Bloomberg for President?

Suddenly said:
Credibility is a thing. His candidacy gives me flashbacks to the 2016 WV Governors race where a billionaire named Jim Justice, a former Republican, ran as a Democrat and made the same sorts of noises. He bought the nomination with crazy spending in an open primary state and squeaked through the general.

About a year later he, on stage with Trump, declared his return to the GOP.
Click to expand...
Your cynicism/suspicious are certainly warranted, given the similarity between the situations.

It should be noted however that in the case of Jim Justice, it appears as if his temporary switch to the Democrats was something that occurred just prior to his political run.

On the other hand, while Bloomberg had been a republican at one point, he appears to have been drifting away from their party for some time (even endorsing Obama.) He's supported abortion rights, action on climate change, and gun control. Whether he HAD been a republican in the past, his policies would mean he doesn't fit in the Republican party of today.
 
Donal said:
Considering how much Bloomberg has donated to charities and public causes, I am willing to believe that he is not entirely motivated by self-interest.
Click to expand...
1) those donations are tax deductible
Click to expand...
Even if they are tax deductible, I doubt very much that he would receive anywhere near the amount he donated as tax rebates. He still ends up out-of-pocket through his donations.
2) he seems to have been using those donations to buy position within those movements. He's leveraging them to his political advantage now.
Click to expand...
Seems you've set him up in a sort of no-win situation.... even if he agrees to donate all his money to fund abortion clinics and live the rest of his life in a cardboard box on the street, you'd still probably find a way to suggest that its some sort of secret plot to push for "big cardboard box" or whatever.
He backed Republicans in several swing districts in 2018, several of which those Republicans won by hair thin margins.
Click to expand...
That IS a significant issue, and one that Bloomberg should answer to (just to see if he as any sort of justification). I hope one of his opponents raises the issue in a future debate.
 
d4m10n said:
Yeah, but what should he have said?

(Imagine you were hired to prep him, and you saw this one coming.)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have been there. I'd have gone through all potential attacks with my team, worked out in advance that the question was unanswerable and I would have decided to spend the day spending bucketloads of my money to make me feel better.


He needs to sack his people, they're giving him **** advice. Like "run for office"

He should stick to telling 'jokes' to his female employees so he can shower them with hush money.
 
d4m10n said:
Yeah, but what should he have said?

(Imagine you were hired to prep him, and you saw this one coming.)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't, because I have moral standards for whom I choose to work for.

Failing that, I would have told him to just say yes and deal with the fallout.

If I want to go total amoral campaign strategist just say yes then go out and offer new large cash NDAs on the grounds they keep quiet about the original one we just publicly released. EZ game.

Or just promise to have your lawyers write up such a release so that it protects third parties and then just don't do it, boycott the rest of the debates because reasons and stick to spending absurd amounts of money for TV time and use that gaslight people into thinking it is no big deal.
 
Suddenly said:
I wouldn't, because I have moral standards for whom I choose to work for.
Click to expand...


I have to say, I consider myself a moral man.

I think, if Mike were utterly desperate for my opinion, there is a price for which I would momentarily pack my morals away and deal with the guilt later.

If anyone knows Mike, do update him, he'll be over the moon...
 
Segnosaur said:
Even if they are tax deductible, I doubt very much that he would receive anywhere near the amount he donated as tax rebates. He still ends up out-of-pocket through his donations.
Click to expand...

He also ends up with the publicity and good PR. Those have a monetary value. Ask the Koch brothers.

Seems you've set him up in a sort of no-win situation.... even if he agrees to donate all his money to fund abortion clinics and live the rest of his life in a cardboard box on the street, you'd still probably find a way to suggest that its some sort of secret plot to push for "big cardboard box" or whatever.
Click to expand...

Or there could be a happy middle ground. Like don't nakedly play both sides and purchase progressive movements so you can redirect them to your own benefit while using them as a shield.

That IS a significant issue, and one that Bloomberg should answer to (just to see if he as any sort of justification). I hope one of his opponents raises the issue in a future debate.
Click to expand...

Sanders did a little. Bloomberg did directly finance Republican Scott Brown's campaign in 2012, whom Warren unseated. It probably would have looked a little petty if she brought that up. Still, there is so much there.
 
d4m10n said:
I'd like that as well, but let's try to imagine that we're actually giving him advice. What do you think would've been a good answer?
Click to expand...

There's a reason I'm an IT guy and not a political consultant, but I'll take a shot.

There's no denying the NDAs exist. Were I slimy, I'd tell him to downplay his role and simply say he was named in them because it was his company and he personally didn't do any of the actions deemed offensive. I'd also say those are all decades old and that behavior has not been tolerated in his company for some time.

I'd also say to feign concern for the plaintiffs' security and privacy by not wanting to expose them to the media circus and nasty Twitter trolls while glancing at Bernie.

Then launch into a rant about sensationalist tabloid media, online attacks by political operatives, and wish we could go back to the good old days of civility.
 
d4m10n said:
I'd like that as well, but let's try to imagine that we're actually giving him advice. What do you think would've been a good answer?
Click to expand...

I can't imagine any "good" answers, but there probably is a "least bad" answer. Not sure what that would be.

I don't think the difference between the least bad answer and the answer he gave would have been significant. This is like plugging pin-hole leaks in a sinking ship that has been torn in half. The damage control potential is pretty limited.
 
Where does Bloomberg stand on the starting unnecessary wars issue? Some have put him to the right of Trump due to his Iraq war behavior.
 
3point14 said:
I have to say, I consider myself a moral man.

I think, if Mike were utterly desperate for my opinion, there is a price for which I would momentarily pack my morals away and deal with the guilt later.

If anyone knows Mike, do update him, he'll be over the moon...
Click to expand...

I've been in similar spots, tried it once and it almost killed me. When you sell what you are as a person to do what you see as evil, you either become someone else or you die in every way that matters.

I imagine if it is an issue of literally not starving to death then maybe, but usually these choices are made by people that have some other way to support themselves.
 
Donal said:
There's a reason I'm an IT guy and not a political consultant, but I'll take a shot.

There's no denying the NDAs exist. Were I slimy, I'd tell him to downplay his role and simply say he was named in them because it was his company and he personally didn't do any of the actions deemed offensive. I'd also say those are all decades old and that behavior has not been tolerated in his company for some time.

I'd also say to feign concern for the plaintiffs' security and privacy by not wanting to expose them to the media circus and nasty Twitter trolls while glancing at Bernie.

Then launch into a rant about sensationalist tabloid media, online attacks by political operatives, and wish we could go back to the good old days of civility.
Click to expand...

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.

(Shrug) We are already in the process of doing this. These are worded as to require a written release. I don't want there to be any misunderstanding that the women involved are free to speak and know as much. I'm ready to put this issue to bed and I'm sure anyone willing to speak will soon come forward to set the record straight.

...and then don't do it, or selectively do it, or whatever.
 
TruthJonsen said:
Where does Bloomberg stand on the starting unnecessary wars issue? Some have put him to the right of Trump due to his Iraq war behavior.
Click to expand...
Both Trump and Bloomberg supported the Iraq invasion.

The difference is, Bloomberg is honest about it... He says while he doesn't regret supporting the invasion, he said it was a mistake based on faulty intelligence pushed by the Bush administration.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...nvasion-of-iraq-i-dont-live-in-a-regret-world

On the other hand, Trump just lies... claims he was "always" against it, even though he stated openly on the radio before the invasion took place that he supported it.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/29/poli...-false-claim-opposed-iraq-invasion/index.html

So if you are comparing the 2 of them, I'd say Bloomberg wins that round.

Yeah, you might wish he had been more skeptical over what was presented at the time, but he recognized that ultimately it was a mistake. I'd gladly prefer that over someone who flat out lies.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom