Bloomberg for President?

Childlike Empress said:
Basic search (using the leading quotation mark and putting one before the first [name redacted]) hit a "Nymag" article from 2001 which reveals that [name redacted] is Jane Fonda.
Click to expand...
But that article actually says that it's own source is dubious. More than once even, including immediately after the mention of Jane Fonda.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
But that article actually says that it's own source is dubious. More than once even, including immediately after the mention of Jane Fonda.
Click to expand...


Yeah, sorry, I should have spend a few seconds to read the actual thing.

the actual thing said:
The artifact came in the form of a photocopied booklet with the title The Portable Bloomberg: The Wit and Wisdom of Michael Bloomberg – 32 pages of Bloomberg quips, anecdotes, and aphorisms with occasional illustrations – dated February 14, 1990 [...]
Click to expand...
 
From Mike's press release:

https://www.mikebloomberg.com/news/bernies-new-bro-donald-trump

Naming some of Bernie's campaign staff and surrogates:

In just the past week, Bernie Sanders’ National Press Secretary Briahna Joy Gray, Senior Advisor David Sirota, and National Campaign Co-Chair Nina Turner have referred to Mike as a “racist” and an “oligarch,” implied Donald Trump is better than a fellow Democatic candidate for president, and called Bloomberg supporters “enablers".

“If you wouldn’t even condone a tweet criticizing a racist authoritarian like Bloomberg, you are a fence sitting enabler of the worst variety and have no business holding yourself holding yourself out as a Democrat — much less a progressive.” [Twitter, @briebriejoy, 2/16/20]

“Oligarch of the Month: Michael Bloomberg.” [Twitter, @ninaturner, 2/3/20]

“Moreover, we have no reason to believe Bloomberg’s newfound political commitments. He has demonstrated a willingness to change his stripes with the political winds, and because (sic) he’s self funded, is literally accountable to no one. The danger he presents can not be overstated.” [Twitter, @briebriejoy, 2/13/20]

“Trump will say he has a better record on criminal justice than Bloomberg. And he may be right.” [Twitter, @briebriejoy, 2/16/20]

“I’m told Mike Bloomberg isn’t an “oligarch” — he’s just a billionaire who buys elections and is a “part-time resident” of a foreign tax haven.” [Twitter, @davidsirota, 2/5/20]

“I may not have a PhD (yet!) but I DO have the good sense of knowing what makes for Oligarchy. Anyone caping for a BILLIONAIRE (with a media company) able to buy endless ads & influence party rules halfway through is PRECISELY a perpetuator of the corrupt system — ie an Oligarch!” [Twitter, @ninaturner, 2/3/20]
Click to expand...

Where's the lie here? These all seem like spot-on criticisms of Mike and very much fair play.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
https://twitter.com/amandawgolden/status/1229775145490776064?s=20



https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/1229778451508449281?s=20
Click to expand...

That second tweet doesn't seem fair or rational to me, even as a joke.

Bloomberg isn't cheating the way the Laughlins cheated.

The DNC made certain rules at the start of the primary season, based on the size of the field and the way it looked like that field would race at that time. Bloomberg entered the field later, and is running his race a bit differently. But he's getting support. Should he and his supporters be locked out of the official DNC campaign events, just because the original rules didn't provide for this contingency?

I don't think so. I don't think it's cheating for the DNC to say, "here's a candidate who entered the race by a route we didn't foresee; we should recognize that he's in the race, and include him in the debates."
 
theprestige said:
That second tweet doesn't seem fair or rational to me, even as a joke.

Bloomberg isn't cheating the way the Laughlins cheated.

The DNC made certain rules at the start of the primary season, based on the size of the field and the way it looked like that field would race at that time. Bloomberg entered the field later, and is running his race a bit differently. But he's getting support. Should he and his supporters be locked out of the official DNC campaign events, just because the original rules didn't provide for this contingency?

I don't think so. I don't think it's cheating for the DNC to say, "here's a candidate who entered the race by a route we didn't foresee; we should recognize that he's in the race, and include him in the debates."
Click to expand...

Have to agree. Since the party doesn't really have any real way from preventing him from running as a Democrat, they shouldn't be trying to exclude him from the debate. The point of debate cut-off rules is to prevent the stage from being clogged with non-viable candidates that would take time away from real contenders.

Like it or not, he's polling as a viable candidate.

It's probably a good thing that he's going to be in the debate. It's a good opportunity for his opponents to counter his ad narrative.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Have to agree. Since the party doesn't really have any real way from preventing him from running as a Democrat, they shouldn't be trying to exclude him from the debate. The point of debate cut-off rules is to prevent the stage from being clogged with non-viable candidates that would take time away from real contenders.

Like it or not, he's polling as a viable candidate.

It's probably a good thing that he's going to be in the debate. It's a good opportunity for his opponents to counter his ad narrative.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, since the race is no longer so clogged and he is achieving some traction, it would be foolish to leave Bloomberg out of the debate. And as you say, leaving him out will only be an advantage for him.
 
I think being in the debate is the worst thing that can happen to Bloomberg. His budget and ads aren't gonna help him up there, and he'll have to answer for his years of racist policies.
 
The question is how hard do they want to come after him? I'm sure they'd love to leave him whimpering, curled up in the fetal position, but at the same time they want his resources to be available in the event they get the nomination. It's kind of the same balancing act they've been trying to do with Bernie. They know they have to attack him, but at the same time they're terrified of losing the election if the Bernie Bros get so pissed off that they sit on their hands in November.

Warren has no choice but to go after Bloomberg, and she's probably in the best position to do it, because she doesn't have a lot of racial issues in her past, unlike Klobuchar (former prosecutor) and Buttigieg (the whole police and fire chief thing).

Bernie may elect to stay above the fray; since the others will be doing the heavy lifting for him. He's probably hoping that the race boils down to him and Bloomberg, since he can frame it as a war for the soul of the Democrats.
 
Brainster said:
Bernie may elect to stay above the fray; since the others will be doing the heavy lifting for him. He's probably hoping that the race boils down to him and Bloomberg, since he can frame it as a war for the soul of the Democrats.
Click to expand...
Great.. the "soul of the democrats" will be a race between a journeyman politician who has shifted from the republicans to the democrats, and an individual who only associates with the democrats when he thinks it will be beneficial.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
He's already shown he can effectively answer charges.
Click to expand...

I strenuously disagree. His claim that he was “unaware” of the damage Stop and Frisk was causing, despite the interviews, testimonies, protests, and lawsuits, is either a lie or an admission of absolute incompetence, for example. His Muslim spy program, which produced nothing of value has also not been explained as far as I know, as another (of several).
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
He's already shown he can effectively answer charges.
Click to expand...

That's it then? Just handwaved away?

Mumbles said:
I strenuously disagree. His claim that he was “unaware” of the damage Stop and Frisk was causing, despite the interviews, testimonies, protests, and lawsuits, is either a lie or an admission of absolute incompetence, for example. His Muslim spy program, which produced nothing of value has also not been explained as far as I know, as another (of several).
Click to expand...

Yeah, someone posted a video of Bloomberg saying that he wants to be the kind of person where the buck stops on his desk. To claim that he didn't know what was going on or didn't know what was in this or that report, or how people felt about the policies he implemented as mayor is a textbook example of buck-passing.
 
The case for Bloomberg is essentially "vote for me, I'm not quite as racist as Trump"....
 
Mumbles said:
I strenuously disagree. His claim that he was “unaware” of the damage Stop and Frisk was causing, despite the interviews, testimonies, protests, and lawsuits, is either a lie or an admission of absolute incompetence, for example. His Muslim spy program, which produced nothing of value has also not been explained as far as I know, as another (of several).
Click to expand...
This is the skeptic version, we look at the details and challenge assertions.

Bloomberg only has to convince the low information voter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom