Bloomberg for President?

The Great Zaganza said:
At this point, it seems to me that Bloomberg is running less against Trump, but rather against Sanders...
Click to expand...

Not just seems. Literally. The Democratic Primary for nominee for President. :)

All the anti-Trump ads, while they are boosting his name recognition etc., seem non-differentiating to me. Any nominee will be against Trump.
 
carlitos said:
Not just seems. Literally. The Democratic Primary for nominee for President. :)

All the anti-Trump ads, while they are boosting his name recognition etc., seem non-differentiating to me. Any nominee will be against Trump.
Click to expand...

you know what I mean:
Seems that, contrary to his statements, Bloomberg would not help Sanders win against Trump.
If preventing a second Trump term had been Bloomberg's highest goal, he should have run as a Republican and split the vote.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
you know what I mean:
Seems that, contrary to his statements, Bloomberg would not help Sanders win against Trump.
If preventing a second Trump term had been Bloomberg's highest goal, he should have run as a Republican and split the vote.
Click to expand...

The goal is to protect the plutocrats. A Trump or Bloomberg win would accomplish that.
 
3point14 said:
Mainly though because I give it 2-1 that if Bernie gets in the billionaires will deliberately crash the economy and blame Bernie.
Click to expand...

The market will almost certainly crash within the next 4 years, and the massive deficit will make it hit hard. And, yes, whoever is in office at the time will be blamed.

I think the best case scenario is that the stock market crashes before the election, and then a Democrat inherits that economy. I'm not sure it's likely, but experts are saying that there may be a recession due to the Coronavirus, so it's possible.

Not that I'm saying that the virus situation getting worse would be a good thing, of course.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
The market will almost certainly crash within the next 4 years, and the massive deficit will make it hit hard. And, yes, whoever is in office at the time will be blamed.

I think the best case scenario is that the stock market crashes before the election, and then a Democrat inherits that economy. I'm not sure it's likely, but experts are saying that there may be a recession due to the Coronavirus, so it's possible.

Not that I'm saying that the virus situation getting worse would be a good thing, of course.
Click to expand...

as the saying goes: never let a crisis go to waste.
A massive downturn might be exactly the thing that would allow a D-administration to pass sweeping infrastructure investment and healthcare/minimum wage bills: when you have lost your job, you aren't that upset about billionaires having to pay more taxes.
 
TragicMonkey said:
The goal is to protect the plutocrats. A Trump or Bloomberg win would accomplish that.
Click to expand...

This. Why aren't people getting this? I find it weird. The USA is owned by corporate America and the billionaires that control it only if they can persuade enough voters (about 30% or so) that no, this is really democracy. (if, according to most measures, a substandard one)
 
The Great Zaganza said:
as the saying goes: never let a crisis go to waste.
A massive downturn might be exactly the thing that would allow a D-administration to pass sweeping infrastructure investment and healthcare/minimum wage bills:
Click to expand...

some sort of 'new deal'? It'll never work. Not in America...


when you have lost your job, you aren't that upset about billionaires having to pay more taxes.
Click to expand...

I think you underestimate the power of Fox. :)
 
As I've said before poor people are one of Trump's biggest base, I question the validity of hoping a crisis makes more of them.

The rural areas have been a recession for about two decades now. What is the factory that shut down and moved to Asia going to make less money?

It's too easy for Trump and the Trumpers to spin a recession into a false "Now they know how everyone lived under da evil Dems" narrative. I mean if you leave the urban areas the country's already in a recession, has been for a while.

"Oh noes the factory that... shut down 20 years ago is going to make less money."
 
d4m10n said:
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/news...eak-up-too-big-to-fail-financial-institutions
Click to expand...



Oh, I see. I thought you meant just breaking them entirely, not reducing the ability of mega corporations to hold the country to ransom.

Did you see what happened to AIG?


The sky will not fall if institutions vital to the health, safety and security of the USA are split up to allow redundancy - and, indeed to allow capitalism to actually happen.


I assume, by your desire to have vital institutions be literally too big to be allowed to fail, that you're somewhat anti-capitalist. am I right?
 
JoeMorgue said:
As I've said before poor people are one of Trump's biggest base, I question the validity of hoping a crisis makes more of them.

The rural areas have been a recession for about two decades now. What is the factory that shut down and moved to Asia going to make less money?

It's too easy for Trump and the Trumpers to spin a recession into a false "Now they know how everyone lived under da evil Dems" narrative. I mean if you leave the urban areas the country's already in a recession, has been for a while.

"Oh noes the factory that... shut down 20 years ago is going to make less money."
Click to expand...

I personally am not hoping that.

It seems likely to me (and to financial experts) that there will be a recession soon. That the US economy may even crash.

If we assume that this is true, then the best case scenario (working from the assumption that a Democrat president would be best for the country) is for that crash to happen while a Republican is in office. And, working from the same assumption, it's better for Trump to lose the election in 2020, rather than to leave office after having served a second term.

The only way I can think of for a stock market crash/recession to happen before the election not to be the best scenario is for a stock market crash/recession not to happen at all. But if you believe that one is going to happen then the best case scenario is for it to happen when a) it may damage Trump due to him not being able to blame it on anybody other than himself and b) when it can't damage an incumbent Democrat by being blamed on them being elected/taking office/whatever.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I personally am not hoping that.

It seems likely to me (and to financial experts) that there will be a recession soon. That the US economy may even crash.

If we assume that this is true, then the best case scenario (working from the assumption that a Democrat president would be best for the country) is for that crash to happen while a Republican is in office. And, working from the same assumption, it's better for Trump to lose the election in 2020, rather than to leave office after having served a second term.

The only way I can think of for a stock market crash/recession to happen before the election not to be the best scenario is for a stock market crash/recession not to happen at all. But if you believe that one is going to happen then the best case scenario is for it to happen when a) it may damage Trump due to him not being able to blame it on anybody other than himself and b) when it can't damage an incumbent Democrat by being blamed on them being elected/taking office/whatever.
Click to expand...

I see at least three flaws with this strategy. The biggest one is that if you believe a Democrat would be best for the country, and if you believe a crash is coming, then the moral choice is to put a Democrat in office so they can do the best job of mitigating the harm and recovering the economy. Intentionally trading away the good of the country for long-term partisan political advantage seems deeply immoral. Almost evil.
 
theprestige said:
I see at least three flaws with this strategy. The biggest one is that if you believe a Democrat would be best for the country, and if you believe a crash is coming, then the moral choice is to put a Democrat in office so they can do the best job of mitigating the harm and recovering the economy. Intentionally trading away the good of the country for long-term partisan political advantage seems deeply immoral. Almost evil.
Click to expand...

it has been a historic fact that in US history that Democrats are better at getting the country out of a recession, whilst the Republicans specialize in getting it into one.
 
"X will happen and Trump's reaction and/or the reaction to Trump will be the same as it was for other Presidents in the past" hasn't worked yet. He might even break "It's the economy stupid."

If the economy hits the kind of downturn that would make or break a Presidency, I question whether it will make or break Trump.
 
JoeMorgue said:
"X will happen and Trump's reaction and/or the reaction to Trump will be the same as it was for other Presidents in the past" hasn't worked yet. He might even break "It's the economy stupid."

If the economy hits the kind of downturn that would make or break a Presidency, I question whether it will make or break Trump.
Click to expand...


Of course it won't. He'll be able to convince around 1 in 3, which is what he needs, that it's somebody else's fault.
 
3point14 said:
Of course it won't. He'll be able to convince around 1 in 3, which is what he needs, that it's somebody else's fault.
Click to expand...

If it happens any time after inauguration, Trump and republicans will blame it on the new president
If it happens during the lame duck time, Trump and republicans will blame it on the fear of the new president
If it happens before the election, Trump and republicans will blame it on uncertainty that the democrat could be elected.
It it happened tomorrow, Trump and republicans would blame it on Sanders leading the primary race

Remember rule 1: whatever bad happens, it's always the democrat's fault.
 
3point14 said:
I assume, by your desire to have vital institutions be literally too big to be allowed to fail, that you're somewhat anti-capitalist.
Click to expand...

I would certainly hesitate to pin the anti-capitalist label on anyone who doesn't self-identify as such, but if I had to do so I'd take a hard look at those who promote forcibly breaking up financial institutions merely for being successful enough to become systemically important. At this point, though, we really should be in the "fear Bernie" thread since we aren't talking about anything Bloomberg has done or promised to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom