kent_island_sailor

Bloomberg's complicated taxes

Recommended Posts

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg claimed that releasing his tax returns to the public would be complicated and take “a long time” during Wednesday’s ninth Democratic presidential primary debate in Las Vegas.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/bloomberg-tax-returns-debate_n_5e4df2a3c5b630e74c50142b

 

OkByX3G.gif&f=1&nofb=1

I have a feeling that was not the correct answer!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

come on chaps

 

a party switching billionaire with NDAs all over the shop who does not want to tell anyone how much tax he pays....

 

surely you guys are not going to go down that road again....

 

You can see in his eyes in the debate that he is not used to being criticised to his face - another man who surrounds himself with toads.

 

D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

toadies: yes men, ass-kissers, etc.

toads: amphibian cousins of frogs

just sayin

as my mother used to say

"we are not at home to Mr Picky"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

What BS. Is there anyone here who could NOT grab the last several years of returns from the files and post them?

Is there anyone here who is a global billion dollar industry?

That said, yeah. It's BS He could release last years taxes (2018) and a preliminary statement for this year.

Or just authorize the IRS to release what he's filed.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike Will Get It Done, the ads say. They should add:

(unless it's complicated)

1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

Is there anyone here who is a global billion dollar industry? 

That said, yeah. It's BS He could release last years taxes (2018) and a preliminary statement for this year.

Or just authorize the IRS to release what he's filed.

- DSK

The other candidates from his current Team have managed to release more than a year.

If his yuge business is so complicated that he can't release them, how could he have filed them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he said he’d do it in 3 weeks. What’s the big deal.  It’s not like he had a heart attack said he’d release his full medical records and then didn’t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tomballs doesn’t like Bloomberg, pretends to have principles and looks like raving Tomballs 

 

Bloomberg with his taxes, Bernie with taxes & health, both following Trumps lead of “fuck you”. The voters don’t care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He did say he would post them 'in a few weeks'.  Lets see.  I would think they are complicated with 100s of entities involved and there is probably some information in there  he wants to protect in regard to his business that is not nefarious but doesn't want industry competitors to learn.

I;m sure he has told some bad jokes around the office and offended people just like many of us have.  He has 20,000+ employees, some of them are going to be nutters and unfortunately in the litigious USA its a common practice to sue your employer (sometimes when you are planning to leave anyway) and claim harassment or abuse.  Its very often  cheaper to settle than fight the allegations and make some lawyers rich, and an NDA is standard practice to go along with it.  And if you take the money and agree to stay quiet, that should remain the case. Its unfortunate  but that is the reality which politicians don't understand because they have never run a company.   

I dont know what he may  or may not have done, but it wasnt fucking porn stars.  That being said he had a bad night for sure but will probably rebound somewhat.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

I think he said he’d do it in 3 weeks. What’s the big deal.  It’s not like he had a heart attack said he’d release his full medical records and then didn’t.

Klobuchar answered your question in the topic article.

 

Quote

 

Bloomberg entered the race in November, months after his competitors had already begun their campaigns. In addition to not releasing his tax returns, Bloomberg has twice delayed filing a personal financial disclosure form with federal regulators, leaving details of his self-financed campaign hidden, potentially until after the critical Super Tuesday contests next month.

“We’re releasing them. They’ll be out in a couple of weeks. That’s as fast as we can do it,” Bloomberg said at the debate Wednesday.

The former mayor’s answer didn’t sit well with the other candidates on stage, who groaned and immediately shot their hands in the air to register their desire to respond.

“Everyone up here has returned their tax returns,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said. “It is a major issue because the president of the United States ... has been hiding behind his tax returns.”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cristoforo said:

He did say he would post them 'in a few weeks'.  Lets see.  I would think they are complicated and there is probably some information in there 
he wants to protect in regard to his business that is not nefarious but doesn't want industry competitors to learn.

I;m sure he has told some bad jokes around the office and offended people just like many of us have.  He has 20,000+ employees, some of them are going to be nutters and unfortunately in the litigious USA its a common practice to sue your employer (sometimes when you are planning to leave anyway) and claim harassment or abuse.  Its very often  cheaper to settle than fight the allegations and make some lawyers rich, and an NDA is standard practice to go along with it.  And if you take the money and agree to stay quiet, that should remain the case. Its unfortunate  but that is the reality which politicians don't understand because they have never run a company.   

I dont know what he may  or may not have done, but it wasnt fucking porn stars.  That being said he had a bad night for sure but will probably rebound somewhat.   

 

 

I don't see where Bloomberg had such a "bad night" at the debate. Watching the talking heads on the morning news, they're going on and on about how terrible he did.

Yes, the tax returns question was obvious. Yes he should release them. Yes his taxes are a bit more complicated than the average guys. Why not release what he's got, plus prior years (as other candidates have done)? I dunno and it seems like a pretty obvious thing to do.

"Fail" on his part, a relatively minor fail IMHO. He wasn't my pick of the bunch before, and he's not now.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Klobuchar answered your question in the topic article.

I’ve missed you giving a fuck about the Presidents taxes, when did you start? It’s not like you to be a hypocritical sack of lying shit, don’t start now.

now, toddle off and take a Medicare paid for bluepill and  donate some dna to a tulsi thread.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I don't see where Bloomberg had such a "bad night" at the debate. Watching the talking heads on the morning news, they're going on and on about how terrible he did.

Yes, the tax returns question was obvious. Yes he should release them. Yes his taxes are a bit more complicated than the average guys. Why not release what he's got, plus prior years (as other candidates have done)? I dunno and it seems like a pretty obvious thing to do.

"Fail" on his part, a relatively minor fail IMHO. He wasn't my pick of the bunch before, and he's not now.

- DSK

Tom Steyer did it... 3200 pages! 

https://www.tomsteyer.com/transparency/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I’ve missed you giving a fuck about the Presidents taxes, when did you start?

This wasn't the first time on this forum I said Trump should keep his promise to release his tax returns, just the first one I found doing a quick search.

On 4/4/2019 at 6:23 AM, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

I prefer to trust but verify.

Trump said he would release his returns. He could do it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

This wasn't the first time on this forum I said Trump should keep his promise to release his tax returns, just the first one I found doing a quick search.

It’s too bad you didn’t say he should release them. Just that you’d prefer it and he could. And that it took you 3 years.

now,  bitch, spend some more time searching loser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm there is a certain familiarity 

 

Trump, “people wouldn’t understand my tax returns.”

 

Bloomberg, “my taxes are too complicated to make public right now.”

 

What I will give to Mikey is the response to Sanders when challenged on his relatively low tax rate— words to the effect—you guys in Congress passed the tax code.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg claimed that releasing his tax returns to the public would be complicated and take “a long time” during Wednesday’s ninth Democratic presidential primary debate in Las Vegas.

I have a feeling that was not the correct answer!

Bloomberg was stymied a lot last night.  I really expected him to be better prepared but he got his hat handed to him.  And the tax thing was far from being the worst hit he took. 

He came across like he just expected people to step aside and crown him king.  I don't think he's ever been challenged like this before.  He got more groans and boos than I can recall in any recent debate.  I expect, especially for those who watched the debate, Bloomberg's poll numbers to drop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

It’s too bad you didn’t say he should release them. Just that you’d prefer it and he could. And that it took you 3 years.

2016

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Again, you didn’t say he should release them, and December 2016 is a little late. Or is it just sometimes words are really important to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Jules said:

Bloomberg was stymied a lot last night.  I really expected him to be better prepared but he got his hat handed to him.  And the tax thing was far from being the worst hit he took. 

He came across like he just expected people to step aside and crown him king.  I don't think he's ever been challenged like this before.  He got more groans and boos than I can recall in any recent debate.  I expect, especially for those who watched the debate, Bloomberg's poll numbers to drop.

another man who surrounds himself with yes people

the TV have given him one heck of a hammering.

Warren was on top form. I assume that her comments will resonate with most women - and she showed she could  stand up to a rich twassock

I am betting that if/when he drops out he will reduce his committment to spend,spend, spend.

As one of the pundits said, he spent 400 million to be on that stage and he was unprepared forr  the easy stuff.

D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, dylan winter said:

Warren was on top form.

She had the best night of all of them.  Wouldn't surprise me to see her rise again in the polls.

4 minutes ago, dylan winter said:

I am betting that if/when he drops out he will reduce his committment to spend,spend, spend.

Just what I was thinking last night.  He was getting hammered.  His facial expression was saying, "These assholes are gonna pay!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Jules said:

She had the best night of all of them.  Wouldn't surprise me to see her rise again in the polls.

Just what I was thinking last night.  He was getting hammered.  His facial expression was saying, "These assholes are gonna pay!"

 

53 minutes ago, dylan winter said:

another man who surrounds himself with yes people

the TV have given him one heck of a hammering.

Warren was on top form. I assume that her comments will resonate with most women - and she showed she could  stand up to a rich twassock

I am betting that if/when he drops out he will reduce his committment to spend,spend, spend.

As one of the pundits said, he spent 400 million to be on that stage and he was unprepared forr  the easy stuff.

D

 By this you probably mean Warren was a raving unhinged lunatic who misrepresented and lied about the other candidates health care proposals (Booty and Kloby) and spewed undocumented and  formerly debunked rumors (as confirmed by various independent fact checker groups this morning) of Bloomberg quotes from a gag birthday gift decades ago.   This garnished with puking out countless and ridiculous estimates of her own theoretical untested proposals and 'plans' for everything. She likes to say 'My plan sets aside XXX Billions' for this or that, and there will be free shit for everyone.  

Bloomies philanthropic foundation gave away 3.5 billion dollars last year before he was a candidate on many and he has said he will support whomever the Democratic party nominates to defeat Trump.  Do you know something nobody else does to contradict this?  Sure it was a poor performance he was accepted to the debate 48 hours before.  John Kerry, John Kasich, others this morning have been on the telly already supporting him. One thing about pundits, you will get predictable pronouncements from  them depending on who is  their employer.     

But yes as you say she was on her 'top form' and I agree with that.   

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: his taxes - no-one can amass that much money and have tax returns that will pass the scrutiny of ordinary people - even if they had accountants who could get them past the IRS.

You'll see his taxes at the same time you see Trumps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Demdebate.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dylan winter said:

another man who surrounds himself with yes people

not really...he has (in the past) surrounded himself with knowledgeable people....his camp said that he went through 3-4 mock debates with his people giving him what they thought would be the heavy questions...apparently they didn;t or he dropped the ball on the answers....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be a mistake for the Dems to nominate him. 

I would vote for him in a general over Trump.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

It would be a mistake for the Dems to nominate him. 

I would vote for him in a general over Trump.

 

I dont know.. Its still very early and once hes better known and picks a good diverse, younger  VP running mate he could be competitive    Like Klobuchar or  Booty  and not one of the whackos.   more people are seeing his ads then watched the debate and he will be better in the next one.   Sure he made some mistakes in NYC but he also taxed the rich, turned a big deficit into a big surplus, and stopped alot of violent crime.  You would be surprised how  many African Americans who lived in those neighborhoods were happy to put up with a little stop and frisk of young punks in order to make it safe for them to go grocery shopping. Chicago is the opposite. I think old white male politicians who lived in the suburbs are more outraged than  the people being affected.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, dacapo said:

not really...he has (in the past) surrounded himself with knowledgeable people....his camp said that he went through 3-4 mock debates with his people giving him what they thought would be the heavy questions...apparently they didn;t or he dropped the ball on the answers....

Can you imagine being on his payroll and asking him about all the NDAs he has out there :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he was banking on his prior years taxes being out there already along with his foundations.  He thought that would be enough for now, but that was a miscalculation.  IMHO, I don't think he should be called to the mat until after he is the nominee.  He is one of the most giving dudes on the planet and is basically running to fuck trump rather than to change shit.  I don't think he was ready for Warren to jump all over him and frankly,, It looked like his view of his fellow frontrunners changed drastically.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Cristoforo said:

I dont know.. Its still very early and once hes better known and picks a good diverse, younger  VP running mate he could be competitive    Like Klobuchar or  Booty  and not one of the whackos.   more people are seeing his ads then watched the debate and he will be better in the next one.   Sure he made some mistakes in NYC but he also taxed the rich, turned a big deficit into a big surplus, and stopped alot of violent crime.  You would be surprised how  many African Americans who lived in those neighborhoods were happy to put up with a little stop and frisk of young punks in order to make it safe for them to go grocery shopping. Chicago is the opposite. I think old white male politicians who lived in the suburbs are more outraged than  the people being affected.    

You are right, I would be surprised if you found anything more than a tiny minority of people from those neighborhoods who were happy to put up with stop and frisk. It was a horrible, racist, dehumanizing policy. There was no excuse for it, and it did not make anyone safer. The only thing it did was dehumanize people based on their skin color. I know plenty of people victimized by this policy and not one of them was happy to put up with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cristoforo said:

By this you probably mean Warren was a raving unhinged lunatic who misrepresented and lied about the other candidates health care proposals (Booty and Kloby) and spewed undocumented and  formerly debunked rumors (as confirmed by various independent fact checker groups this morning) of Bloomberg quotes from a gag birthday gift decades ago. 

No.  I meant what I said.  As for fact checking...

"A billionaire who calls women ‘fat broads’ and ‘horse-faced lesbians’ — and no, I’m not talking about Donald Trump. I’m talking about Mayor Bloomberg." — Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.

These descriptions came from a booklet distributed in 1990 as part of Bloomberg’s 48th birthday, and were reported as words said by Bloomberg. 

...the booklet was produced by Elisabeth DeMarse, Bloomberg L.P.’s former chief marketing officer. She wrote in the introduction, "Yes, these are all actual quotes. No, nothing has been embellished or exaggerated. And yes, some things were too outrageous to include."

https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/feb/20/fact-checking-las-vegas-democratic-debate-bloomber/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The amount of hypocrisy is always amusing.

3 House Millionaire Bernie  -  'Most Vermonters have an additional summer home'... errr  NO.
Especially not a $600,000 lakefront vacation house he paid cash for.
That's good work Comrade!  

 And you dont have to google very far to see the real estate deals his wife did with her college job,

the shuttering of the Sanders Institute, etc   
 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Cristoforo said:

I dont know.. Its still very early and once hes better known and picks a good diverse, younger  VP running mate he could be competitive    

I didn't think picking a running mate before getting the nomination was done.  Did two minutes of looking, Reagan did it in '76 and got trounced by Ford (i.e., picking a VP early did not earn him the nomination; no idea if it helped or hurt). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Jules said:

No.  I meant what I said.  As for fact checking...

"A billionaire who calls women ‘fat broads’ and ‘horse-faced lesbians’ — and no, I’m not talking about Donald Trump. I’m talking about Mayor Bloomberg." — Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.

