Bloomberg for President?

If there is information out there that would drastically effect the landscape of the current political scene that multiple people are aware of, NDAs are not stopping it.

Just to "Yes, and..." what you're saying here, imagine the massive, negative PR costs which would be incurred by Bloomberg attempting to enforce the liquidated damages clause of any given NDA by suing someone for speaking out in public, about a candidate, during an election cycle. Basically these agreements only work when it's a faceless corporation bloodlessly enforcing them in the courts. When they directly impact a public figure striving for positive attention, the incentive structures change significantly.
 
Last edited:
Again NDAs are just legal agreements like contracts and no compete clauses and marriage vows and leases and the Terms and Conditions on iTunes and your credit card contract and people break those all the time, often for barely a good reason, often for barely a good reason despite legal consequences.

The whole "They signed an NDA, that means it is metaphysically impossible that they could ever talk" is nonsense of the highest order.

If there is information out there that would drastically effect the landscape of the current political scene that multiple people are aware of, NDAs are not stopping it.

"Bloomberg assaulted a bunch of women and none of them are talking because of NDAs" is... no.

Assume you are a successful business woman in New York and you moved on from a Bloomberg company with a six figure settlement because that old horse harassed you. That settlement didn't change what happened to you, but it was a nice down payment for a condo in a decent building that you otherwise would have struggled to get into. And now you are successful at another company and things are going well for you.

Breaching the NDA means an almost immediate lawsuit for breach that will ask for liquidated damages in the amount of the settlement and an injunction against you and include claims for additional damages and attorneys fees. On top of that, the NDA may allow for the Company to respond to your breach while still enforcing an injunction against you replying to their response.

If you are a broke activist or a publicity hungry porn star, that is not such a threat. If you are the woman above, that could be career ending and leave you homeless.

Music break: Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose. - Janis​

The threat of litigation is only effective against parties who have something to lose. It is not a stretch to assume that many of the parties to these NDAs have something to lose.
 
Not clear on what you are claiming.

Again NDAs are just legal agreements like contracts and no compete clauses and marriage vows and leases and the Terms and Conditions on iTunes and your credit card contract and people break those all the time, often for barely a good reason, often for barely a good reason despite legal consequences.
OK. So far

The whole "They signed an NDA, that means it is metaphysically impossible that they could ever talk" is nonsense of the highest order.
Seems to be a straw-man exaggeration.

If there is information out there that would drastically effect the landscape of the current political scene that multiple people are aware of, NDAs are not stopping it.
Are you saying something else is stopping it or are you saying we can assume this unknown information that would drastically affect the landscape? Or something else?

"Bloomberg assaulted a bunch of women and none of them are talking because of NDAs" is... no.
Are you saying they have another reason for not talking? If so, what could it be? Are you saying we can assume they weren't assaulted because they aren't saying so?
 
Just to "Yes, and..." what you're saying here, imagine the massive, negative PR costs which would be incurred by Bloomberg attempting to enforce the liquidated damages clause of any given NDA by suing someone for speaking out in public, about a candidate, during an election cycle. Basically these agreements only work when it's a faceless corporation bloodlessly enforcing them in the courts. When they directly impact a public figure striving for positive attention, the incentive structures change significantly.

Different circumstances, but Stormy Daniels got away with breaking her NDA.
 
Just to "Yes, and..." what you're saying here, imagine the massive, negative PR costs which would be incurred by Bloomberg attempting to enforce the liquidated damages clause of any given NDA by suing someone for speaking out in public, about a candidate, during an election cycle. Basically these agreements only work when it's a faceless corporation bloodlessly enforcing them in the courts. When they directly impact a public figure striving for positive attention, the incentive structures change significantly.

It may hurt his current passion project of trying to impact the presidential race, but he will still be worth $60B after this blows over.

Can you say the same about the woman you are proposing to take that risk?

If it were my client I would say "hell no" and then repeat with "no ******* way" and offer a considered opinion letter that would read in part "get the **** out of here with that ****."

Litigation sucks for the somewhat rich. You have enough to lose to make it matter, but not so much that you can hire the best lawyers and spend money without concern. If you are worth $10M and you are suing Bloomberg you have already lost. He will bleed your liquid savings in the first year of litigation without batting an eye and you may one day win, but you will never be made whole.
 
It may hurt his current passion project of trying to impact the presidential race, but he will still be worth $60B after this blows over.

If all that money was enough to buy contentment, he wouldn't be tryna rent the White House.

He will bleed your liquid savings in the first year of litigation without batting an eye and you may one day win, but you will never be made whole.

How would this play on the debate stage?
 
Last edited:
Where are those damn psychiatrists when we really need them?!? :p
 
....
Bernie, up until this point, appears to be utterly, utterly, squeaky clean. Which he'll absolutely have to be to get through this.
You can't be serious. Or you are only looking at one kind of dirt.

This is from the Should we fear the burn thread:
The swing Trump voter is over 45, Bernie's worst demographic.

Also, socialism just using popular with Americans.

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/19/8070...ut-socialism-isnt-popular-with-most-americans

What on his agenda has he ever been successful at? Nothing. He has no track record of success, even when his party controlled the Senate. He can't work with other Democrats, let alone across the aisle.

Add to that his honeymoon in Russia and his comments favoring Castro...

https://www.politico.com/blogs/2016...985-praise-of-fidel-castro-sandinistas-220550
BuzzFeed News posted the video, which originally aired on Channel 17/Town Meeting Television, in June 2015. Sanders remarked that people "forgot that [Castro] educated their kids, gave their kids healthcare, totally transformed the society.”

And the part we didn't see yet:
Hillary Clinton dismissed Sanders' explanation [that he was really talking against Reagan's interventionism] and noted that in an unaired portion of the same interview, Sanders remarked upon the "revolution of values" occurring in those countries.

We should not fear Bernie, we should fear him losing to Trump.


And everyone on Medicare has to be scratching their heads: One pays a monthly premium and copays and deductibles. In addition a lot of people have additional "advantage plans" which are essentially private insurance supplements because Medicare doesn't cover enough.

I don't understand why none of these debate moderators ask about that.
 
Again, the fact that you ran away from it. You didn't mind that this wasn't the thread for this when you brought it up.
Don't flatter yourself. If people don't reply to any post, the assumption they are "running away" is bull ****.
 
Last edited:
...
Seriously, where is the evidence that Bloomberg can win? Where is the evidence that it is "no question"?

I've seen nothing that makes him seem like a winner at all.
Evidence: all the same polls that show Sanders winning Trump.

We obviously see different things.
 
...

The scariest part for the Dems, is he is basically blackmailing them to nominate him, because it is clear he is going to run 3rd party if he doesn't get the nomination.
Nonsense.

It's pretty hard to see Bloomberg supporting incompetent Trump even over socialist Sanders.
 
Oh, I'm the "not-so-objective" one when you are the one assuming her bias will be reflected in future events?

How is it relevant? It's a reminder that predicting outcomes in politics is difficult. You seem to have forgotten that in under four short years.

Assuming something is true without actual evidence.

IMO the main reason Clinton lost was her inability to respond to the negative campaigning followed by Comey's ignorant last minute move. But that's water under the bridge.

As for no evidence, people who aren't at least considering Sanders is not a savior in the eyes of half the country aren't being realistic.

See my post above from the fear the bern thread.

Feb 19th, 2020; NPR: Poll: Sanders Rises, But Socialism Isn't Popular With Most Americans
 
"Bloomberg assaulted a bunch of women and none of them are talking because of NDAs" is... no.

Yeah, why wouldn't they want to expose themselves to massive civil liability to a vengeful billionaire whose could possibly be president and in the meantime mess up whatever employment opportunities they could have because they have a history of violating these sorts of agreements.

His comment about some of these being about women not liking his jokes establishes the existence of multiple NDAs based on harassment and that he hasn't changed much in the meantime because he sees himself as the victim. He already told on himself and the joke comment gives every bit of ammo anyone needs to hammer him on this until the heat death of the universe.

Warren's pushing the release issue still is a good example of why she just isn't good at this. She could be jumping up and down about what he already said instead of trying to delve into contract law to find people to confirm what he has already said himself: He's a creep that has learned nothing.
 
If all that money was enough to buy contentment, he wouldn't be tryna rent the White House.

But would you be content if he took all your money?

How would this play on the debate stage?

Not well.

How does that help the person who broke the NDA and is now broke? Is Bernie gonna cover her legal fees?
 
How does that help the person who broke the NDA and is now broke? Is Bernie gonna cover her legal fees?

Doesn't this scenario assume that Bloomberg decides to vigorously pursue legal remedies despite how it will play out on the national stage? Is he really that reckless or ill-advised?
 
Here is the NDA that Bloomberg campaign employees have to sign.

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/bloomberg-nondisclosure-harassment/

Finally!

Much of that is a standard industry NDA. The Nation found it more extensive than most.

From the campaign NDA (assuming the company NDA is the same):
The NDA totals nine pages and forbids employees from discussing “any and all non-public information” and “activities” by the campaign.

And while it’s understandable that a campaign would want to keep things like internal polling under wraps, transparency advocates say that the NDA is overly broad to the point of preventing sexual harassment, as well as other forms of workplace abuse like racial discrimination, from being reported.

Jordan Libowitz, spokesperson for the nonpartisan government ethics and accountability group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, found the NDA troubling. “The thing that jumped out at me was the non-disparagement clause, which the Trump campaign used in 2016,” Libowitz said. “That can have a chilling effect on people reporting abuses and speaking publicly about things like sexual harassment.”
So, is there a company policy that allows said complaints to be addressed?

There is this comment from a staffer:
A Bloomberg campaign spokesperson said in an e-mailed comment that “this document only covers the campaign’s strategies and plans; it doesn’t prevent anyone from speaking out about harassment.


Then there is this link from the link: NewYorkPost: Bloomberg defends treatment of women at media empire despite multiple lawsuits
The multibillionaire was grilled on the campaign trail Sunday following an article that revealed Bloomberg LP had been slapped with nearly 40 discrimination and harassment suits from 64 employees over the past two decades. ...

A Business Insider investigation last month found the former three-term mayor of New York City, who is worth about $54 billion, was repeatedly accused of creating a “reckless playground” for male executives to “target young, female, naive employees” for sex.

It also found he allegedly made sexually explicit comments to staff including, “If you looked like that … I would do you in a second,” according to court documents.

And a link from that link: Bloomberg saleswoman sues over rape, rampant drug culture

Sounds awful, similar to Weinstein. Obviously there is no NDA stopping the woman from talking. And the exec involved was fired.
Ferris was fired from Bloomberg in December 2015 after a review of thousands of e-mails and interviews with several coworkers confirmed that he had an inappropriate relationship with the woman, a source said.
Ferris is fighting the firing and accusations.

After that:
Ferris joined a Texas financial education company, Simpler Trading, last September as chief operating officer, according to a company announcement at the time.

A receptionist at the company told The Post on Friday that he no longer worked there.
So he didn't last very long there either.


I don't see that the charges this is the atmosphere Bloomberg facilitated are supported.

Sounds like Bloomberg can be (or is) a sexist ass. But the accusations over the NDAs, if this is any or the worst example, are overblown.

And compare that to the company's hiring practices:Meet the Women of Bloomberg
We believe the success of the women at Bloomberg is critical to our success as a business. We are focused on building strong, diverse teams in which employees feel valued and engaged. Through external programs and internal initiatives, we are dedicated to attracting, hiring, retaining, and advancing top female talent at Bloomberg, globally....

See here for Bloomberg L.P.’s 2018 and 2017 U.K. Gender Pay Gap disclosure.

https://www.bloomberg.com/women/

The Worst Things Michael Bloomberg Has Said About Women

It includes things from the 'pamphlet' I posted a link to upthread.



A reminder, I am not at this time voting for Bloomberg. I'm supporting Steyer.

But I just don't find this stuff all that egregious as it's being made out to be. 40 complaints over 20 years in a large company that is in a field known for sexist men. That's two a year in a very large company.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom