Bloomberg for President?

[Distracted1]

The debate showed us that the Dems can attack someone who isn't even on the ballot in the next two Primaries.

This is a huge win for Bloomberg to get the attacks done now, when it doesn't even affect his delegate count. Media cycle will flip in a day.

The scariest part for the Dems, is he is basically blackmailing them to nominate him, because it is clear he is going to run 3rd party if he doesn't get the nomination.

Do you think he is spiteful enough to actually do that?

I doubt he is deluded enough to believe that he could possibly become POTUS running third Party. Any run would be a pure spite move.
I hope he is not that vindictive, and so far have not seen evidence that he is.

 

[Matthew Best]

Yup, that's exactly the impression you were supposed to leave with.

A triumph of the art. It was positively surgical.

Personally I wasn't affected by any of the propaganda. It's just a coincidence that my beliefs coincide almost exactly with what the propaganda told everyone else to believe.

 

[3point14]

Personally I wasn't affected by any of the propaganda. It's just a coincidence that my beliefs coincide almost exactly with what the propaganda told everyone else to believe.

Very well put.

 

[angrysoba]

Yup, that's exactly the impression you were supposed to leave with. (The 'evidence of your own eyes', unless you've actually followed Corbyn around, was carefully managed by the right wing press and a complicit BBC. That which you see 'with your own eyes' is managed.)

A triumph of the art. It was positively surgical.

Personally I wasn't affected by any of the propaganda. It's just a coincidence that my beliefs coincide almost exactly with what the propaganda told everyone else to believe.

These are not really helpful comments, simply making assumptions about how I came to my conclusions, and not explaining how it is that you came to different (and apparently correct) conclusions, unless you are saying that you had some special way of seeing through to the truth that all the dummies didn't.

 

[3point14]

These are not really helpful comments, simply making assumptions about how I came to my conclusions,

No, I accommodated uncertainties about your evidence gathering with the 'unless', which covers it off nicely.

and not explaining how it is that you came to different (and apparently correct) conclusions, unless you are saying that you had some special way of seeing through to the truth that all the dummies didn't.

Academic papers that show methodology, results and conclusions. See the LSE paper above.

Of course, if you think your anecdotal evidence trumps that, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[angrysoba]

No, I accommodated uncertainties about your evidence gathering with the 'unless', which covers it off nicely.



Academic papers that show methodology, results and conclusions. See the LSE paper above.

Of course, if you think your anecdotal evidence trumps that, I don't know what to tell you.

Well, my anecdotal evidence tells me that multiple cabinet members resigned over his leadership, that there were multiple leadership challenges, that a number of the party left to form or join other parties, that his deputy left the party on the eve of a general election. Presumably the LSE report explains how that was all a confection by right-wing press barons and the BBC, and that if I had actually followed Jeremy Corbyn around I would have realized that none of that had happened.

 

[Cabbage]

Goodness, you seem a bit not-so-objective.

Oh, I'm the "not-so-objective" one when you are the one assuming her bias will be reflected in future events?

There are a dozen reasons Clinton failed. How is that the least bit relevant here? I don't believe I ever said a Clinton win was a given. I did say she had a better chance than Sanders and I still believe that.

How is it relevant? It's a reminder that predicting outcomes in politics is difficult. You seem to have forgotten that in under four short years.

Define "pure speculation".

Assuming something is true without actual evidence.

 

[3point14]

Well, my anecdotal evidence tells me that multiple cabinet members resigned over his leadership, that there were multiple leadership challenges, that a number of the party left to form or join other parties, that his deputy left the party on the eve of a general election. Presumably the LSE report explains how that was all a confection by right-wing press barons and the BBC, and that if I had actually followed Jeremy Corbyn around I would have realized that none of that had happened.

You asked, I answered.

I think the academic study is more reliable than your randomly gathered info.

You disagree. Let's leave it at that.

 

[Cabbage]

The scariest part for the Dems, is he is basically blackmailing them to nominate him, because it is clear he is going to run 3rd party if he doesn't get the nomination.

What are you basing that on? The evidence I've seen (that Bloomberg will donate his campaign team to whoever wins the Dem nomination) indicates precisely the opposite.

 

[angrysoba]

You asked, I answered.

I think the academic study is more reliable than your randomly gathered info.

Of course the academic study that agrees with you is more reliable than opinions you don't like. That said... It's a fact that people in his party were walking out of his party and of their cabinet posts all the time under Corbyn. It wasn't invented by the Daily Telegraph or the Daily Mail or the BBC. You can't pretend that all those things didn't happen. That is my point, and just vaguely pointing at an academic study doesn't change that.

You disagree. Let's leave it at that.

Look, if you were campaigning for him it stands to reason that you will see him in a particular way and take umbrage at the attacks against him (and bear in mind, my points about him are not the ones you are pointing to).

But don't just assume that you and others who followed him around are the only people with legitimate opinions on the subject.

