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

[donnacha]

23 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

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.

But didn't your side say that Trump was a fantasy candidate too?

He hasn't deflated. Seem positively bouncy.

Short of running a well-known, respected, trusted and charismatic candidate such as Oprah, would it not at least be a good idea to pick someone at least moderately likable?

Or even just sane, or not clearly suffering from early-stage Alzheimer's?

 

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, donnacha said:

But didn't your side say that Trump was a fantasy candidate too?

He hasn't deflated. Seem positively bouncy.

Short of running a well-known, respected, trusted and charismatic candidate such as Oprah, would it not at least be a good idea to pick someone at least moderately likable?

Or even just sane, or not clearly suffering from early-stage Alzheimer's?

 

45 was a black swan.

Oprah is black but no swan.

Why this insistence on making up stories about candidates with no chance of running? I feel you're not posting in good faith by pushing this silliness so … Goodbye.

[bristolboy]

15 minutes ago, donnacha said:

I'm actually a left-winger.

 

As in "I don't like Trump but...."

[Jingthing]

Speaking of health care and 45's atrocious failures and string of broken promises on that, obviously Bloomberg thinks this is going to be a major weakness for 45 and ALL other republicans in 2020.
 

 

 

 

Gun violence too:

I think it's very powerful that Bloomberg isn't even bothering to run against democrats. He's going right for the jugular of the reason he should be nominated -- to beat 45.

 

BTW, Bloomberg ads are all over the place. Yes he has endless money for this and it's early yet.

Edited January 13, 2020 by Jingthing

[donnacha]

19 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

As in "I don't like Trump but...."

No, I greatly enjoy Trump, he was precisely the enema that Western society needed now that all the supposedly left-wing parties have become dominated by the city-based intelligentsia.

Once the parties of the left have become commandeered, and no longer serve the interests of the less privileged, no longer even respect those classes, making them actually worse than the supposedly right-wing parties, they deserve a reset.

That is what Trump is. That is what Brexit and the recent general election in the UK are: a great, big reset for the left-wing parties.

 

[donnacha]

32 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I feel you're not posting in good faith by pushing this silliness so … Goodbye.

That tactic works better if you don't keep saying "I'm not talking to you any more" and, then, in the next post, responding to me again.

It shows a lack of confidence in the coherence of your own ideas if you attack someone else's position and then hurriedly say "And that is the END of this discussion!", only to return for more sniping followed by a panicked "But no more of your silliness!".

It is okay, I get that you're pretty young and have not really thought this stuff through. I did not mean to intellectually bully you. I remember getting just as excited about candidates myself when I was making the transition from comic books to "adult" subjects such as politics. It is a golden time, treasure it. I wish you the best of luck, and that you will eventually come to take comfort in seeing Trump as a warm, protective father-figure.


 

[spidermike007]

I like him alot. Very moderate. A former republican. A great track record. Smart. Level headed. A real man or woman is needed, to replace the thin skinned juvenile. Who cares if he is using his fortune to get in front of the people? Not me.  

 

Bloomberg has many of the traits we need as a nation. Perhaps he can appeal to people across the board. Perhaps he would get some respect abroad? And help to rebuild some of the alliances? Perhaps he could undo some of the horrendous damage Trump has wreaked on the US? And say no to dictators and lobbyists?

 

Let's kick Trump out and then lock him up. 

Edited January 13, 2020 by spidermike007

[bristolboy]

13 minutes ago, donnacha said:

No, I greatly enjoy Trump, he was precisely the enema that Western society needed now that all the supposedly left-wing parties have become dominated by the city-based intelligentsia.

Once the parties of the left have become commandeered, and no longer serve the interests of the less privileged, no longer even respect those classes, making them actually worse than the supposedly right-wing parties, they deserve a reset.

That is what Trump is. That is what Brexit and the recent general election in the UK are: a great, big reset for the left-wing parties.

 

You give yourself away by calling the Democratic party a party of the left and then refer to "supposedly right wing parties". Please, you just keep on giving yourself away.

 

 And as for the Democrats being dominated by city-based intelligentsia, I guess you must come from some deeply rural area if the suburbs strike you as being the big city. Those city slickers in the suburbs are sharply turning away from Trump as the midterms showed. 

 

And as for serving the interests of the less privileged, tell that to the millions of people who got on Medicaid thanks to Obamacare. Even red state voters have overruled Republican governors and legislators in order to expand it. Of course, Trump loathes it. And the same thing goes for the minimum wage, another thing Trump has no use for. Even in Republican states, voters have approved it via referenda. And the President who expanded the deficit in order to give the wealthy a huge tax break may be an enema, but if so, he passed through the digestive tract and is now wallowing in that cesspool.

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

I like him alot. Very moderate. A former republican. A great track record. Smart. Level headed. A real man or woman is needed, to replace the thin skinned juvenile. Who cares if he is using his fortune to get in front of the people? Not me.  

 

Bloomberg has many of the traits we need as a nation. Perhaps he can appeal to people across the board. Perhaps he would get some respect abroad? Perhaps he could undo some of the horrendous damage Trump has wreaked on the US? 

 

Let's kick Trump out and then lock him up. 

Yes and although he lacks much charisma that can be seen as a feature when running against a president that bases his support based on a minority base cult of personality. Plus he might pick a very charismatic person to be VP, perhaps Stacey Abrams. 

[Jingthing]

6 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

Naw dude, its just the same old urban vs rural, elites vs regulars, Coast vs Heartland, etc. No biggy. The anti Trumpers will get over it as the USA proceeds to move forward. Once 2020 comes and Trump gets relected and the Congress goes Repub, watch how things go gangbusters then.

 

Bloomberg is actually an accomplished guy even though he has some silly political positions. He did a good job in NYC, although he now has to apologize for the unwoke things he did. That being said, if it was him against the rest of the Dem field, he would be the only one I would distastefully pull the levers for, since ideological purity has to go bye bye some times.

 

In point of fact, he is the best candidate against Trump in the Dem field in terms of the electorate as a whole. But the socialists dont like him, he cant compete with Trump vis a vis the black/"latino" vote, and hes boring and whiny. 

Are you joking? 45 has almost no support among African Americans and is weak with Latinos as well. 

[donnacha]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You give yourself away by calling the Democratic party a party of the left and then refer to "supposedly right wing parties". Please, you just keep on giving yourself away.

No, the modern authoritarian left have turned all such definitions on their head.

When I was a student, it was we left-wingers who defended freedom of speech and thought as being absolutely essential to democracy, freedom, and civilization.

We left-wingers had no desire to tell people how to eat or to place regressive taxes on goods predominantly purchased by the poor.

We would have been horrified by the idea of forcing out scientists who refused to change their research findings because they did not fit into a particular idealogical narrative.

We would have listened carefully if a legendary feminist such as Germaine Greer expressed a sincere thought, even if it did not fit smoothly with our own ideas.

We had the humility to know that we did not have all the answers. We read broadly, and would stay up all night discussing ideas, even with people of different political stripes. We would express ourselves openly, without the fear that our words might leave us ostracized.

We would not wear masks and physically attack people queuing to attend a talk. We would not phone in bomb threats. We would not threaten to burn down venues hosting speakers with whom we did not agree. We would not use a bicycle lock to smash the skull of someone with different opinions, while naming ourselves Antifa (Anti-fascista). 

We would have seen all the behaviors of today's authoritarian left as traits of the most extreme right-wingers.

What you call left-wing today is, actually, the re-emergence of Facism, in the only form in which it could have re-emerged.

 

[MyTHaiMyKe]

Hope bloomberg goes broke, because he has no chance! But unfortunately he will still have a pile of money even if he wastes a billion! Trump will win reelection in a landslide!

[Jingthing]

11 minutes ago, MyTHaiMyKe said:

Hope bloomberg goes broke, because he has no chance! But unfortunately he will still have a pile of money even if he wastes a billion! Trump will win reelection in a landslide!

Yes, there is no chance that Bloomberg will go broke.

There is also no chance that 45 will win in a landslide. 
Yes, 45 could win but if he does win it will almost definitely be based on losing the popular vote much more severely than in 2016 but based the built in republican electoral college advantage. 

People that say 45 will definitely win or definitely lose aren't in reality mode. 

He is a real threat to win based on the electoral college and that's why the majority of democrats are focused on picking the nominee with the best chance of beating him which many democrats think is Bloomberg.

Edited January 13, 2020 by Jingthing

[bristolboy]

13 minutes ago, MyTHaiMyKe said:

Hope bloomberg goes broke, because he has no chance! But unfortunately he will still have a pile of money even if he wastes a billion! Trump will win reelection in a landslide!

Another visitor from the future.

[Jingthing]

8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Another visitor from the future.

Or could be seen as gloating before the fact because deep down they know that being able to gloat after the fact is so uncertain. 

In 45 we have a president consistently with very low approval ratings, never had majority support, never will have majority support, and has been impeached, and even though he won't be removed because of a cowardly senate, the majority of Americans support that impeachment (and also acknowledge that he has behaved very badly deserving the impeachment plus the constantly lying like it's going out of style). No president has ever run under those conditions. So he's definitely vulnerable, but nothing is certain as he continues to hold on to his endlessly loyal cult of personality base. 

Edited January 13, 2020 by Jingthing

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, donnacha said:

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.

 

What you don't understand is that the Electoral College was not created to protect small states. It was created to protect slave states. As you may recall, slaves were given 3/5 of a vote each to help protect the slave states from abolitionists and the like. Well, how do you implement that? Via electors.

https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention

And is there anything lamer than someone predicting a future event in the same sentence that he refers to "realities". Unless of course, he's a time traveler.

[Jingthing]

12 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

What you don't understand is that the Electoral College was not created to protect small states. It was created to protect slave states. As you may recall, slaves were given 3/5 of a vote each to help protect the slave states from abolitionists and the like. Well, how do you implement that? Via electors.

https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention

And is there anything lamer than someone predicting a future event in the same sentence that he refers to "realities". Unless of course, he's a time traveler.

Of course we're stuck with the totally obsolete electoral college because there won't ever be the votes to amend the constitution on that, but one thing that I've always hated about it is that it means that only voters in a very small number of states actually impact the presidential election. So if you live in California you know your vote is for show the same as if you live in Alabama. The people in the so called "swing" states are of course very aware of the importance of their votes. That's a crappy version of democracy!

 

Because it's so hopeless to abolish the college, it's a waste of political capital to waste much time on that issue. Instead, what democrats are actually doing that has great hope to make a big difference is to create MORE swing states going forward. That's going to be huge when it happens. I'm talking Georgia and Texas. Bloomberg-Abrams, turn Georgia BLUE y'all!

Edited January 13, 2020 by Jingthing

[donnacha]

22 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

What you don't understand is that the Electoral College was not created to protect small states. It was created to protect slave states. As you may recall, slaves were given 3/5 of a vote each to help protect the slave states from abolitionists and the like. Well, how do you implement that? Via electors.

Deeply cynical nonsense to retrospectively besmirch a constitutional arrangement that, until 2016, all parties and all races unanimously agreed was a vital safeguard.

This is why no one trusts the modern authoritarian left. You make things up and rewrite history in the moment to bolster your whacky arguments. How convenient to tarnish the electoral college, which you've now decided you no longer like, as being an instrument of SLAVERY. Another shocking proof of President Trump's RAAAAACISM!

The main problem with your fantastical thesis is that slavery was abolished in 1865. Did they forget to abolish the electoral college too? Did this pernicious piece of legislative racism just hang around unnoticed for another 150 years, despite playing a key role in every general election since then? 

Seriously, I can come up with stronger, more persuasive arguments against Trump than any of you clowns. It is not so much your politics I object to, but the complete lack of coherence, rationality, and, frankly, effort.

C'mon lads, pull your socks up! Maybe read a few books, and cut back on the Ritalin too.

 

Edited January 13, 2020 by donnacha

[sirineou]

8 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Of course we're stuck with the totally obsolete electoral college because there won't ever be the votes to amend the constitution on that, but one thing that I've always hated about it is that it means that only voters in a very small number of states actually impact the presidential election. So if you live in California you know your vote is for show the same as if you live in Alabama. The people in the so called "swing" states are of course very aware of the importance of their votes. That's a crappy version of democracy!

 

Because it's so hopeless to abolish the college, it's a waste of political capital to waste much time on that issue. Instead, what democrats are actually doing that has great hope to make a big difference is to create MORE swing states going forward. That's going to be huge when it happens. I'm talking Georgia and Texas. Bloomberg-Abrams, turn Georgia BLUE y'all!

There is so much wrong with our electoral system I don't know where to begin.

  How about a block on any exit polls, and other  reporting the day before and election day , we heard the candidates for over a year, now it's time to vote.

     No reporting until all states have voted. 

Vote on a Sunday when people are off from work.

    The electoral college was created so that candidates would not only campaign in Big markets and small markets would never see them, With communications being what they are,  this is no longer an issue. I never saw Andrew Yang but I know all I need to know about him.

  Finally, this is very controversial, and I understand the inherent dangers contained there in, but there needs to be some sort of minimum qualification for voting , otherwise we are in for Idiotcracy, trump being case and point. 

[Cancerian]

Im putting my money on Trump

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, Cancerian said:

Im putting my money on Trump

I know, that's how he got rich

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, Cancerian said:

Im putting my money on Trump

Congratulations.  This topic is about a democratic challenger though. 

[Jingthing]

  

13 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I know, that's how he got rich

Mostly from Daddy.

 

17 minutes ago, sirineou said:

There is so much wrong with our electoral system I don't know where to begin.

  How about a block on any exit polls, and other  reporting the day before and election day , we heard the candidates for over a year, now it's time to vote.

     No reporting until all states have voted. 

Vote on a Sunday when people are off from work.

    The electoral college was created so that candidates would not only campaign in Big markets and small markets would never see them, With communications being what they are,  this is no longer an issue. I never saw Andrew Yang but I know all I need to know about him.

  Finally, this is very controversial, and I understand the inherent dangers contained there in, but there needs to be some sort of minimum qualification for voting , otherwise we are in for Idiotcracy, trump being case and point. 

I think we need to forget any hope of killing the electoral college. Perhaps if sometime in the future the republicans lose the white house with a majority of votes two times in a 20 year period as happened to the democrats then maybe such a movement could really get started.  

 

BTW, Al Gore, who didn't come out against the college after his win/loss in 2000 has since changed his position and now thinks it should be scrapped. But it won't be. Oh well. 

Edited January 13, 2020 by Jingthing

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, donnacha said:

Deeply cynical nonsense to retrospectively besmirch a constitutional arrangement that, until 2016, all parties and all races unanimously agreed was a vital safeguard.

This is why no one trusts the modern authoritarian left. You make things up and rewrite history in the moment to bolster your whacky arguments. How convenient to tarnish the electoral college, which you've now decided you no longer like, as being an instrument of SLAVERY. Another shocking proof of President Trump's RAAAAACISM!

The main problem with your fantastical thesis is that slavery was abolished in 1865. Did they forget to abolish the electoral college too? Did this pernicious piece of legislative racism just hang around unnoticed for another 150 years, despite playing a key role in every general election since then? 

Seriously, I can come up with stronger, more persuasive arguments against Trump than any of you clowns. It is not so much your politics I object to, but the complete lack of coherence, rationality, and, frankly, effort.

C'mon lads, pull your socks up! Maybe read a few books, and cut back on the Ritalin too.

 

I gave you a link. You chose to ignore it. Here's another

"The story of the Electoral College is also one of slavery—an institution central to the founding of American democracy. The bulk of the new nation’s citizenry resided in cities like Philadelphia and Boston in the North, leaving the South sparsely populated by farmers, plantation owners, other landholders, and, of course, enslaved laborers. This disparity in the population distribution became a core element of the legislative branch, and in turn, the Electoral College."

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/electoral-college-has-been-divisive-day-one-180961171/

 

As for public opinion about the electoral college you have got it exactly wrong: 

Americans' Support for Electoral College Rises Sharply

 

And the reason is clear:

"This year, for the first time in the 49 years Gallup has asked about it, less than half of Americans want to replace the Electoral College with a popular vote system.

The reason for this shift in opinion is clear: In the aftermath of this year's election, the percentage of Republicans wanting to replace the Electoral College with the popular vote has fallen significantly."

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/198917/americans-support-electoral-college-rises-sharply.aspx

 

And as for this:

"Seriously, I can come up with stronger, more persuasive arguments against Trump than any of you clowns. It is not so much your politics I object to, but the complete lack of coherence, rationality, and, frankly, effort."

Right. Calling people you disagree with clowns and boasting about your ability to make persuasive arguments without actually producing any is not mark of a rationalist but rather of a troll.

 

[impulse]

16 hours ago, webfact said:

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

 

What?  Is he sponsoring a viable candidate?

 

[JimmyTheMook]

1 hour ago, Cancerian said:

Im putting my money on Trump

 

Billion $ may be enough to buy an election.

 

Ain't politics just grand.

[Jingthing]

40 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

...

Right. Calling people you disagree with clowns and boasting about your ability to make persuasive arguments without actually producing any is not mark of a rationalist but rather of a troll.

 

Bingo.

[Jingthing]

48 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

What?  Is he sponsoring a viable candidate?

 

You could put it that way:

 

[Cryingdick]

18 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

In other words just another billionaire buying an election? But thats ok, because he is your billionaire.

 

He is the champion of the common man millionaire stock trader. It is so funny they hate billionaires and other than maybe having one be their nominee his particular field is the stock market. For whatever reason the lefties hate the stock market.

[bendejo]

11 hours ago, Jingthing said:

how do you fail at casinos!

For years I would tell people the only sure way to make money from gambling is to own the casino.

Then DT came along and proved me wrong.