Bloomberg for President?

3point14 said:
I'd like it to be down to likability and policies without the required wealth check first.
Click to expand...

Well, as I have said before, and am now saying again, I'm a firm believer that all candidates should all get a set amount for advertising and have to account for their spending to show they did not exceed it, and any political donations should only be allowed for the general campaign costs such as ad production, staff costs, travel, etc.

But hey, that's not the US way....

Until they decide to change, I have no issues with Billionaires throwing their money away, and I am sure those that get it thrown to them don't mind either...
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
I think at a minimum Bloomberg can beat Trump, no question.
Click to expand...

How do you come to that conclusion?

Skeptic Ginger said:
But I'm still not convinced Sanders is the safe choice.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is a safe choice.

Skeptic Ginger said:
It will take some time to sort past the news media's distortions.
Click to expand...

Oh come now. I only ask for some examples of Bloomberg campaigning for Democrats. That can't be too hard. And media distortions? He owns part of the media, and has been saturating the airwaves with his ads. Surely it can't be that hard to examples of him campaigning for Democrats.

This is not even meant to be a gotcha. It was meant to be a gimme.
 
Belz... said:
So it doesn't count because it took him too long to do the thing you specifically asked for?
Click to expand...


So far, I've heard

He's 'unelectable'
Okay, he's electable but he can't win
Okay, he can win, but he's not a proper democrat
Okay, he's a proper democrat but actually part of the swamp

and a million other pieces of utter ******** because the billionairres, on both sides of the house, are ******** themselves to the point of dehydration that an actual man of the people might get his hands on power.


If he does, I predict either a corporate instigated collapse of the economy while blaming Bernie for it or an Epstein solution.
 
Suddenly said:
Anyway, Warren just murdered Bloomberg so we can lock up the thread. His answer about the sexual harassment NDAs was a disaster.
Click to expand...

What would have been a good answer? If you unilaterally release people from NDAs you're just giving money away; that's a mug's game.
 
d4m10n said:
What would have been a good answer? If you unilaterally release people from NDAs you're just giving money away; that's a mug's game.
Click to expand...


Paying people to shut up about the bad things that he's done to them (Because he doesn't want the consequences of his own actions to affect him and believes he can buy his way out of actions that are not acceptable) is exactly the quality one wants in the leader of a country, don't you think?
 
angrysoba said:
Is this him handling himself in a debate and effectively answering charges?



I think he's toast. Very expensive toast. Not just avocado toast, but avocado and pheasant toast, monogrammed M.B. with gold sprinkles.
Click to expand...

Good lord. He should have diverted some of his influencer budget to a debate coach. This is the most obvious line of attack he was open to in the debate, and it's like they didn't prepare a defense at all. He could have memorized a 90-second response (not peppered with "uhhh" every five words) which named some of those black clergy he spoke with, and turned it into a more inspirational story.

He had all the energy of Bill Lumberg trying to explain to the CEO how the n-word wound up printed in the cover of the new TPS report.
 
3point14 said:
Paying people to shut up about the bad things that you've done to them (Because he doesn't want the consequences of his own actions to affect him and believes he can buy his way out of actions that are not acceptable) is exactly the quality one wants in the leader of a country, don't you think?
Click to expand...
Evasion noted.
 
d4m10n said:
Evasion noted.
Click to expand...


Oh, the actual answer is either:

"Sure, here they are" - if he's at all an honest man

or, closer to the truth, the answer should have been:

"****, I've not thought this through, no I won't release those women from the NDA, but I realise that having things lilke that to hide is not at all what the USA wants in a president and therefore I withdraw, sorry for wasting everybody's time"


The answer, "No, and anyway, they just didn't like my jokes" certainly isn't the right answer.


And as you're rather missing the point: The point of the question is not to obtain an answer but to highlight deficiencies in one's political opponents. If you think Warren asked the question because she wanted an answer or didn't know the answer, you're mistaken. The point of the exchange was the question not the answer.
 
d4m10n said:
What would have been a good answer? If you unilaterally release people from NDAs you're just giving money away; that's a mug's game.
Click to expand...

There is no good answer. He's been outed as a predatory creep who uses his vast fortune to insulate himself from consequences of his amoral actions. Caught red handed holding NDAs over a bunch of women he's victimized. That's the whole point.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
There is no good answer. He's been outed as a predatory creep who uses his vast fortune to insulate himself from consequences of his amoral actions. Caught red handed holding NDAs over a bunch of women he's victimized. That's the whole point.
Click to expand...

Bloomberg should've heeded Admiral Ackbar.

ETA: Seriously, though, I don't think he had any choice other than standing his ground on this. It's a lose-lose scenario but the knock-on effects of freeing several NDA signatories from their contractual obligations would surely bury him in the party of #metoo. (He'd have a better shot in the GOP, but it's too late for that now.)
 
Last edited:
It's like asking, "What's the right move if you jump out of an airplane without a parachute?"

The right move is not getting into that situation in the first place.
 
Bloomberg's best move is to use his massive fortune to create an artificial island, pay enough people to move there, and declare himself god-king.
 
3point14 said:
Paying people to shut up about the bad things that he's done to them (Because he doesn't want the consequences of his own actions to affect him and believes he can buy his way out of actions that are not acceptable) is exactly the quality one wants in the leader of a country, don't you think?
Click to expand...
Like it or not, there are believable instances wherein false allegations are made against wealthy people in the hopes of gaining an advantage.
It is also understandable how it might be less costly to an individual targeted by such an allegation to make a quiet settlement with the accuser.

I am not automatically put-off by the existence of such an arrangement. Although, admittedly, it would be better if there were none, since doubt could be removed.

I think my viewpoint is widely held.
 
3point14 said:
I'd like it to be down to likability and policies without the required wealth check first.
Click to expand...
He entered the race the second Sanders and Warren said the words "wealth tax." All the money he's spent in the race so far is still a fraction of what their plans would cost him every year. This is an investment to him.

Since his very presence at this debate is due to his wealth, not likability or policies, I'd say his wealth is fair game for criticism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom