Bloomberg for President?

[angrysoba]

The great thing about Bloomberg, there's seems to be plenty of reason for folks on the right and the left to dislike him. In terms of personality, he seems to be a very light version of Trump. I really can't see it going well for the Dems if he's their nominee.

I'm still hoping for Pete or Amy.

Pete and Amy would have been the talk of the debate were it not for the demolition of Bloomberg. They had a terrible night, particularly Amy when the two of them got into a slapfight over the president of Mexico.

 

[carlitos]

ETA: It strikes me as a rational move to burn through a few billion in order to save many more, but running oneself wasn't the smart play. Bloomberg could've blanketed Super Tuesday states in pro-Amy agitprop instead, or gotten behind any other moderate Dem.

That's because he's a billionaire authoritarian narcissist that thinks he'd make a great president. We already have one of those, thanks.

And if the rubes actually believe that Bloomberg will turn over his 2,000 campaign workers and billions of contributions to an eventual nominee that isn't named "Michael Bloomberg," then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell them.

 

[3point14]

I thought you were talking about people in the thread.

Nope. That's not what I said.

There are many people including myself worried Sanders' democratic-socialism is a losing platform.

I've heard that a lot.


Have you seen the polls?

As for part of the swamp, look at who that idiotic op ed used as a source: "As Peter Schweizer details in his book". Schweitzer is a lying right-winger. If that's who you are referring to, don't imply anyone on the left is saying this. Definitely CT material.

I'm not saying I agree with it.

 

[3point14]

One thing is very clear, Trump over-uses them and uses them inappropriately. That doesn't mean all NDAs are equal.

How do you know? By definition, you can only see the ones you're party to.

They're very common in business to protect trade secrets having nothing to do with settlements over complaints.

I just want the facts before knee-jerk responding.

You can't have the facts. They're protected by NDAs

 

[Suddenly]

That's because he's a billionaire authoritarian narcissist that thinks he'd make a great president. We already have one of those, thanks.

And if the rubes actually believe that Bloomberg will turn over his 2,000 campaign workers and billions of contributions to an eventual nominee that isn't named "Michael Bloomberg," then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell them.

I believe he will. It would be influence peddling couched in terms of a gift and it is 100% on brand.

 

[Suddenly]

Thank you. You are one of the few people in this thread actually attempting to have a discussion.

It isn't an important point. Releasing someone from an NDA gives the person to it the option to disclose if they want to. Otherwise, Bloomberg would be just straight violating it.

Pretending the refusal to release is in any way for the protection of the women he harassed with his "jokes" is beyond disingenuous.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

There are many people including myself worried Sanders' democratic-socialism is a losing platform.

"People are saying?" Really?

 

[dudalb]

Get set for four more years of Trump. For unless a miracle happens and the Dems get their act together, that is what will happen.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I'm wary of politicians who can actually get things done.

I'd kinda rather have the flailing, failed oligarch who approaches the presidency as a reality TV show with him as the celebrity star, and has no real ideology or agenda other than to bumble through his term(s)...

... Over the successful, cynical oligarch who has the resources and the focus to use the presidency as a tool to carry out his vision.

The problem is that Trump hasn't been ineffective, well okay the GOP under him hasn't.

While he has failed to get any landmark Legislation through beyond his Tax Cuts, he has managed to issue Executive Orders at a way higher rate than Obama, who the GOP declared was trying to rule by Executive Order. In fact Trump's rate of EO's is the highest of any President since Reagan ans 16th over all. Obama was 23rd, behind H.W, Clinton, and W.

On top of that he has appointed a bunch of people whose views are diametrically opposed to the departments they have been put in charge of, and they have been quietly tearing up regulations designed to protect the American Population, their rights, wildlife, and environment, all so that businesses can make more profit without regard to conservation or people's health.

Further, while they failed to over turn the ACA, they have been systematically undermining its foundations so that they can turn around and declare "See we told you if couldn't work."

And probably the most important for the GOP is that they have stacking the courts with young, inexperienced, right-wing Judges, trying to fill all the positions left vacant because Moscow Mitch refused to conduct any confirmations under Obama. This by itself will effect the course of the country for a generation of more.

So yeah, Trump has been pretty useless while in office, but behind the scenes the GOP has been working hard to tear apart its institutions and stack its Judiciary with like minded justices all the way up to the Supreme Court.

 

[Puppycow]

Mike Bloomberg tweeted a doctored debate video. Is it political spin or disinformation?

Following his lackluster performance in Wednesday’s Democratic presidential debate, former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg tweeted out a doctored video that made it look like he had a hugely successful moment on the debate stage, even though he didn’t.

And while politicians putting out campaign ads that take their opponents’ words out of context or are selectively edited to misconstrue their opponents’ positions is a practice basically as old as time itself, some experts are calling the Bloomberg video dangerous and unethical in a digital age rife with disinformation.

The 25-second clip starts with the mayor asking a question he really did pose in the debate: “I’m the only one here that I think has ever started a business — is that fair?”

What follows is a series of close-ups on everyone from former Vice President Joe Biden to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) keeping quiet, looking confused and uncomfortable, all backed by background noise of crickets chirping.

Put together, it makes it look like Bloomberg had an epic mic-drop moment in which he thoroughly owned all of his opponents on the debate stage.

We're basically in an era where with a bit of creative editing you can make it appear like something that didn't happen, happened.

 

[Suddenly]

Get set for four more years of Trump. For unless a miracle happens and the Dems get their act together, that is what will happen.

It is odd how often "get their act together" seems to mean "listen to the same people who were asleep at the switch and handed Trump the presidency."

 

[Bob001]

It isn't an important point. Releasing someone from an NDA gives the person to it the option to disclose if they want to. Otherwise, Bloomberg would be just straight violating it.

Pretending the refusal to release is in any way for the protection of the women he harassed with his "jokes" is beyond disingenuous.

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.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As already pointed out, an NDA precludes facts.

No it does not. There are going to be facts surrounding said NDAs. And if there are no facts, how do you know they are about on the job complaints about sexual harassment?

There are allegations and confidential settlements. Nothing more can be learned unless Bloomberg releases the NDA, or if these women violate them and risk being sued by one of the wealthiest people on the planet.

What allegations? What confidential settlements? What women?

If you don't know **** about these NDAs who does? Warren? This is nothing but innuendo.


I don't have access to the WA Po. How about posting the article titles so I can find them?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

He said “some” (or “a few”) of them involved him, and handwaved it away as “jokes”. The Warren asked for specifics regarding the exact number and whether he would release the women from their NDAs. That is when Bloomberg completely blanked on any good answer. It’s in the clip I posted.

Seemed like it was singular, 'joke'.

Honestly, if this guy was the sexist he is claimed to be, there should be more than a bunch of rumored NDAs.

POST SOME FACTS PEOPLE. That's all I'm asking for.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Someone on his team should have understood debating then, because his performance was horrible. He should have sat it out until he at least had delegates under his belt on Super Tuesday. Seriously, I see no reason on the current evidence for thinking Bloomberg wins against Trump, Three of the candidates in Nevada savaged him.

Smarter and richer than Trump. Context please.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That's because he's a billionaire authoritarian narcissist that thinks he'd make a great president. We already have one of those, thanks.

And if the rubes actually believe that Bloomberg will turn over his 2,000 campaign workers and billions of contributions to an eventual nominee that isn't named "Michael Bloomberg," then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell them.

This depends on how much Bloomberg wants Trump out. I get the impression that is paramount.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nope. That's not what I said.
I've heard that a lot.

And I'm not arguing about that point.

Have you seen the polls?

This is the same crap as in 2016, people for Sanders in denial that this will change when the GOP starts campaigning against him.

I'm not saying I agree with it.

You're the one than started this, claiming people thought x, y, z. Then you post flakey evidence that y is a common thought.

 

[Cabbage]

This is the same crap as in 2016, people for Sanders in denial that this will change when the GOP starts campaigning against him.

Oh, so you're basing your reasoning on speculation, not evidence.

Thought so.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How do you know? By definition, you can only see the ones you're party to.

There are many reasons for NDAs.

This is so annoying. You don't know either.

See my post above:

What allegations? What confidential settlements? What women?

If you don't know **** about these NDAs who does? Warren? This is nothing but innuendo.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"People are saying?" Really?

Not hard to find this evidence. Google it. Or read the thread, there are citations.