'I'm spending all my money to get rid of Trump': Michael Bloomberg

[earlinclaifornia]

56 minutes ago, donnacha said:

There is some validity to that ... but ... the problem is which Democrat do you see beating him?

From the polling I've seen, key demographics - such as soccer moms - are not fond of Trump, they would prefer someone "better", but, when given a choice between, say, Trump and Warren, or Trump and Bernie, they have a good hunch that it will be families like theirs that will end up paying for all their more radical plans.

In that sense, Bloomberg has a good point, a more moderate candidate would be more electable ... but ... the base have been placed in such a spin by "Trump Derangement Syndrome" that they can only really get excited about the more extreme candidates. Look at the effect that shafting Bernie had on Hillary's turnout.

On paper, Biden seems the safest pick, mainly because his association with Obama gives him the black vote, but are voters going to feel more or less confident about his capabilities after several months of campaigning?

You have to bear in mind that Trump is an extraordinarily good campaigner, and genuinely has more energy, more charisma, and, like it or not, a higher operational IQ than any of the Democrats.

 

His read was spot on. He knew just how to touch that base just so. The more awe and shock the better for his base. Kellyanne Conway was able to coral the electoral college with Hillary's and Russia's help

[donnacha]

16 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Wow. You really bought his propaganda. I've got news for you. The majority of Americans are in support of his impeachment. The emperor has no clothes and he is definitely beatable. Yes even Sanders could beat him but I want a landslide. 

Okay. If I understand you correctly, you are 100% certain that the Democrats will gain the presidency in November.

So, if it turns out you are wrong, will you come back here and apologize for being so deluded?

Will you come back and beg me to share the political insights that gave me such a firmer grasp of electoral realities?

Of course you won't. *Sigh*.

 

Edited January 13, 2020 by donnacha

[earlinclaifornia]

55 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The activist democratic party base that dominates primaries is naturally more progressive than democratic voters as a whole. That's why Sanders might be nominated (though I think Warren has been bumped out). HOWEVER democrats in general care about one thing more than any other thing. The best chance to beat 45. Most democrats do NOT think that is Sanders. That's why I think Bloomberg has a real shot. Of course there is always Biden but have you ever seen a weaker so called front runner?

 

I think Bloomberg would match up wonderfully with 45 and it's clear to me that 45 has a well justified inferiority complex when compared to the real billionaire of his old New York neighbor. Bloomberg will make the president look SMALL. 

100% agree.But you to realize Hillary was by far weaker as the Republican deamonized her perfectly. Hence trump getting caught trying  to put in place a Biden mistrust.

[donnacha]

16 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

No he could win because of the structure of the electoral college

You understand, don't you, that your country is a federal republic.

When all those independent states agreed to unite, it was important that the interests of the smaller states not be easily overridden by the larger, more populous states.

That is the reason why you have an electoral college. It was fundamental part of the deal under which your country was founded.

Also, precisely zero Democrats had anything bad to say about it in the past. It has always been generally considered to be a vital part of American politics.

Again, you are allowing your hatred of Trump to blind you to vital realities, and that is why you are all in for another PTSD-inducing loss in November.

 

[earlinclaifornia]

42 minutes ago, phkauf said:

Bloomberg has no chance at securing the Democratic nomination - the progressives hate him for his policies when he ran NYC (as a Republican I might add), the blacks and latinos hate him for his stop and frisk policies as Mayor (which he now says was bad but they are not stupid and don't forget), he has zero personal charisma and is as irascible as Prayut, and wait until all the dirt comes up about the sexual harassment at his company that was settled with non-disclosure agreements. 

I lived in NYC during his terms as mayor and generally liked the guy, although a little too nanny state minded at times. I think he really did some great things for NYC, but he rubbed A LOT of people the wrong way. 

I hate to tell people what to do with their money and Bloomberg is very, very philanthropic, but I wish he would spend his money on things like curing diseases or poverty or homelessness than <deleted> it away on political ads and consultants. I read he has already spent over $200 million, just think about what that could accomplish in cancer research or helping the homeless or helping the people addicted to pain meds. 

He could end up being the one that truely meets the "can beat trump" That is a real path. 

[earlinclaifornia]

13 minutes ago, donnacha said:

I was hearing the same thing before the 2016 election.

It doesn't matter how much you, personally, hate, or how much all your friends agree, or how much all the websites you choose to read agree.

All that matters is what happens when real Americans - the ones who don't spend their time fuming about politics and angrily submitting online polls - go to the ballot box and decide who they trust to not tank the economy.

Just to be clear, I respect your opinion and am not saying you are clueless, even though you did manage to misspell the word "California" in your username.

 

Sorry for not getting california right but I did have a three user flub. That 70,000 vote was reality. After 2018, that feeling from voters won't diminish. Not going to pull that amazing inside straight twice.

[earlinclaifornia]

41 minutes ago, donnacha said:

How astute of them ????
 

 

And democratic voters as a whole are more radical than the swing voters you need to lure away from Trump.

That might be a problem.
 

 

No, I have not. That is essentially my point.

None of the leading candidates are the silver bullet you need to take out Trump. The two curveball candidates who could have presented a real challenge to Trump, Yang and Gabbard, were sidelined from the start.
 

 

You are measuring the wrong thing. You need to think not in terms of how legitimate you consider their respective fortunes to be but, rather, of the thing that resonates with voters: star power.

Trump managed to remain pretty much the biggest name on prime time American TV for over a decade. The entire premise of the show was his canny wisdom and decisive nature ("You're fired!").

You might know who Bloomberg is, especially if you are from the coasts or an avid follower of mayoral politics. For most Americans, however, Bloomberg is just another old white billionaire, and his fellow Democrat candidates are already ripping him apart for that crime.

Again, we can talk about how flawed Trump is, we can talk about how much better someone else might be, but none of that is relevant to the question of whether any current candidate could actually beat Trump in the election later this year.

For what it is worth, I believe there is one person who, even if introduced at this late stage, would absolutely beat Trump, and another who would have a pretty good shot.

Oprah would beat Trump hands down, but was needlessly slighted by the Obamas after she helped them win, and will never be forgiven by the Clinton machine for that betrayal.

Michelle Obama would be an extremely partisan president but, in the current climate, it would be almost impossible for anyone campaigning against a black woman. Also, the media would be almost unanimously behind her.

 

Yang has won all the debates but your right he has yet to be relevant currently. 

[donnacha]

11 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

His read was spot on. He knew just how to touch that base just so. The more awe and shock the better for his base. Kellyanne Conway was able to coral the electoral college with Hillary's and Russia's help

Hillary was probably the worse choice of presidential candidate in over a century. I would agree that it was more a case of Hillary losing 2016 rather than Trump actually winning it.

Kellyanne Conway was the first female general election campaign manager in US history. She did a good job in difficult and unpredictable circumstances. Amazing how American feminists don't seem to be celebrating her achievement.

No one "corralled" the electoral college. They merely insisted that the electors honored the intention of the voters, which was to return a Republican president.

Are you seriously saying that the Democrats would not do the same? Have you forgotten how many arms the Clinton campaign twisted during the primaries to divert support intended for Bernie.

Russia? Seriously?

Have you really no awareness that the entire Russia narrative collapsed in on itself and actually helped Trump?

Regular people aren't dumb. The same as with all the gymnastics around Brexit in the UK, people saw through the machinations and, when it came time to vote, punished all the players who had sought to subvert their democratic will.

This nonsense might play well on TV panels and in the opinion pieces, but the vast majority of people have no patience for it.


 

[earlinclaifornia]

20 minutes ago, donnacha said:

Okay. If I understand you correctly, you are 100% certain that the Democrats will gain the presidency in November.

So, if it turns out you are wrong, will you come back here and apologize for being so deluded?

Will you come back and beg me to share the political insights that gave me such a firmer grasp of electoral realities?

Of course you won't. *Sigh*.

 

Yes I have a bet here already with another poster where we each gets to change each others avatar. Makes my day as his is Adam  Schiff . LOL

[donnacha]

19 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Sorry for not getting california right but I did have a three user flub. That 70,000 vote was reality. After 2018, that feeling from voters won't diminish. Not going to pull that amazing inside straight twice.

Ha, I was just kidding about California, I typo all the time myself ????

Okay, well, I won't deny that Trump was lucky and, as such, 2020 will be a very interesting election.

Again, though, one part of that luck was Hillary being the worst possible candidate. I just wonder, really, how much better would Biden, Sanders, or Warren really be?

Sanders is kind of fun and, I believe, sincere in what he says. There is no way, however, that Americans will fall for Socialism at this stage, not when so many Americans are actually doing well.

The other two are boring as all Hell, with Warren reaching almost Hillary levels of untrustworthiness, social awkwardness, and inedibility.

Also, Trump will have had 4 years of a successful presidency under his belt this time, despite a constant onslaught from the media and legal establishment. At this stage, most people have a grudging admiration for the man.

Remember, last time, we were told that the White House would be in chaos and the country would be doomed with Trump as leader? Well, here we are, 4 years later, and everything is pretty good. That is going to count for something at the ballot box. He might not actually need the inside straight this time.

 

Edited January 13, 2020 by donnacha

[earlinclaifornia]

6 minutes ago, donnacha said:

Ha, I was just kidding about California, I typo all the time myself ????

Okay, well, I won't deny that Trump was lucky and, as such, 2020 will be a very interesting election.

Again, though, one part of that luck was Hillary being the worst possible candidate, I just wonder, really, how much better would Biden, Sanders, or Warren really be?

Sanders is kind of fun and, I believe, sincere in what he says. There is no way, however, that Americans will fall for Socialism at this stage, not when so many Americans are actually doing well.

The other two are boring as all Hell, with Warren reaching almost Hillary levels of untrustworthiness, social awkwardness, and inedibility.

Also, Trump will have had 4 years of a successful presidency under his belt this time, despite a constant onslaught from the media and legal establishment. At this stage, most people have a grudging admiration for the man.

Remember, last time, we were told that the White House would be in chaos and the country would be doomed with Trump as leader? Well, here we are, 4 years later, and everything is pretty good. That is going to count for something at the ballot box.

 

Thats why I agree Bloomberg could take that Biden alternative over easily  and run from there. This was the Bloomberg postings, right? By the way your: "successful presidency" is clearly an oxymoron.

Edited January 13, 2020 by earlinclaifornia

[Nyezhov]

53 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

That idea Congress is going Republican is reason though to think you have no real insightfulness

Gee, can you give me a bit more than that then? You mean you dont look at ALL potentialities?

[donnacha]

2 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Thats why I agree Bloomberg could take that Biden alternative over easily  and run from there. This was the Bloomberg postings, right?

If Bloomberg really wants to get Trump out, he should offer one of his billions (he has 60 of them) to Oprah (she has only 3 of them) to give to the charity of her choice, on condition that she will run for the Democratic nomination, and select him as her running partner if she wins it.

At this stage, that is the only way you don't get Trump for another 4 years.



 

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Nyezhov said:

Gee, can you give me a bit more than that then? You mean you dont look at ALL potentialities?

Well, on most issues Americans stand with the democrats. Even a small majority of Republicans want taxes raised on the wealthy. And on health care the democrats have a huge edge. As the midterm elections showed, on the issues, the nation is mostly with the Democrats.

[Nyezhov]

42 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Hence trump getting caught trying  to put in place a Biden mistrust.

I dont think that Trump needs to do anything to help old Uncle Joe self destruct.

 

And I truly want to know why his kid got such a fat job. Why not me? Im just as qualified!

[Jane Dough]

4 hours ago, allexx said:

The best president since R. Reagan.

It is usually true that most Americans hate their presidents while they are in office and love them when they leave. I note that many people actually like the present incumbent which I find utterly incredible. Surely one day they will see the error of their ways.

 

Rooster

[earlinclaifornia]

4 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Gee, can you give me a bit more than that then? You mean you dont look at ALL potentialities?

Pretty simple. First it was history repeating itself when that many Democrates won. The margin is pretty large too now. Every reason that down balloting with be even greater.  Second the 40 Republicans retiring is big too. Although 40 newly elected members are also up for re-election. Thirdly why won't voters still want a check on this president if he would win.

[earlinclaifornia]

56 minutes ago, donnacha said:

Okay. If I understand you correctly, you are 100% certain that the Democrats will gain the presidency in November.

So, if it turns out you are wrong, will you come back here and apologize for being so deluded?

Will you come back and beg me to share the political insights that gave me such a firmer grasp of electoral realities?

Of course you won't. *Sigh*.

 

You did see my post on my avatar bet? You did see I am now following you as well? So we each accept each other "gets to beg" each other back for forgiveness, right?

[donnacha]

27 minutes ago, Jane Dough said:

I note that many people actually like the present incumbent which I find utterly incredible. Surely one day they will see the error of their ways.

If you get the joke, he is deeply and consistently entertaining. This is trolling as a form of high art. Exquisite.

He has also, uniquely for a politician, over-delivered on expectations. Only the hardcore pro-worker, anti-immigration activists, such as Ann Coulter, are unhappy at this stage because they did not get their wall.

Trump is a monster, but no more than any other leading American politician, including smooth psychopaths such as Bill Clinton and Obama.

It is not really about Trump, he just happens to be the guy who noticed the thousand dollar note on the ground that none of the other politicians would pick up. It is really about the people shaking up an establishment that allowed itself to drift way too far away from their interests and their sensibilities.

People know that they are held in utter contempt by the establishment. They see that Trump is too, but is reliably willing to hit back. They know that he is a self-obsessed fabulist, but they prefer that to the barely disguised contempt of Hillary.

 

Edited January 13, 2020 by donnacha

[donnacha]

25 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

You did see my post on my avatar bet? You did see I am now following you as well? So we each accept each other "gets to beg" each other back for forgiveness, right?

I did see your post about your avatar bet, I even "liked" it.

The thing is, the post of mine that you were responding to was actually written in response to the other radical who was posting in this thread earlier, Jingthing or something like that, the guy who is all hot n' bothered about Billionaire candidate Bloomberg.

I figured you just got a bit confused and thought I was addressing it to you.

I wasn't asking him to beg my forgiveness, I was essentially saying, "Okay, here is something you are 100% certain of (Trump losing by a landslide), will you reassess the thinking that brought you to that conclusion if it turns out that, like last time, you get it catastrophically wrong?"

His current politics are already forgivable, as he is probably still in his teens. Everyone needs the chance to learn from experience, and this year's election will be a valuable learning experience for many young leftists.

 

Edited January 13, 2020 by donnacha

[The Theory]

???????? a bit late to do this for America.
He should do that in 2000 election. Trump is nothing to compare to Bush. 

[earlinclaifornia]

19 minutes ago, donnacha said:

If you get the joke, he is deeply and consistently entertaining. This is trolling as a form of high art. Exquisite.

He has also, uniquely for a politician, over-delivered on expectations. Only the hardcore pro-worker, anti-immigration activists, such as Ann Coulter, are unhappy at this stage because they did not get their wall.

Trump is a monster, but no more than any other leading American politician, including smooth psychopaths such as Bill Clinton and Obama.

It is not really about Trump, he just happens to be the guy who noticed the thousand dollar note on the ground that none of the other politicians would pick up. It is really about the people shaking up an establishment that allowed itself to drift way too far away from their interests and their sensibilities.

People know that they are held in utter contempt by the establishment. They see that Trump is too, but is reliably willing to hit back. They know that he is a self-obsessed fabulist, but they prefer that to the barely disguised contempt of Hillary.

 

You need to clarify why your saying Obama is:

 

 

 psychopaths

1. a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior.

[observer90210]

The "establishment" is really p*ssed off with Trump in power, and that makes one want even more,  to vote for Trump again ????

Edited January 13, 2020 by observer90210

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, observer90210 said:

The "establishment" is really <deleted> of with Trump in power, and that makes one want even more,  to vote for Trump again ????

Yes, the 1 percent, whom he vastly enriched with his tax cuts, just can't wait to get rid of him. And they are seething over his appointment of Supreme Court Justices who regularly side with corporate interests and against workers. And they are enraged that it's conservative Supreme Court justices, like those Trump prefers, who have enabled the wealthy and powerful to spend as much as they like in election campaigns.

[donnacha]

7 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

You need to clarify why your saying Obama is (a psychopath)

Pretty much all politicians who achieve high office in any country are. You need the ability to persuade a wide range of people to do your bidding and, then, later, to discard them without a thought.

Obama's treatment of Oprah is a case in point.

Read any non-sycophantic biography to find countless other well-documented examples.


 

Edited January 13, 2020 by donnacha

[donnacha]

24 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Yes, the 1 percent, whom he vastly enriched with his tax cuts, just can't wait to get rid of him.

It is a mistake to presume that the richest people in a society are the "establishment".

Every country has a variety of elites in constant flux. It is not at all unusual for one elite to through another under the bus if it suits them to do so.

For example, Microsoft were utterly savaged, largely because they had neglected to play the game and donate heavily to both parties. They barely emerged intact and, now, have a full team of lobbyists based in D.C., generously distributing money.

Trump was never accepted by the establishment, but that is pretty much why he got elected.

The tax cuts he used to energize the economy may have benefited the 1% (How could any tax cut not benefit them? They pay 40% of all taxes) but they evidently worked to the benefit of everyone. Most Americans are okay with Warren Buffet having a few extra billions as long as they, themselves, have a job.

The most enjoyable friction of the Trump presidency, making it worth the price of admission alone, is the massive demotion of the print and network news media, previously a powerful elite. The Internet had long ago drained away their actual power but it was not entirely clear that "the emperor was wearing no clothes" until Trump challenged them head on.

Trump's election, despite the frantic opposition of almost the entire mainstream media, was an absolute nuclear missile, decisively blasting them almost entirely out of any position of establishment authority. That is part of the reason why Facebook are now so hated by the mainstream media and under so much pressure to censor rightwing opinions, because they are seen as displacing the traditional media and must be bludgeoning into playing the game.

 

Edited January 13, 2020 by donnacha

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, donnacha said:

Okay. If I understand you correctly, you are 100% certain that the Democrats will gain the presidency in November.

So, if it turns out you are wrong, will you come back here and apologize for being so deluded?

Will you come back and beg me to share the political insights that gave me such a firmer grasp of electoral realities?

Of course you won't. *Sigh*.

 

You didn't even come close to understanding me correctly. Wow!

So no further response to your absurd baiting. 

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, donnacha said:

If Bloomberg really wants to get Trump out, he should offer one of his billions (he has 60 of them) to Oprah (she has only 3 of them) to give to the charity of her choice, on condition that she will run for the Democratic nomination, and select him as her running partner if she wins it.

At this stage, that is the only way you don't get Trump for another 4 years.



 

No it isn't, What it is is hubris and premature gloating. Oprah isn't running, she doesn't want to run, and if she did decide to run she would deflate like a balloon like all such fantasy candidates. Also the idea of Bloomberg being interested In being VP to anyone is strictly from OUTER SPACE.

 

So enough with the silliness. 

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, donnacha said:

His current politics are already forgivable, as he is probably still in his teens. Everyone needs the chance to learn from experience, and this year's election will be a valuable learning experience for many young leftists.

 

And what did the midterms of 2018 teach you rightwingers? It seems you've learned nothing at all.

[donnacha]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And what did the midterms of 2018 teach you rightwingers? It seems you've learned nothing at all.

I'm actually a left-winger.