Bloomberg for President?

Belz... said:
Regardless of whatever flaws he has, I'd bet that Bloomberg is substantially a better human being than Trump, on all fronts.
Click to expand...

Forced to choose between the two, you'd take the stable, successful one over the lunatic failure, sure.
 
Last edited:
3point14 said:
Forced to choose between the two, you'd take the stable, successful one over the lunatic failure, sure.
Click to expand...

I'm wary of politicians who can actually get things done.

I'd kinda rather have the flailing, failed oligarch who approaches the presidency as a reality TV show with him as the celebrity star, and has no real ideology or agenda other than to bumble through his term(s)...

... Over the successful, cynical oligarch who has the resources and the focus to use the presidency as a tool to carry out his vision.
 
Suddenly said:
Equal disaster, really. The only move on the stage is to agree to release these NDAs and then work around it later. He has to win the moment and trying to explain why he won't do it will never, ever work. It will always come off as evasive and slimy.
....
Click to expand...

Bloomberg probably can't win no matter what he does. But a reason for not releasing the NDAs is that they would publicize the accusers' claims, even if they aren't valid. A large, rich company might settle an accusation of discrimination or misconduct because it's cheaper than going to trial or to avoid bad publicity or to improve employee morale and not necessarily because an employee was actually discriminated against or harassed, but only a trial would adjudicate whether the claim is justified. Releasing the NDAs would essentially give the accusers' side of the story, and the company would have to try to prove them wrong without the benefit of the legal process.
 
theprestige said:
I'm wary of politicians who can actually get things done.
Click to expand...

Which I find the oddest attitude. If politicians didn't get anything done, you''d still be spending silver and walking on mud, breathing massively polluted, if not deadly air, by the side of a river on fire while someone stole all your money and your house and you couldn't do a damn thing about it.

Jesus, you couldn't even leave the country because nobody would have issued you a passport.

Still, horses for courses, eh.
 
Bob001 said:
Bloomberg probably can't win no matter what he does. But a reason for not releasing the NDAs is that they would publicize the accusers' claims, even if they aren't valid. A large, rich company might settle an accusation of discrimination or misconduct because it's cheaper than going to trial or to avoid bad publicity or to improve employee morale and not necessarily because an employee was actually discriminated against or harassed, but only a trial would adjudicate whether the claim is justified. Releasing the NDAs would essentially give the accusers' side of the story, and the company would have to try to prove them wrong without the benefit of the legal process.
Click to expand...

He never releases them in my example. The premise is that we are being totally amoral in our advice. In that case, his best move is to just agree or better yet say you are already in the process of doing it and throw Warren completely off track. Lie.

The whole tenor of the debate is different if he just says sure I'll release them. He can just not do it and leave it to them to try to get anyone to care once the debate is several news cycles old. Or maybe selectively release a few that are harmless. Whatever.
 
theprestige said:
I'm wary of politicians who can actually get things done.

I'd kinda rather have the flailing, failed oligarch who approaches the presidency as a reality TV show with him as the celebrity star, and has no real ideology or agenda other than to bumble through his term(s)...

... Over the successful, cynical oligarch who has the resources and the focus to use the presidency as a tool to carry out his vision.
Click to expand...


Prior to the 2016 election I was having a chat with a man who said he was voting for Trump. His rationale was that he didn't agree with either candidate's agendas very much, but figured that Trump wouldn't know how to get the things he wanted done, whereas Clinton being a career politician would. While I don't agree with that PoV I do have to admit in retrospect that there is logic to it.
 
Joe Random said:
Prior to the 2016 election I was having a chat with a man who said he was voting for Trump. His rationale was that he didn't agree with either candidate's agendas very much, but figured that Trump wouldn't know how to get the things he wanted done, whereas Clinton being a career politician would. While I don't agree with that PoV I do have to admit in retrospect that there is logic to it.
Click to expand...



The problem with this plan is, electing an idiot for President doesn't automatically make every other person holding political office an idiot. And those people will still know how to get their agenda passed. Indeed, having an idiot as President, so long as he's their idiot, might even make it easier.

Trump's biggest "accomplishments" are the tax cut, deregulation, and putting conservative judges in federal courts. And all three of those just happen to be main planks of the standard GOP platform. It's a near certainly that Moscow Mitch doesn't give a crap that none of Trump's other agenda items have been successfully implemented.
 
angrysoba said:
How do you come to that conclusion?
Click to expand...
Because he's smarter and richer and is one of the few people running in the primary that actually understands marketing.


Oh come now. I only ask for some examples of Bloomberg campaigning for Democrats. That can't be too hard. And media distortions? He owns part of the media, and has been saturating the airwaves with his ads. Surely it can't be that hard to examples of him campaigning for Democrats.

This is not even meant to be a gotcha. It was meant to be a gimme.
Click to expand...
I wasn't worried about it being a gotcha. It's just so time consuming when you have to get past search pages of 'sensationalism Bloomberg bad' to get to the actual data.
 
Belz... said:
So it doesn't count because it took him too long to do the thing you specifically asked for?
Click to expand...

This is not the thread to go over this bull **** again. Go find the old threads and you'll find a number of posts of mine responding to this claim that Sanders really did campaign hard for Clinton.
 
3point14 said:
So far, I've heard

He's 'unelectable'
Okay, he's electable but he can't win
Okay, he can win, but he's not a proper democrat
Okay, he's a proper democrat but actually part of the swamp

and a million other pieces of utter ******** because the billionairres, on both sides of the house, are ******** themselves to the point of dehydration that an actual man of the people might get his hands on power.


If he does, I predict either a corporate instigated collapse of the economy while blaming Bernie for it or an Epstein solution.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

You should move this to the CT thread. And if you really have heard the above, you should be able to post a few quotes.
 
theprestige said:
I'd kinda rather have the flailing, failed oligarch who approaches the presidency as a reality TV show with him as the celebrity star, and has no real ideology or agenda other than to bumble through his term(s)...

...Over the successful, cynical oligarch who has the resources and the focus to use the presidency as a tool to carry out his vision.
Click to expand...

This is a fascinating perspective.

Which bits of Bloomberg's vision do you find most disconcerting?
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I have a lot of gripes with Warren, but she wen't full pitbull on Bloomberg's NDAs. She bit and just wouldn't let go, much respect to Warren.

Bloomberg explaining that actually NDAs are good for the women he's forcing to keep quiet at risk of being sued is truly something to behold.

https://twitter.com/jason_howerton/status/1230324226802028550
Click to expand...
He never said that. He said they were between "the company and someone else" that agreed to them.

Are any of these NDAs actually between Bloomberg and x?

I'm open to hearing more specifics but this sound bite attack without specifics grates against my nature.
 
3point14 said:
Which I find the oddest attitude. If politicians didn't get anything done, you''d still be spending silver and walking on mud, breathing massively polluted, if not deadly air, by the side of a river on fire while someone stole all your money and your house and you couldn't do a damn thing about it.

Jesus, you couldn't even leave the country because nobody would have issued you a passport.

Still, horses for courses, eh.
Click to expand...

Wary, not manichean binary black and white dismissive.
 
d4m10n said:
This is a fascinating perspective.

Which bits of Bloomberg's vision do you find most disconcerting?
Click to expand...

It's not about the specifics. It's about the general principle. Even good visions have unintended consequences. Even good solutions are unlikely to be one-size-fits-all solutions when trying to centrally manage a country this size.

I'm a conservative. Change is risky. It should be done slowly and incrementally. Major changes pushed through with the best of intentions are my worst nightmare.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
:rolleyes:

You should move this to the CT thread. And if you really have heard the above, you should be able to post a few quotes.
Click to expand...


There may be some hyperbole there, but I've definitely heard 'he's unelectable'

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...erss-agenda-makes-him-definition-unelectable/

He's part of the swamp:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/480148-bernie-sanders-is-part-of-the-swamp

This discussion here consists of 'he's not a proper democrat'


Need anything else? Did I miss one?

Oh, 'he's electable but can't win'. I'll withdraw that one.
 
The great thing about Bloomberg, there's seems to be plenty of reason for folks on the right and the left to dislike him. In terms of personality, he seems to be a very light version of Trump. I really can't see it going well for the Dems if he's their nominee.

I'm still hoping for Pete or Amy.
 
theprestige said:
I'm a conservative. Change is risky. It should be done slowly and incrementally. Major changes pushed through with the best of intentions are my worst nightmare.
Click to expand...

I'd've guessed Bloomberg is literally the least likely of anyone on that stage to push through major structural changes. Perhaps even less likely than the incumbent, re: foreign policy and immigration.
 
d4m10n said:
...

I was skeptical of this, but found a useful calculator. (Click "Yes" then click Bloomberg.)

Or just read this.

ETA: It strikes me as a rational move to burn through a few billion in order to save many more, but running oneself wasn't the smart play. Bloomberg could've blanketed Super Tuesday states in pro-Amy agitprop instead, or gotten behind any other moderate Dem.
Click to expand...
He's spent 10 times that amount on Progressive causes.

I don't find the argument persuasive compared to the argument Bloomberg truly sees Warren and Sanders' socialism a threat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom