real Time': Republican oligarchy (is the correct terminology there) and Bernie Sanders - who detests billionaires generally buying up support is going to be used by Trump this fall to divide Sander's voters.
 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.53  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @13.2.49    8 months ago
We all know height has nothing to do with character but lying about it sure can. Very telling if true ...... 

Well, I find that statement very funny from a guy who supports a president who lies all the time. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.54  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  CB @13.2.52    8 months ago

I didn't see that. That is really disgusting. I thought you were talking about the Bannon interview. Would still like to see the source of that trash talking POS opinion piece. 

 
 
 
CB
13.2.57  CB   replied to  Sparty On @13.2.49    8 months ago

Add to list of smears of Bloomberg: Liar (more generally).

 
 
 
KDMichigan
13.2.58  KDMichigan  replied to  CB @13.2.52    8 months ago

You have a point you are struggling to make?

 
 
 
CB
13.2.59  CB   replied to  KDMichigan @13.2.58    8 months ago

Who, . . . me? /s

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.60  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  KDMichigan @13.2.56    8 months ago

I live in NYC when he was mayor and I saw him make many a speech. He was not towering over the podium, so I know he is short. Why you think this matters is beyond me. I care about what the man did, and what he did was make NYC one of the safest cities in the world, never mind the US. 

What I don't like is what your original post said:

"What chance does a five-foot-seven billionaire Jew who’s divorced really have of becoming president?"

Do you think that is an appropriate statement to make? I think it's pretty gross.

 
 
 
CB
13.2.61  CB   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.54    8 months ago

Steve Bannon is forecasting a planned strategy against a Bloomberg general election candidacy: Split off an indefinite number of Sanders' supporters by calling out (branding) Mike Bloomberg as a "republican oligarch." Something surely pitched to conflict Sanders voters who detest republican politics and oligarchs capable of self-funding elections with an effect that they will consider a vote for Trump or simply stay at home (maybe over Senator Sanders' own support for an official Bloomberg nomination should it come to be). Bannon says just that much in the video footage.  And so it begins. . . .

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.63  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to    8 months ago

Context is everything. Given the context of that article, yes.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
13.2.64  KDMichigan  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.60    8 months ago

It is his statement perrie. Do you still find it inappropriate and gross?

 He’s been quoted asking, “What chance does a five-foot-seven billionaire Jew who’s divorced really have of becoming president?” 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bloombergs-day_b_54160

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/02/01/finally-good-news-for-the-jews/

https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/michael-bloomberg-quotes
 
 
 
CB
13.2.65  CB   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.60    8 months ago

World sophistication. Financial sophistication. A love and trust of intelligentsia. Priceless!

 
 
 
KDMichigan
13.2.66  KDMichigan  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.63    8 months ago
Given the context of that article, yes.

What context? Him lying about his height? I could care less, I was posting to someone elses comment.

If you want to talk about Bloombergs character lets talk about his history of degrading women.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.67  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  KDMichigan @13.2.64    8 months ago

Look, in the context of your original posting, it came across as antisemitic and in case you haven't been keeping up with the news, there has been a huge uptick in antisemitism. So using his own quote against him, in the way it was done, is pretty nasty.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
13.2.68  KDMichigan  replied to  CB @13.2.59    8 months ago
Who, . . . me?

Yeah that's what i'm asking. Seems you have a problem with Bloomberg calling himself a Jew, is this another on the long list of things that offend you?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.69  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  KDMichigan @13.2.66    8 months ago
If you want to talk about Bloombergs character lets talk about his history of degrading women.

Again, you have got to be kidding. Do you really want to go there given what Trump has said and done?

 
 
 
Sparty On
13.2.70  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.53    8 months ago

Fair enough but then you must think it’s funny that you support Bloomberg .... since he’s a liar as well ....

What I find funny is all the body shaming done to Trump here, that many seem to feel is just fine while the same people get excited about calling Bloomberg on his apparent smallitis 

Funny as hell and quite hypocritical but we are very used to that after the last three years of temper tantrums galore.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
13.2.71  KDMichigan  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.67    8 months ago
So using his own quote against him, in the way it was done, is pretty nasty.

Using his own quote against him how? The subject is his height. They used a quote by him about his height. You and your little cheerleader are the ones trying to make it about Jews. Was anything negative said about Jews? Yeah that's what I thought.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
13.2.72  KDMichigan  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.69    8 months ago
Do you really want to go there given what Trump has said and done?

256

I had to break that meme out, what does Donald Trump have to do with Bloombers Character? How low do your standards go because you know, but Trump? So I take it you don't want to discuss his history with women?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.73  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @13.2.70    8 months ago
Fair enough but then you must think it’s funny that you support Bloomberg .... since he’s a liar as well ....

Everyone lies Sparty. It's how much and over what that actually matters. Lying is one thing. Being a liar is another.

What I find funny is all the body shaming done to Trump here, that many seem to feel is just fine while the same people get excited about calling Bloomberg on his apparent smallitis 

In the past I have never body shamed Trump. Frankly, I don't care about his body. But I did for the first time take shot here, since petty seems to be the name of the game on this article. 

Funny as hell and quite hypocritical but we are very used to that after the last three years of temper tantrums galore.

Are you talking to me or in general? In the past, I have said very little about Trump. I never went on a pussy march, never said not my president, never wanted impeachment... so please don't make it sound like I have been having "temper tantrums galore", because I have not. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.74  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  KDMichigan @13.2.71    8 months ago

Read your own first posting from the Washington Free Beacon.

 
 
 
Sparty On
13.2.75  Sparty On  replied to  CB @13.2.57    8 months ago

Lol .... it isn’t a smear if it’s true ..... and the truth can be a bitch to those unwillingly to accept it ......

 
 
 
JohnRussell
13.2.76  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.74    8 months ago

I looked briefly at the Free Beacon article. Dont recall seeing anything in there offering evidence that Bloomberg asked the DNC to let him stand on a box in the next debate. 

What a right wing newspaper says happened years ago is of very little significance. 

If Bloomberg didnt ask the DNC if he could stand on a box at the upcoming debate , then trump is a liar. 

What else is new? 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.77  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  KDMichigan @13.2.72    8 months ago

First of all, people who live in glass houses..... Mr. Trump is a pig when it comes to women. 

Second, I'm not a liberal... so save your meme for someone who is. 

Third, I am well aware of the lawsuits on Bloomberg. How about are you aware of the same kind on Trump. Neither had anything come of it other than having to pay. I don't know enough to say whether or not they are deserved on either man since money made them go away. Do you?

 
 
 
KDMichigan
13.2.78  KDMichigan  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.74    8 months ago
Read your own first posting from the Washington Free Beacon.

Maybe you should try reading it again, It talks about the height on his DL, 5' 10", Him telling a reporter he was around 6'1", Him telling a reporter he was 5'10" again and then you have Bloomberg calling himself a 5'7" Jew who is divorced and this is what you find offensive. Hillaryious.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
13.2.79  KDMichigan  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.77    8 months ago
Mr. Trump is a pig when it comes to women. 

So is Weinstein.

So is Epstein.

And apparently so is Bloomberg.

Second, I'm not a liberal... so save your meme for someone who is. 

Yeah I'm well aware of that, but you "but Trump" ed me.

 
 
 
CB
13.2.80  CB   replied to  KDMichigan @13.2.68    8 months ago

No. Not at al. See my @1.2.2 above. My 'problem' is with some signaling negativity ahead of due time. Mr. Bloomberg is rising - yet not even high in the polls and here you are doing what amounts to unloading on him—about height/size/uncontrollable issues! 

I do not struggle to make that point about your comments at all. (Smile.)

 
 
 
CB
13.2.81  CB   replied to  Sparty On @13.2.70    8 months ago

What does how tall Bloomberg stand have to do with the stature and state of his intellect?

Okay, I was about to let 'something' pass just because, but then you went there. Character is largely something a man or woman can be responsible for: Bloomberg evidentially has a really smart brain (though I am removed from a mundane knowledge of 'east coast' politics) and as I am fond of asking conservatives:

How do you know when Donald Trump is telling you the truth?

"Smallitis"? So you really intend to run with that here? Trump uses bullying as a tactic I can only reckon to ferret out other people's insecurities and to feed his base which clearly is hungry for new 'attack lines.'

What is your excuse, Sparty On? Why do you feel good about pointing out something a man can't change about his physical make-up?

What does how tall Bloomberg stand have to do with the size and state of his intellect?

 
 
 
KDMichigan
13.2.82  KDMichigan  replied to  CB @13.2.80    8 months ago
amounts to unloading on him—about height/size/uncontrollable issues! 

Do try to follow the thread, it is helpful before commenting. Paula said he was 5'8". Bloomberg seems to have issues with his height. I pointed that out. I didn't unload on him, I reported his comments and actions. You made failed attempts to make it about something else.

And to those for which it can possibly matter [a] Jew is rather innocuously brought into this discussion. 

And Bloomberg himself used the term in the quote i used about his height, Not surprised at your failed attempt to use the race card. Cheers

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.83  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  KDMichigan @13.2.79    8 months ago
Yeah I'm well aware of that, but you "but Trump" ed me.

Of course I would. He's who you want to win. I want Bloomberg. We just don't want the same thing. No need to try and label me. I didn't do that to you.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.84  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  KDMichigan @13.2.79    8 months ago

Oh I forgot this:

Mr. Trump is a pig when it comes to women. 

So is Weinstein.

So is Epstein.

And apparently so is Bloomberg.

There is a big difference between these men. 

Weinstein was a rapist. Epstein was a child trafficking, pedophile monster. 

IF Trump and Bloomberg are anything, it's misogyny, and again, all settled out of court, so really the only difference is that Trump bragged about it.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
13.2.85  KDMichigan  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.83    8 months ago
No need to try and label me.

You know I'm more than aware of your political leanings. Next time I'll find a more appropriate meme when you "but Trump" me.

256

 
 
 
Raven Wing
13.2.86  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.73    8 months ago
so please don't make it sound like I have been having "temper tantrums galore", because I have not. 

That is just a misogynistic way of trying to put you down as being a wired female. 

 
 
 
CB
13.2.87  CB   replied to  Sparty On @13.2.75    8 months ago

It is a smear based on who is doing the accenting. Surely, you know how this works, when accenting the negative. For example:

  1. Look at a clear, blue sky long enough until you find a "spot" in it—accent that.
  2. The 80/20 rule. Accent the 20 percent.
 
 
 
Sparty On
13.2.88  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.73    8 months ago
Everyone lies Sparty. It's how much and over what that actually matters. Lying is one thing. Being a liar is another.

so it’s okay when Bloomberg does it but not Trump.    Got it. /s

In the past I have never body shamed Trump. Frankly, I don't care about his body. But I did for the first time take shot here, since petty seems to be the name of the game on this article. 

think you need to look back a ways in your comments

In the past I have never body shamed Trump.

you might want to look back a post or three

 
 
 
CB
13.2.89  CB   replied to  KDMichigan @13.2.82    8 months ago

You seem to have all your little meme rollin' in on call; yeah, irrelevant.

I see your negativity heading in-on the horizon, and I am figuratively firing 'warning shots' across its path.

One more thing you could consider. Making meme - jog back and forth and up and down like that - can trigger an episode of headache for some people. Just saying. . . .

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.90  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @13.2.88    8 months ago
so it’s okay when Bloomberg does it but not Trump.    Got it. /s

I didn't say that and I am really getting sick of you putting words in my mouth. And then you are trying to get me on a slip that I amended. I was talking about my body of comments about Trump. None of them have been about how he looks and you know that is what I meant. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.91  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  KDMichigan @13.2.85    8 months ago

Ironically, that is the perfect one, since Smeddly (the dog) was my nickname growing up because my friends thought I laughed like him.

So you've got me with that one, LOL!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.92  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Raven Wing @13.2.86    8 months ago
so please don't make it sound like I have been having "temper tantrums galore", because I have not. 
That is just a misogynistic way of trying to put you down as being a wired female. 

I just looked back, Raven, and I think he was meaning in general. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

 
 
 
Sparty On
13.2.93  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.73    8 months ago
Everyone lies Sparty. It's how much and over what that actually matters. Lying is one thing. Being a liar is another.

Potato .... potahto ......

In the past I have never body shamed Trump. Frankly, I don't care about his body. But I did for the first time take shot here, since petty seems to be the name of the game on this article.

I know ..... you ARE NOT one of the folks who does that which is why it surprised me when you did.

Funny as hell and quite hypocritical but we are very used to that after the last three years of temper tantrums galore.
Are you talking to me or in general? In the past, I have said very little about Trump. I never went on a pussy march, never said not my president, never wanted impeachment... so please don't make it sound like I have been having "temper tantrums galore", because I have not.

I thought what i said was pretty clear but i was speaking "generally" and not specifically about you.    Interesting though that i get accused of misogyny for speaking a simple truth.   That implication speaks at least partially to what i'm talking about.   Anyone who hasn't observed the tsunami of hatred towards Trump and his supporters the last few years has be cruising through life with eyes wide shut to reality.   

 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.94  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @13.2.93    8 months ago
Everyone lies Sparty. It's how much and over what that actually matters. Lying is one thing. Being a liar is another.
Potato .... potahto ......

Wrong. Being a liar means you do it all the time, and you don't care about the truth, just getting your own way. It is a pathological condition. 

In the past I have never body shamed Trump. Frankly, I don't care about his body. But I did for the first time take shot here, since petty seems to be the name of the game on this article. I know ..... you ARE NOT one of the folks who does that which is why it surprised me when you did.

I did it for the first time here on this article, to show how petty and hypocritical it is to go after Bloomberg's hight. Go back and look at the context I said it in.

I thought what i said was pretty clear but i was speaking "generally" and not specifically about you.    Interesting though that i get accused of misogyny for speaking a simple truth.   That implication speaks at least partially to what i'm talking about.   Anyone who hasn't observed the tsunami of hatred towards Trump and his supporters the last few years has be cruising through life with eyes wide shut to reality.   

As for the "temper tantrums galore" comment, again go back and look at what was said:

I just looked back, Raven, and I think he was meaning in general. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

So obviously, I didn't take it that way. But Raven meant it as the tone of the comment, which again, context matters. As for Trump, yeah I get it. I also remember the same being said about Obama. Do you? And remember I have no dog in this fight, since I didn't vote for either of them.

And here is the thing that bothers me the most about this discussion. It is supposed to be about Bloomberg, the person and it went straight to the pettiness of his hight. How can anyone then complain about how Trump is treated? Can't you see the irony? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
13.2.95  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.94    8 months ago
Being a liar means you do it all the time, and you don't care about the truth, just getting your own way. It is a pathological condition. 

Exactly.

 
 
 
CB
13.2.96  CB   replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.94    8 months ago

Here is what is so diabolical and deliberate in Trump:

[RAW VIDEO] Trump to Bloomberg: 'Little Michael will fail'

At the time I saw this White House 'presser' I had no idea the height of Michael Bloomberg. Actually, I thought Trump to be belittling Michael's wealth class in some bizarre manner. That is to say, Bloomberg's financial stature could not stack up to Trump's stature as president. That is all I got from the interview. . . .

Now what this one:

Trump mocks reporter with disability

Trump denied he was mocking the reporter's physical stature. The second video casts the first video in a different light does it? Impeached President Donald Trump is a fraudulent man through and through.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
13.2.97  KDMichigan  replied to  CB @13.2.89    8 months ago
Making meme - jog back and forth and up and down like that - can trigger an episode of headache for some people. Just saying. . . .

Well golly I would think that if something like that triggers a headache they probably shouldn't be on a computer.

256  

 
 
 
Sparty On
13.2.98  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.94    8 months ago
So obviously, I didn't take it that way. But Raven meant it as the tone of the comment, which again, context matters.

I hadn't read that prior to my response.   That said i don't react well to being called nasty things like that and i don't accept it in the least.   No context is needed.   My response had absolutely nothing to with gender.   Nothing at all.    That some here may have taken it that way is not my problem.      

Can't you see the irony? 

Actually i can and did.   Can you?   That was the whole idea in pointing out Bloomberg is getting a virtual pass on something Trump gets gigged on regularly.   Both are clearly vain people and yet Bloombergs vanity is somehow more acceptable?   Sorry Perrie, I'm not buying what you're trying to sell.   For my part i could care less what Bloomberg says his height is and i also could care less if Trump spray paints his face daily but the hypocrisy at play here of gigging one for vanity but not other is quite amazing really.

Look, you and i clearly aren't going to agree on much here.   You like Bloomberg and his positions.    I don't.   End of story really.

 
 
 
CB
13.2.99  CB   replied to  KDMichigan @13.2.97    8 months ago

"It's behind the eyes, 'Doc'— not my eyes , but somebody's suffering from all that blinkety-blam-bloom-bang."

Hey, what happened? You listened. Good on you!!! 24

 
 
 
Split Personality
13.2.100  Split Personality  replied to  Sparty On @13.2.93    8 months ago
Anyone who hasn't observed the tsunami of hatred towards Trump and his supporters the last few years has be cruising through life with eyes wide shut to reality.  

And others apparently had their eyes closed for the previous 24 years...

 
 
 
KDMichigan
13.2.101  KDMichigan  replied to  CB @13.2.96    8 months ago
Trump denied he was mocking the reporter's physical stature.

He denied mocking the reporter but you can't accept that, you just want to be offended. 

I don't see you throwing out your race card at Bloomberg, that speaks volumes.

In the audio of the speech, given over a year after Bloomberg left office, Bloomberg can be heard saying that "you can just take the description" of male minorities age 16 to 25 and "Xerox it and pass it out to all the cops." 

"Put the cops where the crime is, which means in minority neighborhoods," Bloomberg said in the speech. Representatives for Bloomberg had blocked footage and audio of the speech from being released in 2015.

"So, one of the unintended consequences is people say, 'Oh my God, you are arresting kids for marijuana that are all minorities.' Yes, that is true. Why? Because we put all the cops in the minority neighborhoods. Yes, that is true. Why did we do it? Because that's where all the crime is," Bloomberg says. "And the way you get the guns out of the kid's hands is to throw them up against the walls and frisk them."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/bloomberg-defended-stop-and-frisk-throwing-minority-kids-against-the-walls-in-2015-audio/ar-BBZTaP7
 
 
 
Sparty On
13.2.102  Sparty On  replied to  Split Personality @13.2.100    8 months ago

Nah, not even close to the same wave height or intensity SP but thanks for playing .....

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.103  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @13.2.98    8 months ago

To say that Bloomberg is getting a pass is to say that you believe he used a box to stand on. Yet I showed clearly he didn't here: 13.2.17 . So what am I selling? I never talked about Trump's visuals. Don't make that about me, just as you seem to make that comment about me, too. 

So I think the real issue is this:

You like Bloomberg and his positions.    I don't.   End of story really.

And there we can agree. 

 
 
 
CB
13.2.104  CB   replied to  KDMichigan @13.2.101    8 months ago
He denied mocking the reporter but you can't accept that, you just want to be offended. 

DEPARTMENT OF OOPS:

>>> I should have written: "Trump denied he was mocking the reporter's physical state."

You can sue me - if it make you feel lot betta! (Chuck;es.)

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.105  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @13.2.102    8 months ago
Nah, not even close to the same wave height or intensity SP but thanks for playing .....

Really? Let me remind you about Obama:

384

384

384

384

384

 
 
 
JohnRussell
13.2.106  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.103    8 months ago

Donald Trump is the worst person who has ever been president of the United States.  He is a proven liar, crook, bigot, moron, and cheat. 

Yet, somehow, someway, we still get people claiming that Trump has not been treated fairly by his opponents or by the media. 

It's mindblowing. 

Things will never be 'normal' in America as long as Trumpism and the Trump cult has any say so at all. 

 
 
 
CB
13.2.107  CB   replied to  KDMichigan @13.2.101    8 months ago
I don't see you throwing out your race card at Bloomberg, that speaks volumes.

Thank you for seeing to it that I get 'woke' to that! I will reach out to you about it later. Ya hear?!

 
 
 
Sparty On
13.2.108  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.103    8 months ago
To say that Bloomberg is getting a pass is to say that you believe he used a box to stand on.

Nope and it is well known that he "stretched" the truth about his height at least once on his Drivers License.   I never talked about a box.   You have me confused with someone else but to expand on what i've already said, i could care less if he stands on a box or not.   That wasn't the point.   That he has lied about his height is.

So I think the real issue is this:
You like Bloomberg and his positions.    I don't.   End of story really.
 

Which is why i ended my post saying that.

 
 
 
Sparty On
13.2.109  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.105    8 months ago

C'mon Perrie.  

Are you really trying to compare how the Obama's got treated here, in the media and elsewhere with how Trump has being treated?

That is unbelievable to me.   Really unbelievable.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
13.2.110  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @13.2.108    8 months ago
Nope and it is well known that he "stretched" the truth about his height at least once on his Drivers License.   I never talked about a box.   You have me confused with someone else but to expand on what i've already said, i could care less if he stands on a box or not.   That wasn't the point.   That he has lied about his height is.

Who the fock cares? 

You support someone who has lied thousands of times. 

He got a freaking doctor to say that he is the healthiest presidential candidate of all time, for god's sake. 

On what possible basis do you care so much about Bloomberg exaggerating his height, if it even happened?  Are you now expecting Bloomberg to lie 10,000 MORE times so he can catch up with Trump? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
13.2.111  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @13.2.109    8 months ago
Obama's got treated here, in the media and elsewhere with how Trump has being treated?

Obama wasnt the biggest asshole in political history, duh? 

How pitful is it that Trump supporters try and minimize his assholeness. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
13.2.112  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @13.2.110    8 months ago

Don't worry about it John

 
 
 
MUVA
13.2.113  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @13.2.106    8 months ago

Bill Clinton was far worse and when you team him up with that so called human his wife well there is comparison.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
13.2.114  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @13.2.112    8 months ago

It is ridiculous. Ridiculous. to try and drag down other people to trump's level. 

I wouldnt do that to any politician I have seen. He is BY FAR the worst and in a class by himself. 

and yet on venues like this one, we are supposed to pretend that he is just like any other politician. 

Absurd. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
13.2.115  r.t..b...  replied to  Sparty On @13.2.108    8 months ago
That he has lied about his height is.

For god sake...have we sunk to the depths to where this is an actual point of contention? It falls far 'short' of being relevant in any serious discussion.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
13.2.116  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.105    8 months ago

Those are outliers Perrie. Obama wouldn't last 2 seconds with what he helped to heap on Donald Trump. Obama was totally insulated from everything including the law.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
13.2.117  KDMichigan  replied to  CB @13.2.107    8 months ago
Thank you for seeing to it that I get 'woke' to that!

I don't think it has anything to do with being "woke". We know what the real reason is. Cheers

 
 
 
 
CB
13.2.118  CB   replied to  KDMichigan @13.2.101    8 months ago
He denied mocking the reporter but you can't accept that, you just want to be offended. 

That is exactly my point; Impeached President Donald Trump lies, misleads, obstructs, and denies a lot! Then, he is found out when he does it again-again-and again!

Impeached President Trump is caught red-handed mocking Bloomberg's height and now we can point backwards to fully comprehend what he was after when he mocked the reporter. I rest my case.

 
 
 
Sparty On
13.2.119  Sparty On  replied to  r.t..b... @13.2.115    8 months ago

No but follow the conversation from the start to get the whole poop.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.120  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @13.2.116    8 months ago

Vic,

You and Sparty are missing my point. We didn't get here from nowhere. And with each passing Pres, it's gotten worse. And what I have found (being an unvested observer), if you are a partisan, you feel the pain worse. Obama was hardly insulated from Fox or Breitbart etc. and had plenty of legal issues, albeit, not impeachment, but Clinton did, and honestly, I think that is what got the whole ball rolling in this direction. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
13.2.121  r.t..b...  replied to  Sparty On @13.2.119    8 months ago
No but

No buts about it...It is simply arguing for arguing sake.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
13.2.122  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.120    8 months ago
Obama was hardly insulated

Oh YES HE WAS!  He got away with murder! He got nothing but friendly questions and praise via the media. You never should have brought him into the conversation. 

And we all know why he got the special treatment...Right?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.123  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @13.2.109    8 months ago

C'mon Sparty,

On Fox and Breitbart it was a daily diatribe against Obama. Our current President was a birther. You don't see how that could cause some of the kickback we see now?

That is unbelievable to me.   Really unbelievable.

 
 
 
Split Personality
13.2.124  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @13.2.116    8 months ago

Yeah outliers....along with lurid stories of gay sex and deliberate murders, conspiracy theories about his father, Rev Wright, Frank Marshall Davis, birther-ism, Muslim slights many of which present company gleefully engaged in for 8 years?

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNTcrIMs1Msp0Ye46c0Y-kKZiSSgzw:1581455488441&q=obama+hung+in+effigy&tbm=isch&source=univ&client=firefox-b-1-d&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiRk_fktMrnAhWCGDQIHSUNBBMQsAR6BAgJEAE&biw=1472&bih=790

 
 
 
KDMichigan
13.2.125  KDMichigan  replied to  r.t..b... @13.2.121    8 months ago
No buts about it...It is simply arguing for arguing sake.

How nice, I like your selective outrage.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.126  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @13.2.122    8 months ago
Oh YES HE WAS!  He got away with murder! He got nothing but friendly questions and praise via the media. You never should have brought him into the conversation. 

Apparently you don't watch Fox or read Breitbart?

And we all know why he got the special treatment...Right?

Yes. For the same reasons, he got depicted as a monkey, too. 

Again, I have no dog in this fight. I didn't vote for him. But that doesn't mean I can't see how this all came to be. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
13.2.127  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @13.2.124    8 months ago

Here from CBS News:

"Having now left Trinity United Church of Christ, can  Barack Obama  escape responsibility for his decades-long ties to Michael Pfleger and Jeremiah Wright? No, he cannot. Obama's connections to the radical-left politics espoused by Pfleger and Wright are broad and deep. The real reason Obama bound himself to Wright and Pfleger in the first place is that he largely approved of their political-theological outlooks."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamas-radical-left-ties-broad-and-deep/

Did Obama's opponents McCain or Romney ever bring that stuff up?  No, Obama got a pass, plus he got the October Surprise that put him right into the WH.  Don't ever complain about the 8 year honeymoon the radical Obama got!

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
13.2.128  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.123    8 months ago

Let's take a "poll" shall we?

Breitbart + FOX = 2

CNN + MSNBC + ABC + CBS + NBC + Vox + Mother Jones + WaPo + NYT = 9

And I am sure that is a short list.........................

 
 
 
Sparty On
13.2.129  Sparty On  replied to  r.t..b... @13.2.121    8 months ago

No its not .....

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
13.2.130  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.126    8 months ago
Apparently you don't watch Fox or read Breitbart?

I do, I suspect you do not.


Yes. For the same reasons, he got depicted as a monkey, too. 

Yes, but you won't say it. So some ass made a racist remark - as compared to what? - The entire news media and the full force of US intelligence agencies of the US government going after one man?  Is that the comparison you are trying to make?


But that doesn't mean I can't see how this all came to be. 

It came to be because Obama the progressive overdid it. He poisoned the well.


BTW, Perrie, My favorite Obama story is when he made the mistake of saying that Abraham Lincoln "founded" the GOP! (An easy mistake - Lincoln was after all the first Republican President). How did that get covered?  PBS edited it when it broadcast Obama's speech!

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/09/pbs_alters_transcript_to_hide_obama_gaffe.html



That's how I'll always remember how the press covered obama!

 
 
 
Sparty On
13.2.131  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.123    8 months ago
You don't see how that could cause some of the kickback we see now?

Sure but it doesn't justify a damn thing thats going on today.   If one can't see that the negativity towards Trumps is many factors worse than it was towards Obamas nothing is going to change your mind.   It's that much worse IMO. 

C'mon Sparty,

That is unbelievable to me.   Really unbelievable.

You seem to be taking this personal.   I'll be leaving this conversation now as i can do without the snark.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
13.2.132  KDMichigan  replied to  r.t..b... @13.2.115    8 months ago
It falls far 'short' of being relevant in any serious discussio

Maybe if you tried to peruse the thread before commenting it would help, from a comment that Bloomberg lied about his height it devolved to pathetic attempts to throw the race card out, Even after being pointed out that the so called racist comment was Bloombergs speaking about his height. Then of course it devolved to the but Trump defense, then it went to the but obama defense then back to the but Trumps. 115 comments later you want to jump in with what does his height matter. Fucking Hillaryious.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.133  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @13.2.131    8 months ago

I repeat your very own words and I am taking it personally?

Yeah, I think we should call this a day.

 
 
 
Sparty On
13.2.134  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.133    8 months ago

Lol yeah, tell me you didn't intend to use them with snarky intent.  

I didn't and i think you did.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.135  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @13.2.130    8 months ago
I do, I suspect you do not.

Of course, I do. How else would I know what is being said?

So some ass made a racist remark

You have got to be kidding Vic. Some ass, as if it was one? Just google "Obama monkey" and see how many images you get. Then google Teaparty protests. 

BTW, Perrie, My favorite Obama story is when he made the mistake of saying that Abraham Lincoln "founded" the GOP!

That is called a gaff. They seemed to cover the one where he said there was 52 states. They cover all of Biden's gaffs, too. 

It came to be because Obama the progressive overdid it. He poisoned the well.

The only piece of legislation that Obama got passed was the ACA aka Obamacare. So how did they overdo it? 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.136  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @13.2.134    8 months ago
Lol yeah, tell me you didn't intend to use them with snarky intent.  

I read them the way you probably read them.

I didn't and i think you did.

Well, then you thought wrong.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
13.2.137  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.135    8 months ago
Then google Teaparty protests. 

I want to see what you are referring to with the Tea Party. I remember the LIES about that. Please show me what you are looking at.

That is called a gaff.

Yup and they covered for him!  And what about moderators like Candy Crawford advocating for him during a debate. Putting forward an untruth? What's that called?

https://thehill.com/policy/international/262421-obama-rebuts-romney-on-libya-with-help-from-the-debate-moderator

However you want to argue this one and you are wrong! The media LOVED Obama and they DESPISE Trump. There is no denying the truth. I don't care how many little offenses you feel Obama suffered, they were miniscule. Trump suffered the slings & arrows only one other President has gone through.

 So how did they overdo it? 

Are you sure you have "no dogs in the hunt?"  Starting with Obama's DOJ - we had police departments subjected to consent decrees & “de-biasing” training every time some thug resisted arrest!  We had border states sued for simply trying to enforce immigration laws. We had colleges pressured into denying due process to students accused of rape. We had the IRS used to deny tax exempt status to Conservative non-profits. We had investment banks fined and the money given to leftist organizations. We had every agency of government politicized. We had an illegal DACA EO announced on the eve the 2012 election.

I'll let you respond before going on. I'd rather hear your response

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
13.2.139  Vic Eldred  replied to    8 months ago

What a moment for democrats!  Sanders on the verge of a NH victory and one of the worlds richest men will be waiting in the wings to take him on for the DNC nomination!  

 
 
 
KDMichigan
13.2.141  KDMichigan  replied to    8 months ago
I’d do her!

I thought he was courting the pro choice crowd with "Kill it"?

Oops I better post a link before I get the that's racist trolls or but Trumpers...

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bloombergs-sexist-remarks-fostered-company-culture-degraded-women/story?id=67744180

 
 
 
JohnRussell
13.2.144  JohnRussell  replied to    8 months ago
How do you choose between a billionaire racist sexual abuser and trump?

True, enough, Trump's not a billionaire. 

How do you choose between Bloomberg and Trump?  Its easy. One of them is a liar, crook, bigot, moron and cheat, and the other one is the former mayor of NewYork. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.146  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @13.2.137    8 months ago
I want to see what you are referring to with the Tea Party. I remember the LIES about that. Please show me what you are looking at.

I posted a bunch up the thread. Photos taken at Tea Party protests. https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/49438/how-michael-bloomberg-could-win#cm1253051

Yup and they covered for him!  And what about moderators like Candy Crawford advocating for him during a debate. Putting forward an untruth? What's that called?

I call that wrong. But Fox does it too. How about his gaff about the Kansas City Chiefs? Fox covered for him even on something so meaningless. 

384

The media LOVED Obama and they DESPISE Trump.

Let me remind you of something. The whole idea of Trump being president is from Fox. So let's be clear. The left media loved Obama, and the right loved Trump. And honestly, half the stuff that happens to Trump is because he tweets too much. 

Are you sure you have "no dogs in the hunt?" 

Let me be clear, Vic. I didn't like Obama and I don't like Trump, so the only dog I have is to have a moderate in office. Hence this whole article and my participation in it. 

we had police departments subjected to consent decrees &  “de-biasing” training every time some thug resisted arrest! 

You mean Freddie Gray who died in Baltimore from the rough ride or the tasering and murder of Walter Scott?

We had border states sued for simply trying to enforce immigration laws.

And they sued back. This is business as usual. And for the record, I am for border control. 

We had colleges pressured into denying due process to students accused of rape.

We also had colleges telling girls not to report if they were raped since no one would believe them. Did you know that?

We had the IRS used to deny tax exempt status to Conservative non-profits.

OK, that one I got the memo on. If the IRS thought they were a political organization, they got flagged. Once they proved they were not, they could get their deduction, but they were overly aggressive with conservative groups and they apologized. 

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560308997/irs-apologizes-for-aggressive-scrutiny-of-conservative-groups

We had investment banks fined and the money given to leftist organizations.

I have no idea of what you are talking about and I tried to look it up and couldn't find anything about this.

We had every agency of government politicized.

We still do, but just the other way around.

We had an illegal DACA EO announced on the eve the 2012 election.

According to wiki:

Regardless of the outcome of the preliminary injunction, legal opinions on the lawfulness of DACA are divided. In   United States v. Texas , for instance, the Obama administration argued that the policy was a lawful exercise of the enforcement discretion that Congress delegated to the executive branch in the   Immigration and Nationality Act , which charges the executive with the administration and enforcement of the country's immigration laws. [81]   Conversely,   Jay Sekulow , Chief Counsel of the   American Center for Law and Justice , opined that DACA was unlawful by asserting that it unconstitutionally usurped Congress' role over immigration by illegally allowing certain classes of illegal aliens to violate U.S. immigration law with impunity. [82]

On May 1, 2018, a coalition of 7 States, led by Texas , filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the program, after originally promising to challenge the program if the administration didn't rescind it. [83] On August 31, 2018, District Court Judge Andrew Hanen ruled that DACA is likely unconstitutional, however he let the program remain in place as litigation proceeds.

Now I am not going to defend Obama on this, but Trump said it was going to be the first thing he did, and Trump rescinded it as promised, by EO, the same way it was enacted. btw, he also screwed over the people in the lottery who were waiting for the H1B's like my future son in law, who had to go to England for almost 2 years till this mess got straightened out. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.147  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  KDMichigan @13.2.141    8 months ago
 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.148  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to    8 months ago

Apparently Trump is right there, too!

 
 
 
Dulay
13.2.149  Dulay  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.135    8 months ago
The only piece of legislation that Obama got passed was the ACA aka Obamacare.

You're kidding right? 

 
 
 
CB
13.2.150  CB   replied to  KDMichigan @13.2.117    8 months ago

You think? And what does your thinking tell you about my reasoning, KDMichigan. I would love to hear that one! Please proceed. . . .

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
13.2.151  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Dulay @13.2.149    8 months ago

How quickly they forget his leftist crap like cash for clunkers, 787 billion economic stimulus package, government takeover of the failed businesses GM and Chrysler, Dodd Frank Wall Street reform act, clean power plan, Trans Pacific partnership.  I'm so glad the Republicans took over the House in the 2010 elections and put the brakes on his Marxist agenda. 

 
 
 
CB
13.2.152  CB   replied to  Sparty On @13.2.109    8 months ago

Well, President Obama worked hugging closely to the parameters of presidential customs and standard decency. Impeached President Donald Trump came in cursing the appearance of the White House as 'substandard,' governing institutions as below his personal and private self-absorbed standards, all precedessors'  staffed offices as "deep-state," and only then did Trump get busy corrupting Washington, D.C. to be survivable enough for him.

"Believe me."

 
 
 
CB
13.2.153  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @13.2.116    8 months ago

I can't tell you how unremarkable that comment is. Let's just presume I did!

 
 
 
CB
13.2.154  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @13.2.122    8 months ago

Nope. Tell us how he got his "special treatment" Vic Eldred. I'm waiting with anticipation. . .  .

 
 
 
CB
13.2.155  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @13.2.127    8 months ago

You're talking out of a Sean Hannity's purse. Former President Barack Obama did not get an impeachment 'pass' —conservatives never had enough to launch the charge without the public laughing in its face. This is all vulgarly ridiculous. But, one thing is clear the republican elephant has a long memory for made-up grievances. No one can give a damn about what you all imagine as a proper grievance or complain-when it is not so.

Think what you want; I conclude that if conservatives could do something, anything nasty and cruel, to the former president you would have done it already! That ship has sailed. You got nothing, but 'air' and a collage of Obama obsessive memorabilia. Oh, Obama? He's got a presidential library.

 
 
 
CB
13.2.156  CB   replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @13.2.128    8 months ago

Breitbart? Fox? Conservative Talk radio? Right Conservatives don't deserve those two outlets. These sites serve up an alternative reality that needs figurative pruning and poisoning down to its roots! Yes, by all means, shorten your list!

 
 
 
Dulay
13.2.157  Dulay  replied to  Dean Moriarty @13.2.151    8 months ago

Wow, all that shit stimulated the economy and Trump ended the TTIP and started a trade war. Ya, Republicans are doing great.

Pffft. 

 
 
 
Dulay
13.2.158  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @13.2.116    8 months ago

What did Obama 'heap on' poor little Donald Trump? 

 
 
 
CB
13.2.159  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @13.2.130    8 months ago
My favorite Obama story is when he made the mistake of saying that Abraham Lincoln "founded" the GOP!

Small-fry. Petty potatoes.

My favorite story about former President Obama:

The U.S. auto bailout is officially over. Here's what America lost and gained.

[Treasury Secretary Jacob] Lew insists that "inaction could have cost the broader economy more than one million jobs, billions in lost personal savings, and significantly reduced economic production." And at least one recent study backs him up.

On Monday, the Ann Arbor, Mich., think tank the Center for Automotive Research (CAR) put out these numbers :

1.88 million : Job losses in 2009-2010 if only GM had gone under.
4.15 million : Job losses in 2009-2010 if the whole U.S. auto industry had shut down.
$39.4 billion : The hit to federal and state governments, from lost tax revenue and jobless benefit payments, if just GM went under.
$105.3 billion : The hit to federal and state governments if the whole auto industry had collapsed.

The federal government had to step in "because the entire industry was in a depression, and it could have dragged the whole country into one," says former CAR chairman David E. Cole .

The Treasury also points out that while it lost money on GM, taxpayers came out ahead when you look at the entire TARP bailout, of which the auto bailout was a relatively small part. In total, Treasury spent $421.8 billion to rescue financial institutions and the auto industry, and it has recovered $432.7 billion so far — a tidy $10.9 billion profit — including the GM losses.

Source: https://theweek.com/articles/454749/auto-bailout-officially-over-heres-what-america-lost-gained

That's how I'll always remember how the press covered obama!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
13.2.160  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.2.146    8 months ago
I posted a bunch up the thread.

Ok, there are a lot of comments here.

The left media loved Obama, and the right loved Trump.

True and Fox was critical of Obama's leftist policies, while the leftist media promoted a lie about Russian Collusion for 3 years!



You mean Freddie Gray who died in Baltimore from the rough ride or the tasering and murder of Walter Scott?

And what was the verdict?  Actually, I was thinking about the outright lie that Black Lives Matter was built on!


And for the record, I am for border control. 

We are on common ground!


We also had colleges telling girls not to report if they were raped since no one would believe them. Did you know that?

No. Was it part of a Federal policy?


OK, that one I got the memo on. If the IRS thought they were a political organization, they got flagged. Once they proved they were not, they could get their deduction, but they were overly aggressive with conservative groups and they apologized. 

Yup, and they were totally neutralized in the 2012 election and never really came back after that.


I have no idea of what you are talking about and I tried to look it up and couldn't find anything about this.

https://dailycaller.com/2017/10/24/emails-confirm-obama-doj-funneled-big-bank-settlement-money-to-liberal-groups/


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-big-bank-slush-fund



We still do, but just the other way around.

Lol, No, Vindman & co just proved that wrong. 


Regardless of the outcome of the preliminary injunction, legal opinions on the lawfulness of DACA are divided. 

Yup, with liberal judges claiming what Obama, himself called illegal is suddenly legal.


 
 
 
CB
13.2.161  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @13.2.137    8 months ago
Trump suffered the slings & arrows only one other President has gone through.

Please spare us a mystery: Who?

 
 
 
CB
13.2.162  CB   replied to  KDMichigan @13.2.141    8 months ago

Thank you for sharing. I did not know this stuff. It seems all these people work in a "it's a small world after all." Perhaps we need to elect a committee to run the country, since we all seem to have a little (a lot) of dirt on us!

If true, or can't be properly disputed, and Bloomberg wins the nomination, my thought is he had better beat Impeached President Trump to the punch and enlist Stormy Daniels and that 'playmate' — What's her name - to show up in the general debate.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
13.2.164  KDMichigan  replied to  CB @13.2.159    8 months ago
That's how I'll always remember how the press covered obama

What delusionaly? 

You might want to do some research before you spout how glorious the PoS obama is...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-bailout-idUSTRE4BI34F20081219

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/transcript-president-bush-on-auto-industry-bailout

Seems like you and sleepy Joe got your stories from the same place..

 
 
 
Dulay
13.2.165  Dulay  replied to    8 months ago
Who passed and signed Tarp?

Bush. 

Who started the bailouts for GM?

GM paid back the loans they received. Will the farmers be paying back the billions in bailouts that Trump has been giving them the last 2 years? 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
13.2.166  KDMichigan  replied to    8 months ago

I know, right? Talk about drinking the left-wing kool-aid.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
13.2.167  1stwarrior  replied to  Dulay @13.2.165    8 months ago

Hey, how 'bout your whataboutism, eh?

How 'bout Eisenhower, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Ford, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Obama - all them there bailouts, eh?  Gonna get them paid back??

 
 
 
KDMichigan
13.2.169  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @13.2.165    8 months ago

WTF do farmer bailouts have to do with CB's GM bailout comment? Do try to keep up.

 
 
 
Dulay
13.2.171  Dulay  replied to    8 months ago
Deflection fail, 

Bush DID pass and sign TARP loki. That's not defection.

Nor is pointing out that GM paid back the loans they received. 

Those are both FACTS. 

Now you may not want to acknowledge the hypocrisy of whining about GM when Trump has just dumped DOUBLE that amount on farm subsidies, ALL off of the books. It's still hypocrisy. 

 
 
 
Dulay
13.2.172  Dulay  replied to  KDMichigan @13.2.169    8 months ago
WTF do farmer bailouts have to do with CB's GM bailout comment?

I wasn't replying to CB. 

Do try to keep up.

 
 
 
Texan1211
13.2.173  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @13.2.165    8 months ago
GM paid back the loans they received.

Yes, they paid the loan back, with interest.

But taxpayers still lost a shitload of money on GM stock the government owned. Over $10 billion.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
13.2.174  Dean Moriarty  replied to  Dulay @13.2.171    8 months ago

The government lost over 11 billion on the GM bailout. 

U.S. taxpayers lost  more than $11.2 billion as a result of the federal bailout of General Motors, according to a government report released Wednesday

https://time.com/82953/general-motors-bailout-cost-taxpayers-11-2-billion/

 
 
 
KDMichigan
13.2.175  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @13.2.172    8 months ago
I wasn't replying to CB. 

No you just jumped in with some bullshit that had nothing to do with what was being discussed, looking for attention?

Do try to keep up.

Obtuse.

 
 
 
Texan1211
13.2.177  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @13.2.171    8 months ago
Trump has just dumped DOUBLE that amount on farm subsidies, ALL off of the books. 

Where does all this imaginary "off the books" money come from?

 
 
 
Texan1211
13.2.179  Texan1211  replied to    8 months ago

I always got a kick out of the dumbasses who wanted to claim that crap!

 
 
 
CB
13.2.180  CB   replied to  KDMichigan @13.2.164    8 months ago

Okay, get back atop your skis:

(CNN) -- Presidential candidates Sen. John McCain -- who said Wednesday that he was suspending his campaign because of the nation's economic crisis -- and Sen. Barack Obama will meet Thursday with President Bush to discuss a proposed Wall Street bailout.

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/campaign.wrap/index.html#cnnSTCVideo


McCain, Obama headed to Washington for bailout talks

The bailout plan has met with a cool reception in two days of hearings on Capitol Hill, where both Democrats and Republicans have expressed skepticism about the proposal drafted by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

McCain said he believes that Congress could forge a consensus on legislation "before the markets open on Monday."

Congress and the White House are trying to negotiate the details of what would be the most sweeping economic intervention by the government since the Great Depression. Bush has asked Congress to act quickly on the bailout proposal after news of failing financial institutions and frozen credit markets.

"The clock is ticking on this crisis. We have to act swiftly, but we also have to get it right," Obama said Wednesday in Dunedin, Florida. "And that means everyone -- Republicans and Democrats, and the White House and Congress -- must work together to come up with a solution that protects American taxpayers and our economy without rewarding those whose greed helped get us into this problem in the first place."

Obama said it's unacceptable to expect the American people to "hand this administration or any administration a $700 billion check with no conditions and no oversight when a lack of oversight in Washington and on Wall Street is exactly what got us into this mess."

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/campaign.wrap/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

and then this: (Stay 'woke' y'all).

Bail Out (Part 2): What McCain and Obama Should Do about the Bail Out Bill and Who is the Blame

Obama On Bailout Plan

For the late bloomers, President Bush invited the two candidates to the White House to help him pass the bail-out bill stuck in Congress, because one of the two men was going to inherit whatever may come from the close of Bush's presidency. I'd say, and you should too, that both men helped get that bill through Congress. Congress favored passing something valuable -a hard sell all the same - because McCain or Obama was going to lead one or the other party.

 
 
 
Dulay
13.2.181  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @13.2.177    8 months ago
Where does all this imaginary "off the books" money come from?

No bill was passed to allocate funding to subsidize farmers for their losses because of Trump's tariff war Tex. 28 BILLION in 2 years. I know where that money came from, do you? Do you CARE? 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
13.2.183  KDMichigan  replied to    8 months ago

I'm willing to bet CB still believes Jussie was attacked by two white guys still to...

 
 
 
Dulay
13.2.184  Dulay  replied to    8 months ago
The Farmers got between 10 to 12 billion every year under Obama and paid zero back .........But Trump!!!!!!!!   FFS 

Add another 12 billion to that loki. Do you actually think that they didn't give ANY subsidies other than those for tariff loses? Come on man, we're talking about the government. 

Oh it's 'Bush's tarp' now is it? 

Anybody remember how much got paid back under that daft bastard Barry's stimulus? Anybody?

Much of that stimulus was in grants loki. Bethel college and St. Mary's College and Notre Dame College ALL got big grants from the stimulus package, as did a local private grade school to install city water and a new septic system. Our county courthouse received a grant to retrofit new lighting and new security and sprinkle systems and they hired and train 2 new sheriffs deputies. 

That's just the shit I remember off the top of my head from my area of the country. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
13.2.185  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @13.2.181    8 months ago
28 BILLION in 2 years. I know where that money came from, do you?

Since the money came from the US Treasury, I'll go out on a limb and say the bulk of it came from taxpayers. I could be wrong about it, though.

I suggest the mere fact that people know about it suggests that it was clearly not "off the books", and US Government accounting reflects the fact that, indeed, it WAS "on the books".

But it's okay with me if you want to believe the myth that it was "off the books". 

 
 
 
CB
13.2.186  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @13.2.173    8 months ago
In total, Treasury spent $421.8 billion to rescue financial institutions and the auto industry, and it has recovered $432.7 billion so far — a tidy $10.9 billion profit — including the GM losses.
@13.2.159

 
 
 
CB
13.2.187  CB   replied to    8 months ago

Okay, I am "present" for your comments starting now. I am arrived to inform you that you don't know what the heaven you are speaking about.

That junior senator, Barack Obama, beat the senior senator, John McCain, and after helping to pass TARP based on his heavy influence candidacy he became the 'enforcer' president over TARP. It was President Obama who oversaw its effects and aftereffects.

That you don't like it is not anybody's issue, but your own and of course the right-winged universe!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.2.188  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @13.2.160    8 months ago

Vic,

I was going to go point by point again, and then I realized it would be a waste of time. If we were both being truthful, we both love our country but see it in a very different way. 

You are a conservative and only a conservative will do for you. And although I don't see Trump as a conservative, clearly you do. 

I, on the other hand, would describe myself as a practical social liberal and a practical fiscal conservative. That is a tough bill to fit. Clearly, I think for me, Bloomberg is closer to what I want. 

I know you see this as a huge divide. I don't. I think that people are always afraid of what they don't know. But this time around I want to vote for someone I think is good for the country for everyone. 

 
 
 
CB
13.2.189  CB   replied to  KDMichigan @13.2.183    8 months ago

I do not, but I'm okay with you drop-kicking Jussie into this political debate if it is okay with the others. What part about Jussie gets your goat? The Lying, the Gay, or the Black? Snap-snap, now. You horned Jussie into this for purely personal reasons do speak up.

 
 
 
Dragon
14  Dragon    8 months ago

My take: Majority of Republicans will vote for Trump regardless of what he says or does, we have already seen how blindly they follow him. I do have Republican family & friends who voted for Trump and are truly appalled at many of his actions & words and say they will not vote for him again BUT they will never vote for a Democrat, so I am guessing they will vote for Trump. Some might vote for a Bloomberg or Biden BUT they will never vote for a Sanders, Warren or any of the other candidates. If Democrats really want to vote Trump out they had better pick someone who can wrest some votes from Republicans and Independents. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
14.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Dragon @14    8 months ago

Spot on comment!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
14.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Dragon @14    8 months ago
Some might vote for a Bloomberg or Biden BUT they will never vote for a Sanders, Warren or any of the other candidates. If Democrats really want to vote Trump out they had better pick someone who can wrest some votes from Republicans and Independents. 

It is better, possibly much better, for the sake of the sanity of our nation, that a "moderate" be nominated by the Democrats. 

But anyone, who would vote for Bloomberg, but stays home or votes for Trump or votes for a minor third party candidate, instead of Sanders or Warren , will be directly contributing to the downfall of America. 

If we re-elect someone with the mountain of psychological and ethical and mental disqualifications Trump has, the United States will be in disgrace like it never has been before and I forsee tragedy for our people. 

 
 
 
MAGA
14.2.1  MAGA  replied to  JohnRussell @14.2    8 months ago

You have been predicting tragedy and doom for the last four years and there’s only been relative peace and prosperity instead.