Anyway, sure, we can leave it at that as this is not the thread for it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

All I know is when Bloomberg wasn't on anyone's Radar my entire Facebook feed and a lot of the general discourse was of the "We have to stand behind whoever the Democrats nominate, you just don't get to vote for who you really want because this election because you'll lose the election for us" and now it is... well not so there seems to be a double standard there with a lot of people.

My gut tells me this is much ado about nothing because I really don't see him actually making a serious run at the nomination.

But I said the same thing about Trump so "I accidentally the Presidency" is a thing that can happen.

 

[3point14]

Of course the academic study that agrees with you is more reliable than opinions you don't like.

Do you want to read that again and maybe, after consideration, withdraw it?

Or do you want to continue with 'my anecdotal evidence is more reliable than a well documented academic study"?

Because, if we're going with option two, you and I have no common ground to even begin to have a conversation.


Trying to flavour this as a choice on my part based on conclusion not methodology is beneath you. don't do that.

 

[angrysoba]

All I know is when Bloomberg wasn't on anyone's Radar my entire Facebook feed and a lot of the general discourse was of the "We have to stand behind whoever the Democrats nominate, you just don't get to vote for who you really want because this election because you'll lose the election for us" and now it is... well not so there seems to be a double standard there with a lot of people.

My gut tells me this is much ado about nothing because I really don't see him actually making a serious run at the nomination.

But I said the same thing about Trump so "I accidentally the Presidency" is a thing that can happen.

Huh?! Everyone on your Facebook feed is voting Democrat? Are you sure you are a military guy in Florida?

 

[angrysoba]

Do you want to read that again and maybe, after consideration, withdraw it?

Or do you want to continue with 'my anecdotal evidence is more reliable than a well documented academic study"?

Because, if we're going with option two, you and I have no common ground to even begin to have a conversation.


Trying to flavour this as a choice on my part based on conclusion not methodology is beneath you. don't do that.

I don’t think the academic study even addresses my argument. I can agree that he was unfairly maligned and still say he was a terrible leader. You only have to look at resignations from his own party and the comments that his own party members have made about his leadership to know that he was a bad leader. What the study says is irrelevant to my point.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Huh?! Everyone on your Facebook feed is voting Democrat? Are you sure you are a military guy in Florida?

*Shrugs* Of the people who talk politics. I'm sure I've got some Trumpers in my extended family or in the other margins but yeah basically my feed is Democrats of various flavors.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Personally I wasn't affected by any of the propaganda. It's just a coincidence that my beliefs coincide almost exactly with what the propaganda told everyone else to believe.

The problem with this is every quality; real, exaggerated, and wholly made up, of one side is going to be used as propaganda.

I've been seeing an increase in various versions of the whole "You can't use an argument if someone else has used to badly" thing and that's a center that cannot hold because the last 20 years have been an arms race of people breaking every possible method of debating.

If we let our standards get to this "Oh you can't say Y because this other person who was wrong/bad/dishonest said Y (or even X) in the same way" we're gutting discourse at a time where it is already on life support and we need it more then ever.

 

[theprestige]

As I said, if the NDA is cancelled and the employee speaks out against Bloomberg, the company is free to respond, which might mean painting the employee in the worst possible light.

The woman doesn't need an NDA, to protect herself from this possibility.

 

[Suddenly]

As I said, if the NDA is cancelled and the employee speaks out against Bloomberg, the company is free to respond, which might mean painting the employee in the worst possible light.

It wouldn't be cancelled. It would be voidable at the option of the employee. If the employee decided to not speak the NDA stays in place against Bloomberg. The employee may decide not to speak because they don't want the headache that comes with publicly accusing a powerful man of harassment. They would have that choice.

This is why the idea that not releasing these is for the protection of the employee is completely asinine. The only difference is the choice to speak up if they decide the story needs to be told now that Bloomberg wants to be President.

 

[pgwenthold]

It wouldn't be cancelled. It would be voidable at the option of the employee. If the employee decided to not speak the NDA stays in place against Bloomberg. The employee may decide not to speak because they don't want the headache that comes with publicly accusing a powerful man of harassment. They would have that choice.

This is why the idea that not releasing these is for the protection of the employee is completely asinine. The only difference is the choice to speak up if they decide the story needs to be told now that Bloomberg wants to be President.

Yeah, "it protects the employee from retribution for making false claims" doesn't make any sense. Why shouldn't there be retribution against false claims?

But what it does do is to set them up for retribution for making TRUE claims. So the employee has a choice - don't make a claim because the NDA won't allow it, or don't make a claim because of fear for retribution, or make a claim and have the company attack.

Granted, there is good choice there, but if there is an NDA, there is no choice at all.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again NDAs are just legal agreements like contracts and no compete clauses and marriage vows and leases and the Terms and Conditions on iTunes and your credit card contract and people break those all the time, often for barely a good reason, often for barely a good reason despite legal consequences.

The whole "They signed an NDA, that means it is metaphysically impossible that they could ever talk" is nonsense of the highest order.

If there is information out there that would drastically effect the landscape of the current political scene that multiple people are aware of, NDAs are not stopping it.

"Bloomberg assaulted a bunch of women and none of them are talking because of NDAs" is... no.