Starting to like Bloomberg

[SteveGrabowski]

Let's throw some gasoline on this dumpster fire:

If Bloomberg is the Dem nominee I'd rather vote for a dumb as rocks right wing politician over the shrewd right wing politician. Better vote for the lesser of two evils, right?

I think the general sentiment in this country is the same: The system is broken and we need to burn this sucker down and get it back on track for the blue collar masses of this country. The right tried with Trump and we got more deep fried bullshit; its time to try again with the polar opposite of Trump (moral center-wise) with Bernie.

People here don't seem to understand that 2016 was a big middle finger to the establishments of both parties. But now left leaning voters who didn't turn out for Hillary are going to love voting for a billionaire who bought his way into the election and bribed the national party for their OK? All I hear is anyone but Trump but running just on "anyone but Trump" is the whole reason we're in this mess to begin with.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

He'll be a Democrat.
He'll be picking Democratic friendly judges.

This is not a difficult question to consider.

Do you want 2-3 Kagans and Sotomayors for the next 40 years

OR

Do you want 2-3 Kavenaughs and Alitos?

Trump doesn't give a shit, maybe he'll even nominate Steven Miller.

That, amongst other things, is what's at stake this year. The rest of the SC, other than Thomas, is pretty young and won't be turning over for decades.

"Herpaderp they're all the same trollololol" is bullshit.

Boycotts and protest votes just cost you the election. Ask the Ralph Nader voters in FL how that shit turned out.

Oops, we missed the 9/11 hijackers, invaded Iraq, started secret torture prisons, killed hundreds of thousands of people, burnt trillions of dollars into smoke and then crashed the global economy and millions of people went underwater on their houses.
And Bush picked two SC justices including the chief, and did nothing for climate change other than more oil drilling.

Really showed the DNC huh?

Of course I want two or three Kagans or Sotomayors, or even better, two or three Ginsburgs. I have no faith in an oligarch like Bloomberg nominating them.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

A Bloomberg presidency would set such a horrible precedent: that we have to keep letting the Democratic party get dragged farther and farther right. This would be an extreme shift right. Though it's not like he'd beat Trump anyways in a general election. He'd take all the wind out of the Democrats' sails heading into this election. The Republicans would have such an easy bothsides case to make and there would such depressed turnout.

 

[VRAMdemon]

I'm not a fan of Bloomberg, and I'm not sold he can win yet. But if it looks like he has the best chance to beat Trump, I will back him. Trump out is job one.

I’d rather see a candidate buy the election with his own money than sell it to special interests, which is the only other alternative that’s realistic. And if Bloomberg is able to legally use his influence to slow down corporate donations to the Republican Party, that's a thumbs up. This is going to be a nasty dirty big money fight. If it’s Sanders or Bloomberg the Republicans will have ALL the special interest money as neither candidate will accept money from Big Oil or Big Pharma or any corporate interest. except, in Bloomberg’s case - Big Mike.

What would you rather have, A Mike Bloomberg doing something about climate change next year, or another 4 years of Trump doing nothing?

Bloomberg needs to make clear that he supports progressive, not regressive, tax policies. Bloomberg would be smart to make a commitment to work against Citizens United by making it a priority to appoint SCOTUS justices who oppose it, and by working with whatever legislation a Democratic Congress could come up with to mitigate its effects.

 

[Ajay]

They effectively did due to how congress elects the president should the electoral college fail to cast a majority vote for one candidate. Three strong candidates stop anyone from getting to an electoral vote majority and whichever party controls congress wins. What a joke, fuck this nation's election laws.

Uh, I meant the number of supreme court justices. The constitution only calls for a chief justice - not the total number.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Uh, I meant the number of supreme court justices. The constitution only calls for a chief justice - not the total number.

Oops, sorry. Yeah I support court packing. McConnell already set the precedent that we don't need 9 SC justices.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Vote for me because I'm not Trump was a loser in 2016 but now all of a sudden it's going to be a winning message with a candidate like Bloomberg who the base doesn't like?

The base has rapidly said yes in just two or three weeks.
Assuming we are talking about polling or better votes will you change your opinion if this trending continues?

 

[brandonbull]

Oops, sorry. Yeah I support court packing. McConnell already set the precedent that we don't need 9 SC justices.

Bloomberg supports AG office packing. Nothing like Oligarch Bloomberg placing his privately funded agents into top position within state governments.

 

[brycejones]

Bloomberg supports AG office packing. Nothing like Oligarch Bloomberg placing his privately funded agents into top position within state governments.

Never go full brandonbull.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Bloomberg supports AG office packing. Nothing like Oligarch Bloomberg placing his privately funded agents into top position within state governments.

Why is Bloomberg an Oligarch and Trump not an Oligarch?
Please be specific.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

The base has rapidly said yes in just two or three weeks.
Assuming we are talking about polling or better votes will you change your opinion if this trending continues?

You need to stop asking me questions since you refuse to answer them.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Why is Bloomberg an Oligarch and Trump not an Oligarch?
Please be specific.

I wonder if he typed "He supports AG office packing" with a straight face. And considering our current Presidents business empire is backed with Russian oligarch money.

Bloomberg is a billionaire, which means he's evil! That means he's an oligarch! - here the GOP/Kremlin line ignores the actual definition of 'oligarch,' using it as a generic snarl word. The idea that billionaire = evil is clearly childish and unintelligent. Some billionaires are evil, as are some poor people.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

You need to stop asking me questions since you refuse to answer them.

What have I not answered other than looking up justices appointed by Bloomberg in NY, which I intend to do, just not until late tonight.
How are we going to define what is the Democratic base?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I wonder if he typed "He supports AG office packing" with a straight face. And considering our current Presidents business empire is backed with Russian oligarch money.

Bloomberg is a billionaire, which means he's evil! That means he's an oligarch! - here the GOP/Kremlin line ignores the actual definition of 'oligarch,' using it as a generic snarl word. The idea that billionaire = evil is clearly childish and unintelligent. Some billionaires are evil, as are some poor people.

Well Bloomberg did say between him & the President there is only one billionaire.....

 

[SteveGrabowski]

What have I not answered other than looking up justices appointed by Bloomberg in NY, which I intend to do, just not until late tonight.
How are we going to define what is the Democratic base?

Give me a break. All through this thread you have been talking about SC appointments, and you asked me why I think he'd make terrible appointments. I told you right away because (1) he believes 2008 was about loans to minorities instead of Wall Street looting peoples' wealth through securitzation of garbage loans and (2) someone buying his way into the presidency is pretty unlikely to try to reverse the ridiculous Citizens United ruling. Yet you can't offer any good reason he'd pick good justices even though you keep talking about it. You're the one who keeps bringing up the SC so it's pretty sad you can't defend why the guy would pick good justices. Isn't that something you should already know before supporting the guy?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Give me a break. All through this thread you have been talking about SC appointments, and you asked me why I think he'd make terrible appointments. I told you right away because (1) he believes 2008 was about loans to minorities instead of Wall Street looting peoples' wealth through securitzation of garbage loans and (2) someone buying his way into the presidency is pretty unlikely to try to reverse the ridiculous Citizens United ruling. Yet you can't offer any good reason he'd pick good justices even though you keep talking about it. You're the one who keeps bringing up the SC so it's pretty sad you can't defend why the guy would pick good justices. Isn't that something you should already know before supporting the guy?

I already have, I prefer Bloomberg appointees vs President Trump appointees.
Simply state as of now which of the two you would prefer to name justices Bloomberg or Trump. Name one.

If you prefer President Trump picking the next justices just come out and say it.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

I already have, I prefer Bloomberg appointees vs President Trump appointees.
Simply state as of now which of the two you would prefer to name justices Bloomberg or Trump. Name one.

So you still can't tell me why Bloomberg would nominate good justices. I told why he probably wouldn't. Just admit you picked the guy because he trolled Trump about his wealth and it was emotionally satisfying.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don’t understand why some people don’t get this.
Classic binary choice, either or. Very simple to choose.
Yes you can want more, yes it is fine to say Bloomberg isn’t your first choice or as you said you don’t like specific economic things regarding Bloomberg. I don’t why this is a difficult decision.

I’ll probably vote Bernie in my primary but regardless I am willing to vote for anyone but President Trump.
I stand by my earlier posts, as of now Bloomberg gets it and he is the only one playing to win. Clear consistent message.
Bernie has great plans but they all lack in how he plans on getting them done.
Warrens has great plans but she is boring like Hillary
Biden seemed to be the right guy but he doesn’t have the fire in his belly. Shit I’ve yet to see Biden do an interview on a news show
Buttigieg could be the right guy I simply never see any ads from him
All the others are just running to be the Secretary of whatever at this point.

He was never anybodies natural choice for the Democrat nominee. He bought his way in owing to personal arrogance. He doesn’t care what damage he does to more organic choices. And his appeal is all money generated. We already have a narcissist as President and that’s enough. I feel the same way about a number of the others who have nothing unusual or different to offer but their fat egos.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

So you still can't tell me why Bloomberg would nominate good justices. I told why he probably wouldn't. Just admit you picked the guy because he trolled Trump about his wealth and it was emotionally satisfying.

Shit he is pro gun restriction and pro abortion. That is a metric shit ton better than what we have now.
You still haven’t answered as of right now choose which one you want appointing justices President Trump or Mr. Bloomberg.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Shit he is pro gun restriction and pro abortion. That is a metric shit ton better than what we have now.
You still haven’t answered as of right now choose which one you want appointing justices President Trump or Mr. Bloomberg.

I have already told you Trump three times now because I'd rather not sell out the Democratic party on the hope that in the off chance Bloomberg wins we get justices who would be right wing on everything but a couple of wedge issues like gun control and abortion.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I have already told you Trump three times now because I'd rather not sell out the Democratic party on the hope that in the off chance Bloomberg wins we get justices who would be right wing on everything but a couple of wedge issues like gun control and abortion.

Okay thank you for making it clear.

 

[JSt0rm]

bloomberg helped seat republican senators like not even 6 years ago. He is not a dem he is a republican alternative to trump.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

bloomberg helped seat republican senators like not even 6 years ago. He is not a dem he is a republican alternative to trump.

Whom do you prefer seating justices President Trump or Mr. Bloomberg?
Either or choice.

 

[DisarmedDespot]

I mean, he's better than Trump, but that a damn low bar. Honestly OP, you're the only one I've heard say anything about liking the guy.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I mean, he's better than Trump, but that a damn low bar. Honestly OP, you're the only one I've heard say anything about liking the guy.

It’s complicated but I admit it is mostly due to Bloomberg playing to win and going dirty against Trump immediately.
Again not my ideal choice but a good enough choice.