Jump to content

Michael Bloomberg for President 2020


hornhorn

Recommended Posts

I find it puzzling to consider that Democrats think that Bloomberg as a candidate means that the BernieBros will stay home and not vote. But no one seems to want to acknowledge the fact that for many, and I mean MANY Americans, voting for Bernie Sanders in a general election absolutely will never happen as a non-starter, even if they hate Trump. And I'll bet that number is much, much higher than the hardcore sanders people that will stay home and pout about Bloomberg. 

God this fucking country needs more than 2 political parties of note. At this point the power they wield and the resources they use to stay in power would easily warrant anti-trust attention if they were a couple of corporate monopolies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I find it puzzling to consider that Democrats think that Bloomberg as a candidate means that the BernieBros will stay home and not vote. But no one seems to want to acknowledge the fact that for many, and I mean MANY Americans, voting for Bernie Sanders in a general election absolutely will never happen as a non-starter, even if they hate Trump.

Someone should have told you up front - the anti-union/"commie in every corner" parts of Texas are not the US.

And - most people understand we have thrived under a mixed market/socialist economy for decades.

Bernie is running on an FDR platform. That is not anti-American, despite cold war propaganda that still resonates in some.

Young people are not afraid of the word socialism at all. 

It's all a little mind boggling at first, but there is no more Communist Soviet Union and Russia is an oligarchy - with gangster style capitalism. Only a very few want an Oligarchy - Russian Style - in the United States. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Friend and I were talking about this at the bar Saturday night. Bloomberg’s ads are really well done, from the editing to the message to the fucking color scheme (Kamala I’m looking at you). 
 

new poll shows Bloomberg at 22% with Black voters. Biden is at 27%.  Mayo Pete - 4%

Wow.  That was quick.  Nice knowing ya, Joe.

If Bloomberg gets the black vote, there’s no way he doesn’t get it.  Be a lotta new churches built, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Someone should have told you up front - the anti-union/"commie in every corner" parts of Texas are not the US.

And - most people understand we have thrived under a mixed market/socialist economy for decades.

Bernie is running on an FDR platform. That is not anti-American, despite cold war propaganda that still resonates in some.

Young people are not afraid of the word socialism at all. 

It's all a little mind boggling at first, but there is no more Communist Soviet Union and Russia is an oligarchy - with gangster style capitalism. Only a very few want an Oligarchy - Russian Style - in the United States. 

 

You know, for someone I've never really run into on this board, you're awfully quick to condescend me as some dipshit Texan who doesn't know anything about other areas of the United States, or even areas of Texas that aren't rural. But ok, you've got it right, Bernie Sanders isn't a wildly polarizing figure who will have trouble attracting a large swath of middle voters. I guess you haven't been paying attention to the consistent brain rot of all of America the last 20 years, where old people and young idiot people take 1 sentence memes as fact without checking our understanding truth versus fiction, like the fuckheads who still make comments about how the Republican Party was the Party who freed the slaves! Parents of my friends are sharing that shit, and tons of garbage and lies like it, all of the fucking time, and no, they're not all located in Texas or the South. 

But I'm sure the far left has it all figured out, they've done so well preparing for this presidential election, they look primed to really take back America. And depending on young voters to shake off their apathy to actually get out and vote seems like an iron-clad strategy with no chance of failure at all, historically. Personally, I am very sad to say, but it's not about the reality, it's about the story that you can tell to voters and have them believe you. And that isn't understanding the functional economic policy of the past few decades, and I don't think it's an FDR style platform comparatively to current proposed policies. But that's me speculating. What I can say is that the CEO of my company, a far left liberal I've known for 15 years now and a guy certainly worth several million dollars and who was born and raised by white tower intellectuals and artists in Pennsylvania is going to a fundraiser this weekend for Bloomberg. A wildly intelligent and competent guy, a bleeding heart who's donated to the democratic party for years, who laughs at the notion of Bernie Sanders. I guess we'd both better hope he's an extreme outlier. 

Edited by SydneyCarton
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I find it puzzling to consider that Democrats think that Bloomberg as a candidate means that the BernieBros will stay home and not vote. But no one seems to want to acknowledge the fact that for many, and I mean MANY Americans, voting for Bernie Sanders in a general election absolutely will never happen as a non-starter, even if they hate Trump. And I'll bet that number is much, much higher than the hardcore sanders people that will stay home and pout about Bloomberg. 

God this fucking country needs more than 2 political parties of note. At this point the power they wield and the resources they use to stay in power would easily warrant anti-trust attention if they were a couple of corporate monopolies. 

pretty amazing isn't it? just someone else in there to create some runoff of some type would be good. I mean the odd bedfellows we have now are just remarkable. The god fearing, prolife, gun totting selfish prick party is just a fucking meatball of outright confusion. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I find it puzzling to consider that Democrats think that Bloomberg as a candidate means that the BernieBros will stay home and not vote. But no one seems to want to acknowledge the fact that for many, and I mean MANY Americans, voting for Bernie Sanders in a general election absolutely will never happen as a non-starter, even if they hate Trump. And I'll bet that number is much, much higher than the hardcore sanders people that will stay home and pout about Bloomberg. 

God this fucking country needs more than 2 political parties of note. At this point the power they wield and the resources they use to stay in power would easily warrant anti-trust attention if they were a couple of corporate monopolies. 

That has been my thought on Bloomberg. It's obviously impossible to quantify but I would guess the number of moderates that would vote for Bloomberg would greatly outweigh the amount of bernie bros and far left wingers that would refuse to vote and/or stay at home. In my opinion, Bloomberg would have the best shot at taking down Trump just because of the coalition he could build of moderates and republicans who are tired of Trump and don't fear bloomberg coupled with the wide swath on the left who will do whatever it takes to get trump out of office.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bloomberg is the guy.  As much as it bothers the bros, he brings over all kinds of independents, 100% of the never trumpers, and all kinds of business people.  

And the constant hot take that he is running for president to protect his wealth is borderline retarded.  The wealth tax ideas that Warren and Bernie discuss have a less than 0% chance of getting through the House and Senate.  His wealth is all in on his own company.  He owns about 88% of Bloomberg LP which does approximately $10B in annual revenue. It is a private company, currently illiquid, and most likely he has already put some or all of his ownership in vehicles that are not taxable at his death.  It is irrelevant in his decision making

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

But I'm sure the far left has it all figured out, they've done so well preparing for this presidential election, they look primed to really take back America.

That was the Establishment Democratic Party who ran Iowa and will run all the rest. Wrong direction, but I understand how easy it is to conflate Sanders with Democratic, Inc. 

And depending on young voters to shake off their apathy to actually get out and vote seems like an iron-clad strategy with no chance of failure at all, historically.

Young people are more likely to vote when they are told they have an equal voice and their voice matters - since it is their future once Boomers ride off on the Silver Tsunami. Do we encourage or discourage them? What is better for the United States?

And that isn't understanding the functional economic policy of the past few decades, and I don't think it's an FDR style platform comparatively to current proposed policies.

This is where you tread right into pay dirt. The Welfare for Corporations and the Wealthy v. austerity for everyone else is NOT an FDR-type policy. You are absolutely correct. Since Carter, this country tossed FDR aside and pursued neoliberalism as an economic policy. We saw efficiency increases that boosted the bottom line for the wealthy and corporations, as they sent jobs overseas, decimated the safety net, spiked the cost of healthcare, raped the planet, and created an enormous WEALTH gap in this country. When they weren't completely undermining the working and middle class, these policies led to the creations of institutions that are too big to fail, so when they do - we bail them out for trillions, pat their backs, and send them off to do it again. That has changed the minds of many. So they are looking for more equitable policies - like those FDR championed before the neoliberals took over. 

I have no doubt you see the problems. We may differ on solutions, but big problems sometimes require big solutions. 

What I can say is that the CEO of my company, a far left liberal I've known for 15 years now and a guy certainly worth several million dollars and who was born and raised by white tower intellectuals and artists in Pennsylvania is going to a fundraiser this weekend for Bloomberg. 

Ethics are the first casualty when someone wealthy becomes concerned he might have to chip in a little more. No offense to your "far left liberal" multimillionaire boss - who benefitted greatly from neoliberal (austerity) programs. He should be supporting Bloomberg - because Bloomberg will protect the idle riches of the wealthy.

 

 

Edited by washparkhorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, longhornmatt said:

Because wealth taxes are hugely impractical and easily avoided in practice, which is why nearly all the European countries that had them at one time abolished them.

How do you appraise fair market value to illiquid assets?  

Are you going to audit every person in the USA every year and get a detailed accounting of everything they own?

Do you tax unrealized capital gains (and force people to sell the asset to pay the tax burden in many cases)?  What happens if the value of the asset decreases the next year after you hit them with a tax based on the higher value?  Do they get a refund?   They never sold, and you’re just taxing them based on paper gains each year, after all.

What stops the uber rich from moving their wealth to other countries?  

Agreed that the a stick (tax) approach won't work.  Rich Americans need a carrot, even if it's not very tasty. 

This is where all the infrastructure and renewables buildout come in to play.  If, as a matter of policy, the US provided liquidity (a la Fannie/Freddie) by buying infrastructure and renewables debt, that would really lower the cost of capital for those projects and let the private sector do what it does best with capital allocation. 

It would also provide a backstop to asset values, as Fannie and Freddie are for home ownership.  The yield for the equity side of the investment would flatten, as risk is lower, but it can't go any lower than the debt.  That creates a very natural rev limiter on asset values and prevents too much speculation (so no terrible bubbles).  There would be a ridiculously high volume of very low-interest debt in the market.  Wealthy people are then faced with the choice of continuing to inflate asset prices in the stock market, which carries a ton of risk, or funnel money to into a safe haven, which just so happens to accomplish another policy goal for Ds.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

But I'm sure the far left has it all figured out, they've done so well preparing for this presidential election, they look primed to really take back America.

That was the Establishment Democratic Party who ran Iowa and will run all the rest. Wrong direction, but I understand how easy it is to conflate Sanders with Democratic, Inc. 

And depending on young voters to shake off their apathy to actually get out and vote seems like an iron-clad strategy with no chance of failure at all, historically.

Young people are more likely to vote when they are told they have an equal voice and their voice matters - since it is their future once Boomers ride off on the Silver Tsunami. Do we encourage or discourage them? What is better for the United States?

And that isn't understanding the functional economic policy of the past few decades, and I don't think it's an FDR style platform comparatively to current proposed policies.

This is where you tread right into pay dirt. The Welfare for Corporations and the Wealthy v. austerity for everyone else is NOT an FDR-type policy. You are absolutely correct. Since Carter, this country tossed FDR aside and pursued neoliberalism as an economic policy. We saw efficiency increases that boosted the bottom line for the wealthy and corporations, as they sent jobs overseas, decimated the safety net, spiked the cost of healthcare, raped the planet, and created an enormous WEALTH gap in this country. When they weren't completely undermining the working and middle class, these policies led to the creations of institutions that are too big to fail, so when they do - we bail them out for trillions, pat their backs, and send them off to do it again. That has changed the minds of many. So they are looking for more equitable policies - like those FDR championed before the neoliberals took over. 

I have no doubt you see the problems. We may differ on solutions, but big problems sometimes require big solutions. 

What I can say is that the CEO of my company, a far left liberal I've known for 15 years now and a guy certainly worth several million dollars and who was born and raised by white tower intellectuals and artists in Pennsylvania is going to a fundraiser this weekend for Bloomberg. 

Ethics are the first casualty when someone wealthy becomes concerned he might have to chip in a little more. No offense to your "far left liberal" multimillionaire boss - who benefitted greatly from neoliberal (austerity) programs. He should be supporting Bloomberg - because Bloomberg will protect the idle riches of the wealthy.

That was the Establishment Democratic Party who ran Iowa and will run all the rest. Wrong direction, but I understand how easy it is to conflate Sanders with Democratic, Inc. 

It doesn't matter. The democratic party has been a clusterfuck with the number of candidates, and getting bogged down on shit like college loan repayment and healthcare. And the fact is, most people who are only paying casual attention WILL associate the democratic party with what happened in Iowa and everything else. You know this. It proves my point. 

Young people are more likely to vote when they are told they have an equal voice and their voice matters - since it is their future once Boomers ride off on the Silver Tsunami. Do we encourage or discourage them? What is better for the United States?

It's not about encouraging or discouraging them. It's what is likely to happen. Of course you encourage them. Of course you try to get them invested. But do you bet the fucking farm on that? Absolutely not. Unless of the course the plan is to die on your hill of enlightenment while the country is plunged further into darkness. 

This is where you tread right into pay dirt. The Welfare for Corporations and the Wealthy v. austerity for everyone else is NOT an FDR-type policy. You are absolutely correct. Since Carter, this country tossed FDR aside and pursued neoliberalism as an economic policy. We saw efficiency increases that boosted the bottom line for the wealthy and corporations, as they sent jobs overseas, decimated the safety net, spiked the cost of healthcare, raped the planet, and created an enormous WEALTH gap in this country. When they weren't completely undermining the working and middle class, these policies led to the creations of institutions that are too big to fail, so when they do - we bail them out for trillions, pat their backs, and send them off to do it again. That has changed the minds of many. So they are looking for more equitable policies - like those FDR championed before the neoliberals took over. 

No one cares. 95% of the people voting won't understand a lick of that entire paragraph or recognize the history lesson at all. And those that instinctively align with what you're saying will probably just vote straight ticket democrat anyway. 

Ethics are the first casualty when someone wealthy becomes concerned he might have to chip in a little more. No offense to your "far left liberal" multimillionaire boss - who benefitted greatly from neoliberal (austerity) programs. He should be supporting Bloomberg - because Bloomberg will protect the idle riches of the wealthy.

This is the type of casual condescension that sent middle people to the right and alienates a good chunk of the people the democratic party needs to vote. You've just accused someone you haven't met and don't know of being morally bankrupt and bereft of ethics because they don't share the same view of liberal politics as you do. This is the behavior that sent so many people running to Trump in the first place. Honestly, with speeches like that, people like are lucky that so many Never Trumpers exist, despite apparently being bereft of ethics, because otherwise the number of people willing to align with this kind of arrogance would be much, much lower. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bloombergians, please fill out this handy chart

2000 vote: 
2004 vote:
2008 vote:
2012 vote:
2016 vote:
2020 preference: Bloomberg

I am not intending to rant about previous choices, but I'm curious how one's brain ends up with Mike Bloomberg as the preferred candidate for the 2020 Dems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Bloombergians, please fill out this handy chart

2000 vote: 
2004 vote:
2008 vote:
2012 vote:
2016 vote:
2020 preference: Bloomberg

I am not intending to rant about previous choices, but I'm curious how one's brain ends up with Mike Bloomberg as the preferred candidate for the 2020 Dems.

2000 vote: High School, too young
2004 vote: W (College, friends parents are republicans, etc) 
2008 vote: Obama
2012 vote: Obama 
2016 vote: Hillary 
2020 preference: Bloomberg

Bloomberg is my preferred candidate just because I think he has the best shot of beating Trump, and a second Trump term could be a deathblow to our country. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

2000 vote: High School, too young
2004 vote: W (College, friends parents are republicans, etc) 
2008 vote: Obama
2012 vote: Obama 
2016 vote: Hillary 
2020 preference: Bloomberg

Bloomberg is my preferred candidate just because I think he has the best shot of beating Trump, and a second Trump term could be a deathblow to our country. 

1996: L

2000: W (everybody makes mistakes)

2004: L

2008: L

2012: L

2016: Willie

2020: Meteor 

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Do you think Bloomberg's popularity will continue to rise once people start taking him seriously as a candidate?

Which of the candidates' popularity do you think would rise once people started taking them seriously? I would think maybe only Klobuchar, maybe? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bloombergians, please fill out this handy chart
2000 vote: 
2004 vote:
2008 vote:
2012 vote:
2016 vote:
2020 preference: Bloomberg
I am not intending to rant about previous choices, but I'm curious how one's brain ends up with Mike Bloomberg as the preferred candidate for the 2020 Dems.


Lol. I see your attempt to try and trap people, but I don’t care. I’m still a registered republican. Republican all the way till Obama’s second term when I voted for him, then I didn’t vote in 2016, which I regret, because I detested both candidates.

But you want to know how my brain might get to Bloomberg (I haven’t decided anything yet)? Because I think he might be the one guy who can win. Isn’t that why anyone would vote for him? You clearly don’t think he’s the guy, but that might not be what most of America will think. Which is all I care about.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Do you think Bloomberg's popularity will continue to rise once people start taking him seriously as a candidate?

I'll answer your question differently than how you want me to answer. All of his negatives about racism/sexism/misogyny are neutral to slightly positive when compared to the current occupant of the Whitehouse.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Lol. I see your attempt to try and trap people, but I don’t care. I’m still a registered republican. Republican all the way till Obama’s second term when I voted for him, then I didn’t vote in 2016, which I regret, because I detested both candidates.

 

What's the trap?

The only reason it would seem like a trap is if you're trying to pass off your Bloomberg boosting as something it's not. I don't think there's any harm in admitting a conservative voting record; that's going to be well within the norm here.

Quote

But you want to know how my brain might get to Bloomberg (I haven’t decided anything yet)? Because I think he might be the one guy who can win. Isn’t that why anyone would vote for him? You clearly don’t think he’s the guy, but that might not be what most of America will think. Which is all I care about.

Your brain has to get to the point where you think he's the most electable.

Because polling doesn't back this up at all. In SC + Super Tuesday states, he's spent $300+M. The other candidates have spent virtually nothing in Super Tuesday states.

Despite that, according to 538, Mike is...
- 5th in South Carolina
- 4th in California
- 3rd in Texas
- 3rd in North Carolina

There's a LOT of wishful thinking happening here even after you guys what happened to Biden in Iowa as someone going in with huge poll numbers and zero enthusiasm on the ground.

 

1 minute ago, babysdaddy said:

I'll answer your question differently than how you want me to answer. All of his negatives about racism/sexism/misogyny are neutral to slightly positive when compared to the current occupant of the Whitehouse.  

This statement is true of literally every single candidate the Democrats are offering, and (with the exception of Mayor Pete) all of those people have fewer of those negatives than Stop'n'Frisk Mike.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Bloombergians, please fill out this handy chart

2000 vote: 
2004 vote:
2008 vote:
2012 vote:
2016 vote:
2020 preference: Bloomberg

I am not intending to rant about previous choices, but I'm curious how one's brain ends up with Mike Bloomberg as the preferred candidate for the 2020 Dems.

2000 vote: Bush
2004 vote: Kerry
2008 vote: Obama
2012 vote: Obama
2016 vote:  Hillary -- Would have voted Bloomberg as a third party
2020 preference: Bloomberg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

You know, for someone I've never really run into on this board, you're awfully quick to condescend me as some dipshit Texan who doesn't know anything about other areas of the United States, or even areas of Texas that aren't rural. But ok, you've got it right, Bernie Sanders isn't a wildly polarizing figure who will have trouble attracting a large swath of middle voters. I guess you haven't been paying attention to the consistent brain rot of all of America the last 20 years, where old people and young idiot people take 1 sentence memes as fact without checking our understanding truth versus fiction, like the fuckheads who still make comments about how the Republican Party was the Party who freed the slaves! Parents of my friends are sharing that shit, and tons of garbage and lies like it, all of the fucking time, and no, they're not all located in Texas or the South. 

But I'm sure the far left has it all figured out, they've done so well preparing for this presidential election, they look primed to really take back America. And depending on young voters to shake off their apathy to actually get out and vote seems like an iron-clad strategy with no chance of failure at all, historically. Personally, I am very sad to say, but it's not about the reality, it's about the story that you can tell to voters and have them believe you. And that isn't understanding the functional economic policy of the past few decades, and I don't think it's an FDR style platform comparatively to current proposed policies. But that's me speculating. What I can say is that the CEO of my company, a far left liberal I've known for 15 years now and a guy certainly worth several million dollars and who was born and raised by white tower intellectuals and artists in Pennsylvania is going to a fundraiser this weekend for Bloomberg. A wildly intelligent and competent guy, a bleeding heart who's donated to the democratic party for years, who laughs at the notion of Bernie Sanders. I guess we'd both better hope he's an extreme outlier. 

More anecdotal evidence.  We have some close friends.  Upscale white, liberal types.  Very involved in party politics.  She had a Warren sign on her car for the longest time.  She took it down last week and replaced it with Bloomberg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

 

Your brain has to get to the point where you think he's the most electable.

Because polling doesn't back this up at all. In SC + Super Tuesday states, he's spent $300+M. The other candidates have spent virtually nothing in Super Tuesday states.

Despite that, according to 538, Mike is...
- 5th in South Carolina
- 4th in California
- 3rd in Texas
- 3rd in North Carolina

There's a LOT of wishful thinking happening here even after you guys what happened to Biden in Iowa as someone going in with huge poll numbers and zero enthusiasm on the ground.

 

 

I was, and I would suppose others here but don't want to speak for them, referring to Bloomberg being the most electable in the general election vs. Trump, no doubt he is a long shot in the primaries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

But you want to know how my brain might get to Bloomberg (I haven’t decided anything yet)? Because I think he might be the one guy who can win. Isn’t that why anyone would vote for him? You clearly don’t think he’s the guy, but that might not be what most of America will think. Which is all I care about.

 

I really think the answer is simple math.

Which number do you think is larger: the number of self-identified Republicans who detest Trump and want to vote against him but will never vote for a "socialist" or the number of self-identified Democrats who will decide to not vote if the candidate is a moderate.  One of these groups is certainly louder, but Twitter isn't real life.

I know what all the usual suspects will say and that there's definitely a "BUT HILLARY WAS CONSIDERED A MODERATE" chant coming, but this isn't an unreasonable question at the moment.

Edited by Chuckie Finster
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the finance/economics whiz kids thinking about Bloomberg - Money velocity - Money velocity - Money velocity

spacer.png

spacer.png

spacer.png

Is there enough liquidity in the system - why yes there is. 

spacer.png

 

Since the late 70's, we have sent trillions to the wealthy under the mistaken idea it will trickle down. It doesn't. The system is awash with liquidity, but the ones hoarding that liquidity have not put it into the system to create capitalistic magic. Velocity has slowed. And the ultra wealthy are so damn wealthy - giving them more is not firing up the economy - because that money is just parked on the sidelines. For the bottom 90+% - wages are flat or down. 

Inflate or die is accepted by all economists. The system is requiring injections by the Fed regularly to stave off slowing and deflation. 

Time to adjust the liquidity hose. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

When did Bloomberg became a moderate?  He's floating a huge tax package and backed gay marriage in 2005 before anyone else in the party establishment did.

Ya, ya, ya and Obama was against gay marriage in 2004, I'd say he did a great job in promoting LGBT rights as a President though. I would go ahead and gamble my mortgage that DOMA and Roe v. Wade are in way more danger if Trump gets to pick Ginsberg's replacement rather than Bloomberg. 

If Bloomberg has a better chance at beating Trump than Bernie or Warren, I honestly don't give a fuck what he said or did in 2005, I care about what he would do in 2020. I think we all know what Trump will do and it ain't good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

When did Bloomberg became a moderate?  He's floating a huge tax package and backed gay marriage in 2005 before anyone else in the party establishment did.

 

2 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

Ya, ya, ya and Obama was against gay marriage in 2004, I'd say he did a great job in promoting LGBT rights as a President though. I would go ahead and gamble my mortgage that DOMA and Roe v. Wade are in way more danger if Trump gets to pick Ginsberg's replacement rather than Bloomberg. 

If Bloomberg has a better chance at beating Trump than Bernie or Warren, I honestly don't give a fuck what he said or did in 2005, I care about what he would do in 2020. I think we all know what Trump will do and it ain't good. 

AB, I read your post quickly and literally interpreted the exact opposite of what you were trying to say. Please disregard my response and may God have mercy on my soul.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

When did Bloomberg became a moderate?  He's floating a huge tax package and backed gay marriage in 2005 before anyone else in the party establishment did.

Sorry, should have worded that better.  "Perceived as a moderate."  

People are stupid and perception is far more influential than reality.  Regardless of how true it is, right now Bloomberg is "perceived" to be a moderate compromise candidate for the Dems.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

Repubs have their plan for taking complete control over the Democratic Party. MSNBC and CNN were the beachhead. On to Bloomberg now. 

Is that the same John Ziegler that made a documentary claiming Sandusky was a “chaste pedophile” and committed no sexual crimes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love Sanders but I also am happy with Bloomberg as my fallback school. 

He wins the moderates, left and right.

I think the black vote gets on board -- they are looking for whoever is likeliest to beat Trump. Same for the Hispanic vote.

Bloomberg can appease enough of the Rust Belt Joe Sixpacks with his trade talk to win those key states. 

I wish I had faith enough in my fellow voters to go all in for Bernie, but I think they are too brainwashed for him or even Warren. It sucks but it be how it do.

The electorate is always years or even decades behind the issues. Looking back, McGovern was on the right side of all the issues in '72 and he got crushed by a criminal. Not even Nixon was as hated by his opposition as Trump, but will that be enough to win? The stakes are so much higher now than in '72...Would Bloomberg live up to his promises of "class treason" (his words) and take an FDR-like approach toward a Newer Deal? IF so would he be able to get those policies through Congress? Would they be enough to reverse this country's slide toward Brazilishness and fighting in the streets / violent revolution / domestic terrorism dystopia that will be inevitable the longer we slide toward an inequality-fed armageddon? Or have we already crossed the point of no return there?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, washparkhorn said:

For the finance/economics whiz kids thinking about Bloomberg - Money velocity - Money velocity - Money velocity

spacer.png

spacer.png

spacer.png

Is there enough liquidity in the system - why yes there is. 

spacer.png

 

Since the late 70's, we have sent trillions to the wealthy under the mistaken idea it will trickle down. It doesn't. The system is awash with liquidity, but the ones hoarding that liquidity have not put it into the system to create capitalistic magic. Velocity has slowed. And the ultra wealthy are so damn wealthy - giving them more is not firing up the economy - because that money is just parked on the sidelines. For the bottom 90+% - wages are flat or down. 

Inflate or die is accepted by all economists. The system is requiring injections by the Fed regularly to stave off slowing and deflation. 

Time to adjust the liquidity hose. 

 

Maybe. Maybe you’re right. It doesn’t matter because the candidates you favor who would attempt this will never get elected. And even if they did, it won’t get through the legislative branch. But you can wax philosophic while a deranged sociopath continues to hold the most powerful office in the world and uses it for personal gain and further widening the wealth gap you despise. But you’ll have your ideals. But by pushing candidates who can’t win one can make an argument that you’re effectively working against your own interests. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

All of his ads are good, actually.  I keep seeing the John Mellencamp and it’s really good.

There was a great one I saw with clips of all the past presidents (D an R) acting "presidential" interplayed with all of Trump's bullshit antics.   It was great.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...