Democratic Party's fuckery continues: Mayor Bloomberg is running for president.

Jul 23, 2017
660
392
31
8042

Exclusive: Mike Bloomberg will "spend whatever it takes" in 2020

Photo: Paul Morigi/Getty Images for Bloomberg Philanthropies
Mike Bloomberg is jumping into the Democratic presidential race because he believes that Joe Biden is fading, opening the moderate lane next to Elizabeth Warren, sources close to the former New York mayor tell Axios.
Why it matters: "Mike will spend whatever it takes to defeat Donald Trump," a Bloomberg source said. "The nation is about to see a very different campaign than we’ve ever seen before."
  • I'm told there's no way he'll later run as a third-party or independent candidate, partly because of ballot-access hurdles.
Theory of the case: Bloomberg, who according to Forbes is worth $52 billion, will self-fund, allowing him to run an essentially national campaign at a time when the rest of the field is raising money and focusing on early states.
  • Bloomberg, who will make a final decision "soon," isn't expected to seek or accept campaign contributions, according to a second source.
  • Bloomberg had been focused on how he could best influence 2020 from the outside. But he increasingly became concerned that all the leading Democrats have weaknesses Trump could exploit in the general election.
  • Bloomberg sees himself as an anti-Trump: practical and pragmatic, a self-made business leader, committed to issues such as climate and guns, and someone who recognizes the value of multilateralism and coalitions over isolationism.
What's next: The Bloomberg buzz ignited yesterday with the news that he'll file today to qualify for the primary in Alabama, which has an early filing deadline.
  • I'm told he'll quickly ramp up in other states with deadlines approaching, including Arkansas, New Hampshire, Florida, California and Texas.
Reality check: Given the progressive tides in the Democratic Party, there's no sign that a 77-year-old billionaire is what primary voters are pining for.
  • Biden is sucking wind on money, and now Bloomberg is moving into his lane with unlimited cash.
Go deeper: Mic
 
Reactions: Beefcake and Joe E

Joe E

Proud Shitholer
Jul 29, 2012
18,758
6,064
View attachment 8042

Exclusive: Mike Bloomberg will "spend whatever it takes" in 2020

Photo: Paul Morigi/Getty Images for Bloomberg Philanthropies
Mike Bloomberg is jumping into the Democratic presidential race because he believes that Joe Biden is fading, opening the moderate lane next to Elizabeth Warren, sources close to the former New York mayor tell Axios.
Why it matters: "Mike will spend whatever it takes to defeat Donald Trump," a Bloomberg source said. "The nation is about to see a very different campaign than we’ve ever seen before."
  • I'm told there's no way he'll later run as a third-party or independent candidate, partly because of ballot-access hurdles.
Theory of the case: Bloomberg, who according to Forbes is worth $52 billion, will self-fund, allowing him to run an essentially national campaign at a time when the rest of the field is raising money and focusing on early states.
  • Bloomberg, who will make a final decision "soon," isn't expected to seek or accept campaign contributions, according to a second source.
  • Bloomberg had been focused on how he could best influence 2020 from the outside. But he increasingly became concerned that all the leading Democrats have weaknesses Trump could exploit in the general election.
  • Bloomberg sees himself as an anti-Trump: practical and pragmatic, a self-made business leader, committed to issues such as climate and guns, and someone who recognizes the value of multilateralism and coalitions over isolationism.
What's next: The Bloomberg buzz ignited yesterday with the news that he'll file today to qualify for the primary in Alabama, which has an early filing deadline.
  • I'm told he'll quickly ramp up in other states with deadlines approaching, including Arkansas, New Hampshire, Florida, California and Texas.
Reality check: Given the progressive tides in the Democratic Party, there's no sign that a 77-year-old billionaire is what primary voters are pining for.
  • Biden is sucking wind on money, and now Bloomberg is moving into his lane with unlimited cash.
Go deeper: Mic
Michael Bloomberg Actively Prepares to Enter 2020 Presidential Race

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/us/politics/michael-bloomberg-president-2020.html
 

mandela

CHB Führer
May 16, 2013
23,087
10,319
Scotland
"Biden is sucking wind on money..."


What does that mean?

Never heard the expression. Biden is struggling for money?
 
Jul 23, 2017
660
392
31
No one outside of New York gives a fuck about Michael Bloomberg.
This bodes well for Trump.
How?
Bloomberg despite his name recognition is not that well received outside of moderate Liberal parts of New York. Many of the policies he funded got struck down by the courts, the politicians pushed were shown the door by the voters.
The guy has as much chance of being the Democratic nominee as Tom Stayer.
 

Joe E

Proud Shitholer
Jul 29, 2012
18,758
6,064
Left-Wing Billionaire Michael Bloomberg: Raising Taxes on Poor People Is a “good thing.”

https://www.atr.org/left-wing-billionaire-michael-bloomberg-raising-taxes-poor-people-good-thing

So here is Bloomberg on stage with another global mandarin, Christine Lagarde of the International Monetary Fund. He refers to low income individuals as “those people” and then takes a shot at coal miners and the U.S. military:

Michael Bloomberg: “Some people say, well, taxes are regressive. But in this case, yes they are. That's the good thing about them because the problem is in people that don't have a lot of money. And so, higher taxes should have a bigger impact on their behavior and how they deal with themselves. So, I listen to people saying 'oh we don't want to tax the poor.’ Well, we want the poor to live longer so that they can get an education and enjoy life. And that's why you do want to do exactly what a lot of people say you don't want to do.




The question is do you want to pander to those people? Or do you want to get them to live longer? There's just no question. If you raise taxes on full sugary drinks, for example, they will drink less and there's just no question that full sugar drinks are one of the major contributors to obesity and obesity is one of the major contributors to heart disease and cancer and a variety of other things.

So, it's like saying, ‘I don't want to stop using coal because coal miners will go out of work, will lose their jobs.’ We have a lot of soldiers in the United States in the US Army, but we don't want to go start a war just to give them something to do and that's exactly what you're saying when you say 'well, let's keep coal killing people because we don't want coal miners to lose their jobs.' The truth of the matter is that there aren't very many coal miners left anyways and we can find other things for them to do. But the comparison is: a life or a job. Or, taxes or life? Which do you want to do? Take your poison.


Christine Lagarde: “So its regressive, it is good. There are lots of tax experts in the room. And fiscal experts, and I’m very pleased that they hear you say that. And they all say that two things in life which are absolutely certain. One is death, the other one is tax. So you use one to defer the other one.”

Bloomberg: “That’s correct. That is exactly right. Well said.”
 

Joe E

Proud Shitholer
Jul 29, 2012
18,758
6,064
No one outside of New York gives a fuck about Michael Bloomberg.

How?
Bloomberg despite his name recognition is not that well received outside of moderate Liberal parts of New York. Many of the policies he funded got struck down by the courts, the politicians pushed were shown the door by the voters.
The guy has as much chance of being the Democratic nominee as Tom Stayer.
Recognition isn't a problem. Nobody cared about the majority of the current crop of Democratic candidates before they ran. Also, it further dilutes and confounds the current field of Democrat candidates. He will challenge the more "progressive" candidates, and then there is the money thing.
 

Joe E

Proud Shitholer
Jul 29, 2012
18,758
6,064
His East Coast Jewishness will hurt him in the heartlands and out West. Never had a Jewish POTUS. Sanders had good support in 2016 primaries, but he is an atheist. Bloomberg is a religious Jew.
He's more a pragmatist than a "progressive" I think. Which would hurt him with the direction the party is headed. He also ran as a Republican once
 
Reactions: Major Pain
May 8, 2013
8,428
3,271
He's more a pragmatist than a "progressive" I think. Which would hurt him with the direction the party is headed. He also ran as a Republican once
Yes, he was a Dem, then GOP, then Independent, now back to Dem in 2018. That makes him look like a flip-flopper, or an opportunist parasite, and I think that will tie in with the anti-Semitic tropes, and the typical middle class WASPs will not be cool with that.

He will have a hard road ahead. NYC elitist, Jewish, with a record of changing parties & positions at light speed... not sure he can get the support he would need. Trump pulled it off despite many of the same things, but he ran an America-first populist campaign, and I cannot see Bloomberg pulling that off as a Democrat who favors open borders and amnesty for illegals. That last issue alone might sink him.
 
Reactions: Joe E

Joe E

Proud Shitholer
Jul 29, 2012
18,758
6,064
Pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-amnesty for illegals, pro-illegal immigration... he will not get many of Trump's base to defect.
And the DNC won't touch him because of these. Although they aren't really against them.
 
Reactions: Major Pain

Haggis

CHB World Championship People's Champion
May 16, 2013
35,281
12,418
Pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-amnesty for illegals, pro-illegal immigration... he will not get many of Trump's base to defect.
Nobody will get Trump's base to defect, they are locked in with unquestioning slavish devotion no matter what. There is literally nothing that he could do that would cost him the rabid support of people like Joe. The Democrats have to appeal to the people who want a serious, capable adult in office, someone who won't have a governing strategy of tearing the entire country apart in service of corrupt and nepotistic self-dealing.

:hat
 

Joe E

Proud Shitholer
Jul 29, 2012
18,758
6,064
Nobody will get Trump's base to defect, they are locked in with unquestioning slavish devotion no matter what. There is literally nothing that he could do that would cost him the rabid support of people like Joe. The Democrats have to appeal to the people who want a serious, capable adult in office, someone who won't have a governing strategy of tearing the entire country apart in service of corrupt and nepotistic self-dealing.

:hat
The reanimated corpse got yours. Balls deep. Gonna do it again?

 
May 10, 2013
2,466
1,255
He could have ran against Hillary, but I don't know how he will fare in the current political climate.
 
Reactions: Haggis

Icemmann

Breakin it down.
May 16, 2013
11,341
4,246
41
The tree outside GABBY'S room
Left-Wing Billionaire Michael Bloomberg: Raising Taxes on Poor People Is a “good thing.”

https://www.atr.org/left-wing-billionaire-michael-bloomberg-raising-taxes-poor-people-good-thing

So here is Bloomberg on stage with another global mandarin, Christine Lagarde of the International Monetary Fund. He refers to low income individuals as “those people” and then takes a shot at coal miners and the U.S. military:

Michael Bloomberg: “Some people say, well, taxes are regressive. But in this case, yes they are. That's the good thing about them because the problem is in people that don't have a lot of money. And so, higher taxes should have a bigger impact on their behavior and how they deal with themselves. So, I listen to people saying 'oh we don't want to tax the poor.’ Well, we want the poor to live longer so that they can get an education and enjoy life. And that's why you do want to do exactly what a lot of people say you don't want to do.




The question is do you want to pander to those people? Or do you want to get them to live longer? There's just no question. If you raise taxes on full sugary drinks, for example, they will drink less and there's just no question that full sugar drinks are one of the major contributors to obesity and obesity is one of the major contributors to heart disease and cancer and a variety of other things.

So, it's like saying, ‘I don't want to stop using coal because coal miners will go out of work, will lose their jobs.’ We have a lot of soldiers in the United States in the US Army, but we don't want to go start a war just to give them something to do and that's exactly what you're saying when you say 'well, let's keep coal killing people because we don't want coal miners to lose their jobs.' The truth of the matter is that there aren't very many coal miners left anyways and we can find other things for them to do. But the comparison is: a life or a job. Or, taxes or life? Which do you want to do? Take your poison.


Christine Lagarde: “So its regressive, it is good. There are lots of tax experts in the room. And fiscal experts, and I’m very pleased that they hear you say that. And they all say that two things in life which are absolutely certain. One is death, the other one is tax. So you use one to defer the other one.”

Bloomberg: “That’s correct. That is exactly right. Well said.”
8051