These descriptions came from a booklet distributed in 1990 as part of Bloomberg’s 48th birthday, and were reported as words said by Bloomberg. 

...the booklet was produced by Elisabeth DeMarse, Bloomberg L.P.’s former chief marketing officer. She wrote in the introduction, "Yes, these are all actual quotes. No, nothing has been embellished or exaggerated. And yes, some things were too outrageous to include."

https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/feb/20/fact-checking-las-vegas-democratic-debate-bloomber/

Yes. And there are other former employees who say it was gag gift with fabricated and embellished quotes for the sake of roast humor . He admitted he made some bad jokes. Even if they are accurate, did he grab any pussies?  Rawdog any pornstars? Is he a serial philanderer?  That is the fake equivalence to Trump that your Top Form Warren was clearly and unequivocally trying to establish.    Should it be disqualifying?  Did JFK ever joke about women?  Have you in your entire history  been in the company of respected friends or acquaintances who made similar  off color regrettable jokes at one point or another?  Have you disowned them?         

Keep turning left 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cal20sailor said:

I didn't think picking a running mate before getting the nomination was done.  Did two minutes of looking, Reagan did it in '76 and got trounced by Ford. 

I meant should he be the nominee and his challenge to Trump. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Can you imagine being on his payroll and asking him about all the NDAs he has out there :o

Serious question - do you think that he's a lecherous predator, or do you think its possible that those were the end result of the best way to deal w/scurrilous claims outside of open litigation?   I haven't seen anything that indicates the former, and as someone as busy as he is, and with much to lose should even a rumor of impropriety surface?   I can see settling and requiring an NDA as the best way for the aggrieved to get the payday they sought, and for his company to avoid the hassles and damage control that would be associated with any litigation.  

Your thoughts? 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cristoforo said:

Yes. And there are other former employees who say it was gag gift with fabricated and embellished quotes for the sake of roast humor . He admitted he made some bad jokes. Even if they are accurate, did he grab any pussies?  Rawdog any pornstars? Is he a serial philanderer?     

Setting the bar kinda low, aren't you?

5 minutes ago, Cristoforo said:

That is the fake equivalence to Trump that your Top Form Warren was clearly and unequivocally trying to establish.    Should it be disqualifying?  Did JFK ever joke about women?  Have you in your entire history  been in the company of respected friends or acquaintances who made similar  off color regrettable jokes at one point or another?  Have you disowned them?         

I get it.  You hate Warren.   All I said was she had the best night out of the bunch.  No need to get worked up about it.

As far as past indiscretions, running for president means every skeleton in your closet will be dragged out and harped on relentlessly.  Anyone who runs needs to be ready for that.  While I don't agree with that, it is still fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Serious question - do you think that he's a lecherous predator, or do you think its possible that those were the end result of the best way to deal w/scurrilous claims outside of open litigation?   I haven't seen anything that indicates the former, and as someone as busy as he is, and with much to lose should even a rumor of impropriety surface?   I can see settling and requiring an NDA as the best way for the aggrieved to get the payday they sought, and for his company to avoid the hassles and damage control that would be associated with any litigation.  

Your thoughts? 

 

I have no idea. I was just imaging him being my boss and pretending to be Elizabeth Warren and laying into him for being a perverted rich sex maniac hiding behind NDAs and still having a job the next day.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, shaggy said:

I think he was banking on his prior years taxes being out there already along with his foundations.  He thought that would be enough for now, but that was a miscalculation.  IMHO, I don't think he should be called to the mat until after he is the nominee.  He is one of the most giving dudes on the planet and is basically running to fuck trump rather than to change shit.  I don't think he was ready for Warren to jump all over him and frankly,, It looked like his view of his fellow frontrunners changed drastically.  

I think you're partially right - and this motivation is lacking in anyone that I'd want to support in the WH.   He *does* want to change things, though - he's got a personal legislative agenda. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I’ve missed you giving a fuck about the Presidents taxes, when did you start?

With Romney, actually, prior to 2016. Your ignorance of it doesn't mean it did not happen, just means you like to trumpet your ignorance.

 

2 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
2 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Again, you didn’t say he should release them, and December 2016 is a little late. 

I haven't said Bloomberg should release his taxes either, but as with Trump, that would be the unambiguous implication any reader would draw.

Ignorant people, on the other hand, will just make shit up, right akaGP?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Cristoforo said:

The amount of hypocrisy is always amusing.

3 House Millionaire Bernie  -  'Most Vermonters have an additional summer home'... errr  NO.
Especially not a $600,000 lakefront vacation house he paid cash for.

Bernie Sanders has made $1.75 million in book royalties since 2016 — but he's still one of the least wealthy US senators.

He earns a yearly salary of $174,000 as a senator, and his total reported assets were less than $750,000 in 2015. But in both 2016 and 2017, Sanders earned more than $1 million, primarily because of royalties from his books, financial-disclosure documents show.


So before writing the book, he was worth a measly $750K for almost 50 years working.  Not very impressive.  And then there's this...


In 2015, the most recent year for which Quartz could access this information, the median member of the US Congress was worth at least $1.1 million. That is more than 12 times greater than the net wealth of the median US household. And that doesn’t tell the whole story, since the chambers of congress are not equal in wealth terms. The median net worth of a senator was $3.2 million, versus $900,000 for members of the House of Representatives.

These are conservative estimates.

https://qz.com/1190595/the-typical-us-congress-member-is-12-times-richer-than-the-typical-american-household/

 

I'd say Bernie is an underachiever when it comes to amassing wealth.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jules said:

I'd say Bernie is an underachiever when it comes to amassing wealth.

or it's in his wife's name.......but to your point....a yuuuge underachiever 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it’s important to note that.

1) At worst Bloomberg personally is only accused to making off color jokes or disparaging comments about women.

2) Unlike the Foxy News situation no woman has alleged sexual assault nor have they come forth asking to be let out of their NDA’s.

This is a big nothing berderger and is but a hiccup in Bloomies march to the nomination.  Though I’ll vote for any in the field versus Trump in the General, I’m casting my vote in the primary for Mike.  He’ll get it done.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Fakenews said:

I think it’s important to note that.

1) At worst Bloomberg personally is only accused to making off color jokes or disparaging comments about women.

2) Unlike the Foxy News situation no woman has alleged sexual assault nor have they come forth asking to be let out of their NDA’s.

This is a big nothing berderger and is but a hiccup in Bloomies march to the nomination.  Though I’ll vote for any in the field versus Trump in the General, I’m casting my vote in the primary for Mike.  He’ll get it done.

The original quotes can be read here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/the-portable-bloomberg-the-wit-wisdom-of-michael-bloomberg/ba5281b4-886d-42dc-a28d-e67eceb60719/

I actually warmed to him a bit while reading it. He sounds like a fun person to work with. It easy to see how he could put together a successful company. Equally, I can see how he might occasionally need to give a girl some money to go away.

One of the disadvantages of being rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Fakenews said:

I think he said he’d do it in 3 weeks. What’s the big deal.  It’s not like he had a heart attack said he’d release his full medical records and then didn’t.

whataboutism is bad innit? sometimes it gets so confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Serious question - do you think that he's a lecherous predator, or do you think its possible that those were the end result of the best way to deal w/scurrilous claims outside of open litigation?   I haven't seen anything that indicates the former, and as someone as busy as he is, and with much to lose should even a rumor of impropriety surface?   I can see settling and requiring an NDA as the best way for the aggrieved to get the payday they sought, and for his company to avoid the hassles and damage control that would be associated with any litigation.  

Your thoughts? 

 

my thoughts. You're one of those men that keeps sexual harassment in the workplace alive and well .

You KNOW that it was the aggrieved  that sought hush money rather than being offered hush money or financial destruction in the courts exactly how?

What you just said is .

1) Blackmail is good and effective.

2) You haven't seen Bloomberg harass anyone and he doesn't look like a sexual predator or someone that would discriminate  so the women must be lying for profit.

3) Big companies are victims of lying women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, shaggy said:

I think he was banking on his prior years taxes being out there already along with his foundations.  He thought that would be enough for now, but that was a miscalculation.  IMHO, I don't think he should be called to the mat until after he is the nominee.  He is one of the most giving dudes on the planet and is basically running to fuck trump rather than to change shit.  I don't think he was ready for Warren to jump all over him and frankly,, It looked like his view of his fellow frontrunners changed drastically.  

Do you mean he's willing to fuck up the Dem primaries simply to get some shots in at trump? 

That he has no real interest in the country and what ails it?

Lovely

Just what you need right now,

Another entitled old man using the country as a mirror and a punching bag to "Get" his enemies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

my thoughts. You're one of those men that keeps sexual harassment in the workplace alive and well .

You KNOW that it was the aggrieved  that sought hush money rather than being offered hush money or financial destruction in the courts exactly how?

What you just said is .

1) Blackmail is good and effective.

2) You haven't seen Bloomberg harass anyone and he doesn't look like a sexual predator or someone that would discriminate  so the women must be lying for profit.

3) Big companies are victims of lying women.

Mostly women are harassed by penniless losers.

It is never a good situation to be harassed or discriminated against, but in some situations the perpetrator can be persuaded to pay money in exchange for alleviating some of the consequences.

I am fine with this. If you are rich, or have things to protect, you need to be on your best behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're forgetting something. In perpetuating this idea your forgetting those women that complain loudly..and want to complain loudly and public ally..and are offered the easiest and cheapest alternative first:

.hush money.

The alternative if you refuse this easy out? Well..it ranges from financial ruin to death.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Battlecheese said:

Mostly women are harassed by penniless losers.

It is never a good situation to be harassed or discriminated against, but in some situations the perpetrator can be persuaded to pay money in exchange for alleviating some of the consequences.

I am fine with this. If you are rich, or have things to protect, you need to be on your best behaviour.

this place never fails to shock me

do you have a daughter?

would you let her work for a rich man to whom you issue a license to grope because he is not a penniless loser?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, dylan winter said:

this place never fails to shock me

do you have a daughter?

would you let her work for a rich man to whom you issue a license to grope because he is not a penniless loser?

They don't have a license to do anything. I carefully avoided any phrasing which could have been twisted to sound like they were lucky if the perpetrator was rich.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Battlecheese said:

Mostly women are harassed by penniless losers.

It is never a good situation to be harassed or discriminated against, but in some situations the perpetrator can be persuaded to pay money in exchange for alleviating some of the consequences.

I am fine with this. If you are rich, or have things to protect, you need to be on your best behaviour.

To clarify for those who seem confused: I am fine with rich people paying through the nose if they misbehave. It's a pity most people who do this are not rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dylan winter said:

this place never fails to shock me

do you have a daughter?

would you let her work for a rich man to whom you issue a license to grope because he is not a penniless loser?

someone gets it.

There seems to be a cultural glitch.

Probably because the USA has a culture of paying off criminal acts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Battlecheese said:

To clarify for those who seem confused: I am fine with rich people paying through the nose if they misbehave. It's a pity most people who do this are not rich.

No No No and NO.

ALL People who misbehave belong in Gaol and or on a sex offenders register.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

he doesn't look like a sexual predator or someone that would discriminate

How do such people look anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

How do such people look anyway?

18 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Serious question - do you think that he's a lecherous predator, or do you think its possible that those were the end result of the best way to deal w/scurrilous claims outside of open litigation?   I haven't seen anything that indicates the former, and as someone as busy as he is, and with much to lose should even a rumor of impropriety surface?   I can see settling and requiring an NDA as the best way for the aggrieved to get the payday they sought, and for his company to avoid the hassles and damage control that would be associated with any litigation.  

Your thoughts? 

 

6 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

my thoughts. You're one of those men that keeps sexual harassment in the workplace alive and well .

You KNOW that it was the aggrieved  that sought hush money rather than being offered hush money or financial destruction in the courts exactly how?

What you just said is .

1) Blackmail is good and effective.

2) You haven't seen Bloomberg harass anyone and he doesn't look like a sexual predator or someone that would discriminate  so the women must be lying for profit.

3) Big companies are victims of lying women.

 

3 minutes ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

How do such people look anyway?

Ask AGITC..i

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Ask AGITC..i

Well, OK. Hey Guy, how do you believe Meli thinks that people who are sexual predators look?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

No No No and NO.

ALL People who misbehave belong in Gaol and or on a sex offenders register.

This is simply rubbish. What is it to "misbehave"? It would need to be pretty fucking bad workplace harassment to get you on the sex offenders register.

There was nothing criminal about the two payoffs His Orangeness has been getting so much attention for. (other than the whole campaign contribution angle ofc).

You gripe about long painful legal battles - this is a fair complaint. It's caused because generally there is no evidence. It all turns into a silly he-said-she-said mess which is only ever won by the lawyers.

Witness this current Weinstein case. I don't know whether he will end up skating or not, but it wouldn't surprise me given the testimony against him. The guy is famous for being a creep for decades, and the best lawyers in the country have been unable to locate any actual evidence.

I do not at all endorse any sort of covering up a crime by paying people off.

But when  you just don't have any evidence, I don't blame the affronted party for taking the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

my thoughts. You're one of those men that keeps sexual harassment in the workplace alive and well .

You KNOW that it was the aggrieved  that sought hush money rather than being offered hush money or financial destruction in the courts exactly how?

What you just said is .

1) Blackmail is good and effective.

2) You haven't seen Bloomberg harass anyone and he doesn't look like a sexual predator or someone that would discriminate  so the women must be lying for profit.

3) Big companies are victims of lying women.

 I never said that I know anything - I was asking if anyone was aware of evidence that supported one of two plausible scenarios.

I DO know that there are people who take offense where none was intended, and then selfishly use that instance to elevate their personal circumstances.  I also DO know that there are people in positions of authority and influence who abuse that for their own selfish personal gratification.   Admitting that one exists while pretending the other doesn't is nothing more than an attempt to push a personal agenda.   If you can't accept that either COULD be, and be willing to ask questions to see which is the case before deciding to castigate someone, then you oughta just STFU. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Battlecheese said:

To clarify for those who seem confused: I am fine with rich people paying through the nose if they misbehave. It's a pity most people who do this are not rich.

I disagree. Say I have a billion dollars in the bank. I can commit numerous felony sexual assaults, pay them out with an NDA, and do things that would get a normal person multiple life sentences forever for a fee. That is incredibly wrong. Would you extend that to murder? $1,000,000 per body maybe?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dylan winter said:

this place never fails to shock me

do you have a daughter?

would you let her work for a rich man to whom you issue a license to grope because he is not a penniless loser?

We are WAY ahead of facts here. We collectively have no idea if these NDAs involve Bloomberg physically touching anyone or even if it was related to him or a subordinate AFAIK.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Any person with Male genitalia.  

And there you have it folks. Same as it ever was. A woman puts her POV and the elk call her a man hater.

Shame on you .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shortforbob said:

And there you have it folks. Same as it ever was. A woman puts her POV and the elk call her a man hater.

Shame on you .

 

Fuck off Meli - you made a baseless scurrilous accusation in your prior response, and with that, any consideration for a polite reply to you went out the window.   You want to be treated decently?  Then behave decently.  You want to make BS assertions?  Then expect to be treated accordingly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Fakenews said:

I think it’s important to note that.

1) At worst Bloomberg personally is only accused to making off color jokes or disparaging comments about women.

2) Unlike the Foxy News situation no woman has alleged sexual assault nor have they come forth asking to be let out of their NDA’s.

This is a big nothing berderger and is but a hiccup in Bloomies march to the nomination.  Though I’ll vote for any in the field versus Trump in the General, I’m casting my vote in the primary for Mike.  He’ll get it done.

I was open to Bloomberg before the debate.  But he came across so rattled at times.  If the Dems and media staff can rattle him that much, imagine what Trump will do to him. 

What I saw was a guy who isn't used to being questioned or called out on the carpet.  Trump would have a field day with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Fuck off Meli - you made a baseless scurrilous accusation in your prior response, and with that, any consideration for a polite reply to you went out the window.   You want to be treated decently?  Then behave decently.  You want to make BS assertions?  Then expect to be treated accordingly. 

Snowflake 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Do you mean he's willing to fuck up the Dem primaries simply to get some shots in at trump? 

That he has no real interest in the country and what ails it?

Lovely

Just what you need right now,

Another entitled old man using the country as a mirror and a punching bag to "Get" his enemies.

Well sort of.  He wants to win, and he wants to fix what ails this place, but...  He is being realistic...  His main goal is to beat trump, hot implement a new hca, not blow up immigration, not get out of Afghanistan, Just beat trump.   Which IMHO might be the best way to go about this whole shit show.  We will see...  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jules said:

I was open to Bloomberg before the debate.  But he came across so rattled at times. 

i think we all need to see him in round 2 of the debates....remember these others have their knives sharpened over 5-6 other debates. They all vetted their ugly parts in the first 2 debates...I never saw MB as rattled.  he took every punch to the face like Rocky....it's how he rebounds next 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that his team did not prepare him properly for that debate (and that he has done just fine in previous debates in NY) tells me that he, like the majority of the super rich, has been surrounded by yes men for long enough to have lost his skills.  Ring rust is real, but only if you don't have great sparring partners in fight camp.   Bloomberg may not be able to explain away the fact that he is an oligarch, but he will undoubtedly come to fight next time.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He'll come out swinging like a fighter behind on points but that's a LOT of rust to remove before next Tuesday and then the following Tuesday is Super Tuesday. He doesn't have to look viable. He has to win. I think Bloomberg's only chance at this point is a brokered convention and it would be a thin chance there. RCH thin.

My preferences are Warren, Bernie, Buttigieg + Klobuchar followed by Bloomberg+Biden. I don't see Bloomberg or Biden making the ticket. But I'll vote for anyone in the general who's name isn't Shitstain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

The fact that his team did not prepare him properly for that debate (and that he has done just fine in previous debates in NY) tells me that he, like the majority of the super rich, has been surrounded by yes men for long enough to have lost his skills.  Ring rust is real, but only if you don't have great sparring partners in fight camp.   Bloomberg may not be able to explain away the fact that he is an oligarch, but he will undoubtedly come to fight next time.

The fact he's an oligarch may be an obstacle that he won't be able to overcome.  There were a few boos from the crowd during the debate that indicated so.  America isn't as enamored with the rich as they once were.

For a guy with so much money and such deep resources, and a guy who has at least some political experience, I was really surprised how often he seemed unable to respond.  It came across like he either didn't want to perpetuate the issue or was unprepared to do so. 

Super Tuesday should provide some answers as to his future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Jules said:

The fact he's an oligarch may be an obstacle that he won't be able to overcome.  There were a few boos from the crowd during the debate that indicated so.  America isn't as enamored with the rich as they once were.

For a guy with so much money and such deep resources, and a guy who has at least some political experience, I was really surprised how often he seemed unable to respond.  It came across like he either didn't want to perpetuate the issue or was unprepared to do so. 

Super Tuesday should provide some answers as to his future.

It wasn't a debate. It was an unregulated made for tv event circular fire drill with constantly interrupting carnival barking clowns.  But that's what it takes nowadays  He was probably expecting a more reserved and controlled atmosphere where the loudest of 6 shriek-ers does not automatically get control of the microphone.  Like a 2 person non screaming debate where he would do well (if he ever got that far).  He could do very well against Trump in that setting where  one would be more forced to discuss policy and facts in a normal speaking voice        

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2020 at 6:05 AM, shaggy said:

I think he was banking on his prior years taxes being out there already along with his foundations.  He thought that would be enough for now, but that was a miscalculation.  IMHO, I don't think he should be called to the mat until after he is the nominee.  He is one of the most giving dudes on the planet and is basically running to fuck trump rather than to change shit.  I don't think he was ready for Warren to jump all over him and frankly,, It looked like his view of his fellow frontrunners changed drastically.   

Isn't it a little late to vet the candidate by the time we nominate him? That makes no sense.

Bloomberg is a terrible choice, handing him the nomination THEN figuring out what a poor choice he really is would be a huge mistake.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2020 at 6:39 AM, kent_island_sailor said:
On 2/21/2020 at 6:32 AM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Serious question - do you think that he's a lecherous predator, or do you think its possible that those were the end result of the best way to deal w/scurrilous claims outside of open litigation?   I haven't seen anything that indicates the former, and as someone as busy as he is, and with much to lose should even a rumor of impropriety surface?   I can see settling and requiring an NDA as the best way for the aggrieved to get the payday they sought, and for his company to avoid the hassles and damage control that would be associated with any litigation.  

Your thoughts? 

 

I have no idea. I was just imaging him being my boss and pretending to be Elizabeth Warren and laying into him for being a perverted rich sex maniac hiding behind NDAs and still having a job the next day.

The best way to deal with claims is to maybe not be a misogynistic asshole that supports an environment hostile to women with his own words and actions in the workplace at his own company.

Lawsuits and NDA are closing the barn door after the horse is out. Better not to be a sexist twat in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Fakenews said:

I think it’s important to note that.

1) At worst Bloomberg personally is only accused to making off color jokes or disparaging comments about women. How do you know this? Have you seen the NDAs and talked to the women who signed them? This whole point is bullshit and there is no evidence to support it.

2) Unlike the Foxy News situation no woman has alleged sexual assault nor have they come forth asking to be let out of their NDA’s. Again, how do you know this. Please cite.

This is a big nothing berderger and is but a hiccup in Bloomies march to the nomination.  Though I’ll vote for any in the field versus Trump in the General, I’m casting my vote in the primary for Mike.  He’ll get it done.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shortforbob said:
6 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Any person with Male genitalia.  

And there you have it folks. Same as it ever was. A woman puts her POV and the elk call her a man hater.

Shame on you .

Misogyny runs deep.

If you want to keep count, check the people tone-policing Liz Warren while Bernie screams himself red in the face and they ignore it.

A great many many simply don't recognize what it is, but they are the ones who are always asking what a woman was wearing or shit like then when someone complains she was harassed or attacked.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Fuck off Meli - you made a baseless scurrilous accusation in your prior response, and with that, any consideration for a polite reply to you went out the window.   You want to be treated decently?  Then behave decently.  You want to make BS assertions?  Then expect to be treated accordingly. 

Decently? You write things on the tired old theme of women using baseless accusations to enrich themselves, I call you out and you tell me to behave decently?

Fuck off.

You just cant see that people like you are are the ones that uphold the whole misogynist crap pile.

Jesus Christ, I think you are actually a little bit younger than I. One would think that you'd have been exposed to the machinery behind the whole sexual assault "game" for longer than I and yet what you type could have come off the pages of a Mad Men script.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cristoforo said:

 He could do very well against Trump in that setting where  one would be more forced to discuss policy and facts in a normal speaking voice        

Are we talking about the same people here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2020 at 11:43 AM, dacapo said:

not really...he has (in the past) surrounded himself with knowledgeable people....his camp said that he went through 3-4 mock debates with his people giving him what they thought would be the heavy questions...apparently they didn;t or he dropped the ball on the answers....

More likely they asked the questions, he gave whatever answers and in the fashion he is used to, they all told him how wonderful his answers were. He is just not used to dealing with people who stand up to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bloom or t-RUMP or any others tax return data

 

total earned

total deductions

total credits

total tax paid

 

no need for the 32000 pages

 

divide total earned by total tax paid

and see it is a very low % like r-money's 13%

likely below joe workers 25% [10% income tax and 15% SS real total [yes it is 7.x% plus the employers 7.x =15%]

that is why they the 1% do not want to show how little they actually pay in income taxes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2020 at 6:31 AM, Jules said:

Bloomberg was stymied a lot last night.  I really expected him to be better prepared but he got his hat handed to him.  And the tax thing was far from being the worst hit he took. 

He came across like he just expected people to step aside and crown him king.  I don't think he's ever been challenged like this before.  He got more groans and boos than I can recall in any recent debate.  I expect, especially for those who watched the debate, Bloomberg's poll numbers to drop.

New York isn’t exactly muted when she criticizes her politicians-

https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2019/11/25/bloombergs-presidential-run-met-with-a-groan-on-new-yorks-left-1229483

my take on Bloomberg was that he figured he was damned if he did or damned if he didn’t, so he didn’t.  The infotainment industry can not tolerate this from it’s talent, on contract or not, so officially :lol: he lost. From this POV, Warren and Klobuchar delivered.  There are other POV’s.  It’s a choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites