Bloomberg for President?

[Cabbage]

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

Fair enough, but please don't make the mistake of thinking that one poll is the final word on the matter. One poll says x% would never vote for a socialist, then another poll has >x% voting Sanders over Trump, and it makes one wonder if the first poll is really being interpreted properly (how many actually consider Sanders a Socialist, for example?). Also, don't forget the strong anti-establishment sentiment that Trump has already tapped into and Sanders can tap into, as well. Focusing on one single aspect (like socialism) is far from a sufficient predictor for 2020.

 

[Dr. Keith]

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?

What is worse: Losing an election you have little chance of winning or letting some broad talk about how she rejected your clumsy advances and that your junk looks like a character from a video game, but smaller?

For most people that later. I don't know Bloomberg well enough to make a determination.

 

[Dr. Keith]

From the campaign NDA (assuming the company NDA is the same):

An NDA signed as a part of the settlement of a legal case or claim will be quite different. That is the type of NDA Warren was referencing.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Not clear on what you are claiming.

That it's not reasonable to expect NDAs to suppress information beyond (far beyond in some cases) what other legally binding contracts do. Contracts and other binding legal agreements don't stop people from sharing information all the time. NDAs are not different.

If a Republican said he had proof of Hillary's secret child pizza parlor sex dungeon but couldn't tell anyone because it he the was a clause in his lease you wouldn't believe it and this is no different. And you certainly wouldn't believe it if 5, or 10, or 20 said it.

In other words do you accept that anyone under the age of 18 has ever seen a pair of nice boobies on a webpage behind a "Are you 18 Y/N?" popup? Yes? Then this concept is not difficult. People are not bound by legal agreements this far beyond their own self interest and desires.

Seems to be a straw-man exaggeration.

Everything's a strawman if you're pedant. Sarcasm, colorful language, and exaggeration for effect aren't concept I just invented and only I just started using for the first time in history and didn't tell anyone. Deal with 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?

I'm saying what I'm saying. If X number of people have major dirt on one of the current viable political candidates but are all held back by NDAs, X can't be that high of a number.

Like Varys said "4 people know this secret. It's no longer a secret it's information."

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?

Very possibly, I cannot know for certain. Fear of reprisal, fear of public backlash, privacy, all viable possibilities. I'm just saying it's not NDAs.

Again I'm just saying what I said, a viable candidate for major office can't commit a string of serious violations and expect NDAs to protect him like they are magic binding spells or those explosives Amanda Waller put in the Suicide Squad's neck, that's insane.

The head of the CIA couldn't keep his affair secret. Nixon couldn't cover up a break-in at a hotel. And both of them wielded power far beyond an NDA.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Here we go again. Where is your evidence Bloomberg is vengeful?

He and his company have been sued. I can't find a link to a single instance he sued anyone else.

NPR interview with a WA Po reporter about Bloomberg.

GQ: Why Is Bloomberg's Long History of Egregious Sexism Getting a Pass? The article says much of the same as the other sources. All of these sources repeat the same half dozen complaints

Some of the 40 lawsuits were about discrimination, not harassment. I can't find a tally.

Bloomberg’s campaign, in reckoning with his long history of toxic frat-boy behavior, is essentially asking voters to try and focus on his political values instead. "Mike Bloomberg has supported and empowered women throughout his career—from appointing women to the very top positions in his mayoral administration to supporting women candidates for higher office to an industry-leading 26-weeks of paid family leave at his company," Julie Wood, a Bloomberg campaign spokesperson, told ABC News in October. "At the same time, Mike has come to see that some of what he has said is disrespectful and wrong.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Not well.

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

Is this hypothetical?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Fair enough, but please don't make the mistake of thinking that one poll is the final word on the matter. One poll says x% would never vote for a socialist, then another poll has >x% voting Sanders over Trump, and it makes one wonder if the first poll is really being interpreted properly (how many actually consider Sanders a Socialist, for example?). Also, don't forget the strong anti-establishment sentiment that Trump has already tapped into and Sanders can tap into, as well. Focusing on one single aspect (like socialism) is far from a sufficient predictor for 2020.

It's not one poll. It's not one article. It is an example of many polls and articles.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Is this hypothetical?

Yes.

If there is a woman out there with a bad story to tell about Bloomberg, but she has signed an NDA in exchange for a truckload of cash, what would be her incentive to breach that NDA and suffer the wrath of the Bloomberg Company?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

An NDA signed as a part of the settlement of a legal case or claim will be quite different. That is the type of NDA Warren was referencing.

Aaaarrrgghhh!

Which NDAs that were signed in settlements? If those 40 NDAs were signed as part of settlements, where is the evidence?

I'm happy to look at that issue if there is something, anything describing charges that led to settlements.

The links I read and cited do pretty much say almost all of the complaints were settled out of court. It is standard to settle with the details not disclosed. But that means the parties involved accepted the settlements.

That means said persons who were offended did not have to face cross examination in court now doesn't it?

20 years, 40 lawsuits Is that really something deserving of this much outrage?

 

[Cabbage]

It's not one poll. It's not one article. It is an example of many polls and articles.

Those polls and articles are not in a vacuum, however. That's the point, and it seems like you're still missing it. Some polls indicate bad news for Sanders. That does not imply you should ignore the polls that indicate good news for Sanders, such as the ones that have him leading against Trump. Socialism, Pro/Con is by no means necessarily the final word on Sanders and his electability.

Not even close.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes.

If there is a woman out there with a bad story to tell about Bloomberg, but she has signed an NDA in exchange for a truckload of cash, what would be her incentive to breach that NDA and suffer the wrath of the Bloomberg Company?

So here's another way to look at it. How much is there left to discover? The pamphlet/booklet cites some awful quotes. He's sexist. OTOH he has promoted women in the company and it looks like may have given them pay equity.

There is one lawsuit pretty well disclosed and the employee involved was fired.

I'd like to see how this company's record compares to 20 years of an average company that is similar. Not every complaint against every company is legit.

 

[angrysoba]

So post some links! That's all I'm asking.

I did! I posted the bloody video! Did you watch the debate?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Those polls and articles are not in a vacuum, however. That's the point, and it seems like you're still missing it. Some polls indicate bad news for Sanders. That does not imply you should ignore the polls that indicate good news for Sanders, such as the ones that have him leading against Trump. Socialism, Pro/Con is by no means necessarily the final word on Sanders and his electability.

Not even close.

Round and round...

The point is the negative campaign against Sanders has not yet happened. It will.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I did! I posted the bloody video! Did you watch the debate?

Yes I watched the debate. Yes I saw all the candidates exclaiming Bloomberg should release said people from their NDAs.

It was nothing but a gotcha.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

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?

He could always wait until after the election season to reap vengeance. If Bloomberg loses the election, there's really no reason for him not to extract his pound of flesh from whoever injures him by violating the NDA.

 

[ahhell]

Round and round...

The point is the negative campaign against Sanders has not yet happened. It will.

I heard an interesting analysis this morning to the effect, nobody wants to attack sanders because they still can't believe he might get the nomination and they don't want to alienate his voters. Most of them figure that anyone currently willing to vote for any of the rest of the candidates will probably vote for the Dem in the general regardless but they think there's a good chance that Bernie's voters will stay home if the eventual candidate was perceived as too anti-Bernie.

Its interesting, I don't totally buy it but its interesting.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Aaaarrrgghhh!

Which NDAs that were signed in settlements? If those 40 NDAs were signed as part of settlements, where is the evidence?

I'm happy to look at that issue if there is something, anything describing charges that led to settlements.

The links I read and cited do pretty much say almost all of the complaints were settled out of court. It is standard to settle with the details not disclosed. But that means the parties involved accepted the settlements.

That means said persons who were offended did not have to face cross examination in court now doesn't it?

20 years, 40 lawsuits Is that really something deserving of this much outrage?

When one accepts a settlement the terms of that settlement typically include the payment of a large sum of money and the signing of an NDA.

I have no evidence of such settlements, I am just trying to clarify that such NDAs are often much different from the NDA one may sign as they are hired into a company or onto a campaign. In fact, they are typically drafted from basic form language but tailored to that particular case or dispute.

#notallndas

 

[Dr. Keith]

So here's another way to look at it. How much is there left to discover? The pamphlet/booklet cites some awful quotes. He's sexist.

"How sexist?" is something left to be discovered.

OTOH he has promoted women in the company and it looks like may have given them pay equity.

There is one lawsuit pretty well disclosed and the employee involved was fired.

I'd like to see how this company's record compares to 20 years of an average company that is similar. Not every complaint against every company is legit.

I'd wager FoxNews had more, but I don't know for sure.

 

[xjx388]

Aaaarrrgghhh!



Which NDAs that were signed in settlements? If those 40 NDAs were signed as part of settlements, where is the evidence?



I'm happy to look at that issue if there is something, anything describing charges that led to settlements.



The links I read and cited do pretty much say almost all of the complaints were settled out of court. It is standard to settle with the details not disclosed. But that means the parties involved accepted the settlements.



That means said persons who were offended did not have to face cross examination in court now doesn't it?



20 years, 40 lawsuits Is that really something deserving of this much outrage?

I’m finding your posts here in support of Bloomberg ... interesting.

It’s well-reported what the NDAs the women signed are all about. Vox has an explainer.. The guy is mysoginist...sexist, even.

So why the defense of Bloomberg? It seems...inconsistent.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I heard an interesting analysis this morning to the effect, nobody wants to attack sanders because they still can't believe he might get the nomination and they don't want to alienate his voters. Most of them figure that anyone currently willing to vote for any of the rest of the candidates will probably vote for the Dem in the general regardless but they think there's a good chance that Bernie's voters will stay home if the eventual candidate was perceived as too anti-Bernie.

Its interesting, I don't totally buy it but its interesting.

I know at least one Bernie supporter who was very put out by Warren attacking him. That voter would still likely vote for Warren, but it would be under duress.