Bloomberg for President?

[JoeMorgue]

My new theory is that Bloomberg doesn't give a crap about the Presidency, he just wanted Warren to yell at him in front of an audience of millions because it gets him off.

"That's it. That's it. I'm a naughty candidate!"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, as soon as the argument doesn't go your way, I guess it's no longer the thread for that.

You asserted [X]. How does that make the argument not going my way?

 

[Bob001]

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.

A discussion of NDAs. Important point:

But they can also be used to protect those women, Sloan said. Fair or not, if you need to get another job, being out there accusing your former employer of sexual harassment isn’t always the best look.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/20/warren-bloomberg-debate-nondisclosure-agreements/

 

[JoeMorgue]

I've never bought that NDA's are anywhere near as powerful as people pretend they are.

If "X amount of people have massive dirt on Important Person Y but have signed NDAs" I don't for a second buy that "X" can be any higher then "A few" before the odds of one of them talking becomes extremely likely.

People act like NDAs are handed down from God, written on the hide of a unicorn in angel blood and if one is broken the very universe will be torn asunder. NDAs are the reason everything from the Deep State to UFOs to Bigfoot is still a secret.

They are just legal agreements. People break legal agreements... like all the time. Often time with barely a good reason, even when risking huge legal recourse.

NDAs cannot easily be invoked as a reason why something isn't in the open if the thing in question is a pretty big deal and known by multiple people.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

I thought you were talking about people in the thread.

There are many people including myself worried Sanders' democratic-socialism is a losing platform.

As for part of the swamp, look at who that idiotic op ed used as a source: "As Peter Schweizer details in his book". Schweitzer is a lying right-winger. If that's who you are referring to, don't imply anyone on the left is saying this. Definitely CT material.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A discussion of NDAs. Important point:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/20/warren-bloomberg-debate-nondisclosure-agreements/

Thank you. You are one of the few people in this thread actually attempting to have a discussion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've never bought that NDA's are anywhere near as powerful as people pretend they are.

If "X amount of people have massive dirt on Important Person Y but have signed NDAs" I don't for a second buy that "X" can be any higher then "A few" before the odds of one of them talking becomes extremely likely.

People act like NDAs are handed down from God, written on the hide of a unicorn in angel blood and if one is broken the very universe will be torn asunder. NDAs are the reason everything from the Deep State to UFOs to Bigfoot is still a secret.

They are just legal agreements. People break legal agreements... like all the time. Often time with barely a good reason, even when risking huge legal recourse.

NDAs cannot easily be invoked as a reason why something isn't in the open if the thing in question is a pretty big deal and known by multiple people.

One thing is very clear, Trump over-uses them and uses them inappropriately. That doesn't mean all NDAs are equal.

They're very common in business to protect trade secrets having nothing to do with settlements over complaints.

I just want the facts before knee-jerk responding.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

One thing is very clear, Trump over-uses them and uses them inappropriately. That doesn't mean all NDAs are equal.

They're very common in business to protect trade secrets having nothing to do with settlements over complaints.

I just want the facts before knee-jerk responding.

The NDAs have to do with litigation related to sexual harassment and discrimination involving his company. This isn't a case of NDAs to protect trade secrets.

Bloomberg's sexual improprieties have long been pretty well reported, it's just that most of these occurred before the #metoo era, so there were no meaningful consequences.

 

[theprestige]

A discussion of NDAs. Important point:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/20/warren-bloomberg-debate-nondisclosure-agreements/

That seems extremely patronizing. A woman doesn't need to sign an NDA to protect herself from that: She just needs to decide to keep her mouth shut. She doesn't need to make a legally-binding promise to someone else to keep her mouth shut.

---

"If you go public with this, it'll make you look bad."

"Good point. I'll keep quiet for now."

"Actually, you need to commit to that in writing."

"... What?"

"And if you ever decide to go public after all, we get to sue for breaking your promise."

"... What?!"

"It's for your own good. We're looking out for your career, you know."

"I can look out for my own career."

"That's stupid. Everybody knows that if we let you women look out for your own careers, you'd all still be in the kitchen making sandwiches.... Wanna hear a joke? What do you do when your dishwasher won't work?"

 

[TurkeysGhost]

That seems extremely patronizing. A woman doesn't need to sign an NDA to protect herself from that: She just needs to decide to keep her mouth shut. She doesn't need to make a legally-binding promise to someone else to keep her mouth shut.

---

"If you go public with this, it'll make you look bad."

"Good point. I'll keep quiet for now."

"Actually, you need to commit to that in writing."

"... What?"

"And if you ever decide to go public after all, we get to sue for breaking your promise."

"... What?!"

"It's for your own good. We're looking out for your career, you know."

"I can look out for my own career."

"That's stupid. Everybody knows that if we let you women look out for your own careers, you'd all still be in the kitchen making sandwiches.... Wanna hear a joke? What do you do when your dishwasher won't work?"

Indeed.

Surely there was an equitable meeting of the minds between an employee and a literal billionaire with the best lawyers money can buy. /s

Suing someone like Mike Bloomberg for sexual harassment is a losing proposition, regardless of the facts. His vast wealth and legal resources means he can make the process long, expensive, and personally punishing.

A settlement with an NDA is really the best case scenario possible for these women, but let's not pretend that the NDA is for their benefit.

 

[Joe Random]

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.

Like I said, I disagree with his starting point (both candidates' goals are roughly equally undesirable), but given said starting point his conclusion (vote for the one less likely to be able to enact it, or who will be able to enact less of it) seems logical. I've heard other insane reasons for supporting Trump (one gal I know specifically mentioned Trump's fiscal responsibility), but hoping for governmental gridlock isn't insane or inherently illogical, just not a position I agree with.

 

[Bob001]

That seems extremely patronizing. A woman doesn't need to sign an NDA to protect herself from that: She just needs to decide to keep her mouth shut. She doesn't need to make a legally-binding promise to someone else to keep her mouth shut.
.....

Chances are the NDAs would bind both parties. They would (or should) prevent Bloomberg from badmouthing the employee, too. Otherwise you get "Bloomberg did a terrible thing to me" and Bloomberg says "She's incompetent and crazy, and we paid her to go away."

 

[Donal]

One thing is very clear, Trump over-uses them and uses them inappropriately. That doesn't mean all NDAs are equal.

They're very common in business to protect trade secrets having nothing to do with settlements over complaints.

I just want the facts before knee-jerk responding.

You want the details of an event covered by an NDA?

 

[d4m10n]

Listening to CNN's political "forecast fest" podcast.

They pose an important question:

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The NDAs have to do with litigation related to sexual harassment and discrimination involving his company. This isn't a case of NDAs to protect trade secrets.

Bloomberg's sexual improprieties have long been pretty well reported, it's just that most of these occurred before the #metoo era, so there were no meaningful consequences.

I'd like to see a link here. All I've heard are the accusations. I'd like to see more facts.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You want the details of an event covered by an NDA?

Well gee, how do you know anything at all about them? How do you know they were settlements for employee complaints?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'd like to see a link here. All I've heard are the accusations. I'd like to see more facts.

As already pointed out, an NDA precludes facts.

There are allegations and confidential settlements. Nothing more can be learned unless Bloomberg releases the NDA, or if these women violate them and risk being sued by one of the wealthiest people on the planet.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/politics/michael-bloomberg-women/

 

[angrysoba]

Yeah, that's some top spinnage.

I’m strong to the finnage, coz I got top spinnage, I’m Bloomberg the liar man!

 

[angrysoba]

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.

He said “some” (or “a few”) of them involved him, and handwaved it away as “jokes”. The Warren asked for specifics regarding the exact number and whether he would release the women from their NDAs. That is when Bloomberg completely blanked on any good answer. It’s in the clip I posted.

 

[angrysoba]

Because he's smarter and richer and is one of the few people running in the primary that actually understands marketing.

Someone on his team should have understood debating then, because his performance was horrible. He should have sat it out until he at least had delegates under his belt on Super Tuesday. Seriously, I see no reason on the current evidence for thinking Bloomberg wins against Trump, Three of the candidates in Nevada savaged him.