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

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, englishoak said:

 

Or Orange man bad, uh huh ...impeach 45 blah blah... the usual just Dems naval gazing and not going to win diddly squat new voters imo, meanwhile Trump is gathering more and more of the black and Latino block and swathes of immigrant hard studying conservative second generation, business owners with V moral and family values....eg Asians who have left communist disaster zones are being overlooked, they work hard, like to spend like lower taxes even more and vote overwhelmingly conservative.   

 

Just dont see anything currently slowing Trumps growing popularity and hold on the Whitehouse for another 4.

I guess you missed the 2018 MIDTERMS then. Blue Wave. Those suburban white women are finished with 45 and they're never going back. 

The post above -- more of the same silly hubris and premature gloating. 
Yes black swan 45 won ONCE in his only direct election ever and that was totally a shocker.

But now we've seen what we actually get with him.

It's like his scam fake university clients. Sure he suckered them in before he was busted for corruption. Of course his base is committed to him to the bitter end, but they aren't nearly enough. 

Edited January 14, 2020 by Jingthing

[englishoak]

23 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I guess you missed the 2018 MIDTERMS then. Blue Wave. Those suburban white women are finished with 45 and they're never going back. 

The post above -- more of the same silly hubris and premature gloating. 
Yes black swan 45 won ONCE in his only direct election ever and that was totally a shocker.

But now we've seen what we actually get with him.

It's like his scam fake university clients. Sure he suckered them in before he was busted for corruption. Of course his base is committed to him to the bitter end, but they aren't nearly enough. 

Uh huh..The opposition party tends to be more energized in a midterm, its perfectly normal and n fact the most common outcome in midterms. Since the U.S. Civil War in the 1860s, the president's party has lost ground in 36 of the 39 midterm elections.

 

Not gloating just pointing out areas the Dems are losing out, dont make me wrong. 

 

The rest is the usual excuses with no answers and just reinforces the Orange man bad vitriol. Thats not going to cut it imo. Nor is Bloomberg credible but go ahead, copy the billionaire popular celebrity businessman model without Trumps personality vs the original and see how that goes....   

[riclag]

Stock market reaching all time highs and this billionaire wants to spend all his money to stop the cause of it,Mr. Trump!  radical dems being radical imop

[Jingthing]

26 minutes ago, englishoak said:

Uh huh..The opposition party tends to be more energized in a midterm, its perfectly normal and n fact the most common outcome in midterms. Since the U.S. Civil War in the 1860s, the president's party has lost ground in 36 of the 39 midterm elections.

 

Not gloating just pointing out areas the Dems are losing out, dont make me wrong. 

 

The rest is the usual excuses with no answers and just reinforces the Orange man bad vitriol. Thats not going to cut it imo. Nor is Bloomberg credible but go ahead, copy the billionaire popular celebrity businessman model without Trumps personality vs the original and see how that goes....   

Bizarre. 

Your entire argument appears to be about juvenile mocking of the majority of Americans that correctly find this president lacking in decency.

Yes he is extremely bad and it isn't really funny. 

That level of banter isn't worth my time. 

Bye. 

Edited January 14, 2020 by Jingthing

[bendejo]

I was going to say he needs more than an "I'm not him" platform to run against the guy in the orange facepaint, but someone did that in 2016 and actually did win the popular vote.

So, twice so far in this century someone lost the popular vote but still became president, that's 2 out of 5 elections, and both times it was the Republican candidate.  Peculiar, that.

 

I don't think anyone outside of the GOP and conservatives has the gall to pander to voter ignorance.  E.g. assuring former coal miners the mines will re-open ("back to the hazardous conditions you love, folks!"), and that China will be made to pay tariffs, which will actually be paid by the voter.  Will the former employees of US Steel Corp and Alcoa vote for DT?  (check the performance of those stocks since the tariffs were introduced)

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Sander is seen as the real deal and he is simply the opposite of non statesman persona and lying Trump.

He shouldn't even be standing after his heart attack. If he does, his VP will be critical as a very good chance he'll be taking over should they win.

[englishoak]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Bizarre. 

Your entire argument appears to be about juvenile mocking of the majority of Americans that correctly find this president lacking in decency.

Yes he is extremely bad and it isn't really funny. 

That level of banter isn't worth my time. 

Bye. 

 

If there were a majority as you claim Trump would not now be POTUS.

 

Crying you wish it were different is irrelevant. 

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I guess you missed the 2018 MIDTERMS then. Blue Wave. Those suburban white women are finished with 45 and they're never going back. 

Isn't it true that the incumbent party usually does badly in mid terms as it's seen as a protest vote? The presidential elections are a different situation.

Ie 2018 midterms mean nothing in terms of Trump being reelected.

So long as the economy is good, and body bags are not coming back, Trump has nothing to fear, IMO.

[HuskerDo]

"I'm spending all my money to get rid of Trump"...….. well if that is true Mr. Bloomberg will be broke by the end of the year and Trump will still be President. Then Michael will need to apply for all the social programs that Trump is slowly getting rid of. Michael will then end up living in L.A. on the streets with all the other homeless people. He might want to reconsider. It'll make a good movie tho.

[Grumpy John]

What a tosser this Blombug is!  Thinks that he can buy the Presidency.  Must have swollen head syndrome!  

[HuskerDo]

 "While his speeches drew modest crowds of no more than a few hundred in Austin and fewer still in San Antonio"...… Let me get this straight. Trump is pulling in tens and tens of thousands at every event he holds. Bloomberg is pulling in a couple of hundred. Exactly how high does a persons IQ need to be to see the problem for Bloomberg?

 

 

 

[HuskerDo]

54 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

He shouldn't even be standing after his heart attack. If he does, his VP will be critical as a very good chance he'll be taking over should they win.

Maybe Bernie should be his VP. They can run on a "we had heart attacks and are still here" platform.

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, englishoak said:

Uh huh..The opposition party tends to be more energized in a midterm, its perfectly normal and n fact the most common outcome in midterms. Since the U.S. Civil War in the 1860s, the president's party has lost ground in 36 of the 39 midterm elections.

 

Not gloating just pointing out areas the Dems are losing out, dont make me wrong. 

 

The rest is the usual excuses with no answers and just reinforces the Orange man bad vitriol. Thats not going to cut it imo. Nor is Bloomberg credible but go ahead, copy the billionaire popular celebrity businessman model without Trumps personality vs the original and see how that goes....   

"The 41-seat gain was the Democrats' largest gain of House seats since the post-Watergate 1974 elections, when they picked up 49 seats. The Democrats also won the popular vote by a margin of 8.6%, the largest margin on record for a party that previously held a minority in the House. Turnout was the highest for a midterm election in more than a century, with over half the electorate casting ballots."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections

And it's useful to point out that the gain in seats would have been more had the Republicans in various states not engaged in extreme gerrymandering after the 2010 elections.

Edited January 14, 2020 by bristolboy

[KKr]

On 1/13/2020 at 5:38 PM, Jingthing said:

He doesn't need luck.

 

As he says,

In God we trust.

Everyone else bring data.

 

Bloomberg has wanted to be president for a long time already. It was never the right time before. Now is the right time. Not predicting he will win the nomination, but if nominated I predict a Bloomberg LANDSLIDE. 

 

 

A very rich person once told me not to wish him success, as according to him he was working very hard for his success.
He asked me to wish him luck, because of good luck one cannot have enough !

[spidermike007]

12 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

It doesn't work that way. You are either fully woke or a pariah. It isn't a combo meal where you can choose your preferences. You are with the program or you aren't. As Corey Booker said "you need to know the flavor of the kool aid you are dipping in".

 

When people like Castro virtue signal by bringing up the weirdest things like providing abortions to transexuals for free you are supposed to embrace it wholeheartedly.

 

Now I am not against transexuals having abortions but most people just say abortions because that's all the issue involves. There is no place for anybody that doesn't fall in line. 

 

I am gay and if you don't follow the rantings hook, line and sinker you are labelled a traitor to the resistance. They really think they are some sort of resistance. You would think we were all holed up in Anne Frank's attic and don't dare go outside in day light. 

 

 

That is the inherent moral poverty of Neo-liberalism.

Well, I am straight, a centrist democrat, and very friendly with quite a number of gay men and lesbian woman, whom I really enjoy spending time with. Lovely people. How much love are you getting from the conservative side of the aisle? There are all kinds. Many dems are quite level headed. Same with conservatives. Many are extreme also. There is no place for extremism of any kind. To the extremists out there, on either side of the aisle, I say get a life, please. 

[KKr]

On 1/14/2020 at 10:05 AM, spidermike007 said:

Allowing men to compete in women's sports, due to a choice they have made about their sexuality? Doesn't that seem a bit over the top?

understatement of the year.
1 % of people (if that many) dictating the 99 % what to do
and demanding positive discrimination.
I say adjust and live with the majority of people. Live like a woman or man, whatever you please, but sports rules were set to balance out birth advantages.

Next thing you know, me, being relatively slender, will ask to join female boxing because I cannot compete with heavier built men in my weight class, and then refuse to use the male showers. ????????????????

(and just to clarify, whereas it seems I am soon to be discriminated against for being straight, some of my best and most reliable friends and family members are gay/lesbian.)

[zydeco]

And Trump apparently is making sure Bloomberg is going to have a lot less money. https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/biggest-change-econ-data-releases-decades-dept-labor-set-remove-computers-media-lockups  Both these guys are creeps. No more billionaires from New York City to ruin the country, please.

[KKr]

3 minutes ago, zydeco said:

And Trump apparently is making sure Bloomberg is going to have a lot less money. https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/biggest-change-econ-data-releases-decades-dept-labor-set-remove-computers-media-lockups  Both these guys are creeps. No more billionaires from New York City to ruin the country, please.

personally, if I were to vote between them, I would consider that:
Bloomberg as an accomplished business man, based on the merit of his product and his business skills, not on defrauding contractors.
Bloomberg is an experienced Government Administrator (whether one likes it or not what happened in NY under his rule)

Donald has proven to be a loose cannon.

the choice is ...... so obvious.


As for the removal of the lock-up to accommodate release of raw data, rather then give knowledgeable people the opportunity to write understandable comments that are released at the same time as the data, imho for professional traders it will make very little difference. Never heard of a trader that does not know what to do upon release of data. 
Also, as I understand the Labor department releases the data: so what nano seconds are we talking about ?
Dataspeed from Washington D.C. to HongKong ?

For day-traders and other private punters (who do not usually have access to pools of analysts and cannot participate in in-house traders conferences where economists go over the scenarios) however, a good headline may well prevent taking the wrong action.

[Jingthing]

Bloomberg indeed is a billionaire but he's a billionaire that if elected would intend to and has the potential to reunify the U.S. that is now divided as severely as it has been since the civil war. Obviously not completely, but to move towards that. The current president has never been about anything other than deepening the divisions for his own cynical personal purposes. There are other democrats that could do similar (Klobuchar comes to mind) if elected but we're down to the big question -- who can beat 45? It might be Bloomberg, it might Sanders, it might be the Uber driver down the street, or it might be nobody. That's what this democratic party process is about now. 

 

I will add that I am hearing the arguments that only someone like Sanders that promises fundamental deep leftist populist change can actually have a chance to win. They might be right. Nobody really knows. Also if Sanders wins now that Bloomberg is pledging his money to get any democrat elected (plus the house and senate, etc.) might be an additional argument to go for broke in that directed. 

Edited January 15, 2020 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

No financial limits!

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/post-reports/a-campaign-with-unlimited-money/

[earlinclaifornia]

10 hours ago, englishoak said:

Uh huh..The opposition party tends to be more energized in a midterm, its perfectly normal and n fact the most common outcome in midterms. Since the U.S. Civil War in the 1860s, the president's party has lost ground in 36 of the 39 midterm elections.

 

Not gloating just pointing out areas the Dems are losing out, dont make me wrong. 

 

The rest is the usual excuses with no answers and just reinforces the Orange man bad vitriol. Thats not going to cut it imo. Nor is Bloomberg credible but go ahead, copy the billionaire popular celebrity businessman model without Trumps personality vs the original and see how that goes....   

Clinton was an exception!

[earlinclaifornia]

10 hours ago, riclag said:

Stock market reaching all time highs and this billionaire wants to spend all his money to stop the cause of it,Mr. Trump!  radical dems being radical imop

Obama was the person responsible for the stock market's surge. Track the last 10 years for proof!

[earlinclaifornia]

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

"The 41-seat gain was the Democrats' largest gain of House seats since the post-Watergate 1974 elections, when they picked up 49 seats. The Democrats also won the popular vote by a margin of 8.6%, the largest margin on record for a party that previously held a minority in the House. Turnout was the highest for a midterm election in more than a century, with over half the electorate casting ballots."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections

And it's useful to point out that the gain in seats would have been more had the Republicans in various states not engaged in extreme gerrymandering after the 2010 elections.

Google this to read this idiots reasoning for a huge laugh! GOOD luck LOSER

Newt Gingrich: House Republicans in 2020 can have a great year

[mogandave]

I’d like to see a Bloomberg-Omar ticket. 
 

So who would make sense as running mates for:

 

Biden?

 

Warren?

 

Sanders?

[meechai]

19 hours ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Obama was the person responsible for the stock market's surge. Track the last 10 years for proof!

Yes the FED Reserve pumping out 80 billion a month had nothing to do with it ????

[bristolboy]

28 minutes ago, meechai said:

Yes the FED Reserve pumping out 80 billion a month had nothing to do with it ????

Well, if you're going to go that route, the huge tax cuts on corporations coupled with the huge buybacks of stock by those same corporations have a lot more to do with the current rise than QE did under Obama.

Edited January 16, 2020 by bristolboy

[mogandave]

30 minutes ago, meechai said:

Yes the FED Reserve pumping out 80 billion a month had nothing to do with it ????

QE did not start with Obama. 

[mogandave]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Well, if you're going to go that route, the huge tax cuts on corporations coupled with the huge buybacks of stock by those same corporations have a lot more to do with the current rise than QE did under Obama.

Evil corporations giving profits back to the shareholders. How is this bad? 
 

 

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Evil corporations giving profits back to the shareholders. How is this bad? 
 

 

Well, whether it's bad or not is not at issue here. What is at issue is the notion that the stock market rise is proportionate to the performance of the economy.

But what is bad about it is that the loss of tax revenue is being used to enrich the wealthiest tranche of Americans.  

[Eric Loh]

3 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Evil corporations giving profits back to the shareholders. How is this bad? 
 

 

It’s bad when tax cuts simply flattened the corporations bottom line and cash flow rose while dividends only increased by a mere 3%. 
 

It’s bad when the tax cuts were supposed to allow the corporations to trickle down and benefit workers and also invest but didn’t happen. Only make rich companies richer.