Sign in to follow this  
B.J. Porter

Warren's Flaying of Bloomberg leaves Roose Bolton Jealous

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Amati said:

Bernie strikes me as using the blessings of repetition of the latter to hit us over the head long and loudly enough to win our hearts and minds

He's up against big money.  He has no choice but to speak loudly and often.  He uses repetition as a tool against their endless funds, with which they sway the American minds. 

The man has fought for the little guy all his life.  The little guy has been forgotten by both parties.  The parties are owned by big money.  I'm glad there's someone with a big voice speaking out against that.

Share this post


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

You're making the point - it's not that Liz Warren makes obscenely more than any other Prof - it's that her salary AS a Prof is so much greater than any that the folks she wants to support her will ever see - and that given that, hearing her talk about college costs while drawing that kind of salary isnt going to make those people feel that she has any understanding or connection to them. 

Again, this isnt an affront, nor is it an attack, it's an attempt to help you understand a perspective that you seem loathe to accept. 

This is one of those times when you decide I am a prick - why? Because I don't do circular arguments. You posted this

Quote

She was making 5X what any of the folks in question ever will teaching at a University - it seems a bit disconnected for her to tell them what she's planning to reduce college costs when she was drawing a salary FROM her efforts at a University that those folks will never see. 

So I posted what those schools were paying on average.  So then the goal posts move yet again.  Not posting more graphs but the average for ALL professors is about $153k, on the very low end it's 40K. It's like you can't speak out on climate change if you are wealthy. Now if Liz was still knocking down those bucks you might have a point (besides the fact that college costs have risen faster than healthcare which have both risen faster than wages by a huge margin).  Who better to work towards making college affordable than someone with experience? In summary I prefer to address one point at a time me being a prick and all.

So I dunno, I get your point(s) but don't have the energy to follow them around. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, d'ranger said:
9 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

You're making the point - it's not that Liz Warren makes obscenely more than any other Prof - it's that her salary AS a Prof is so much greater than any that the folks she wants to support her will ever see - and that given that, hearing her talk about college costs while drawing that kind of salary isnt going to make those people feel that she has any understanding or connection to them. 

Again, this isnt an affront, nor is it an attack, it's an attempt to help you understand a perspective that you seem loathe to accept. 

This is one of those times when you decide I am a prick - why? Because I don't do circular arguments. You posted this

Quote

She was making 5X what any of the folks in question ever will teaching at a University - it seems a bit disconnected for her to tell them what she's planning to reduce college costs when she was drawing a salary FROM her efforts at a University that those folks will never see. 

So I posted what those schools were paying on average.  So then the goal posts move yet again.  Not posting more graphs but the average for ALL professors is about $153k, on the very low end it's 40K. It's like you can't speak out on climate change if you are wealthy. Now if Liz was still knocking down those bucks you might have a point (besides the fact that college costs have risen faster than healthcare which have both risen faster than wages by a huge margin).  Who better to work towards making college affordable than someone with experience? In summary I prefer to address one point at a time me being a prick and all.

So I dunno, I get your point(s) but don't have the energy to follow them around. 

I would think that the Trumpublicans would be very proud to support somebody making an outrageously large salary, especially if they don't deserve it. Isn't that the pinnacle of abuse of capitalism?

It also follows the pattern: think for a moment, who else has been claimed to have been paid a disproportionately and undeserved huge amount of money? With political connections? And in yet one more eerie similarity, the amount of money paid to this individual varies depending on the day/source.

It's like they're just making shit up!

Oh wait.....

- DSK

Share this post


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

I would think that the Trumpublicans would be very proud to support somebody making an outrageously large salary, especially if they don't deserve it. Isn't that the pinnacle of abuse of capitalism?

It also follows the pattern: think for a moment, who else has been claimed to have been paid a disproportionately and undeserved huge amount of money? With political connections? And in yet one more eerie similarity, the amount of money paid to this individual varies depending on the day/source.

It's like they're just making shit up!

Oh wait.....

- DSK

 

I am a southern gentleman (adopted by some).  I taught my son and my daughter, don't ruin a good story with facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought I would just add this started with the claim that Warren was making over $400k/year, was an elitist Harvard professor and every time I posted the goal posts moved. 

It never ends.

Share this post


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

I would think that the Trumpublicans would be very proud to support somebody making an outrageously large salary, especially if they don't deserve it. Isn't that the pinnacle of abuse of capitalism?

It also follows the pattern: think for a moment, who else has been claimed to have been paid a disproportionately and undeserved huge amount of money? With political connections? And in yet one more eerie similarity, the amount of money paid to this individual varies depending on the day/source.

It's like they're just making shit up!

Oh wait.....

- DSK

What's made up in either perspective? D's right in what he says - and so am I.  Liz Warren's salary isnt outta sight in comparison to comparable positions in other places. I'm correct in my observation that the rust belt voters she's reaching out to will see her as an ivy-league Elite who benefitted from the high cost of college.  This isnt a denigration of anyone, its not justifying that someone should or shouldn't support anyone- its merely pointing out a perceptual obstacle to obtaining that support.  Of course, you will dismiss all this as manufactured right wing hatefulness, and that attitude, my friend, is how the folks who act like you impede others consideration of your perspective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, Shitstain is an East Coast Ivy elite who benefited directly from his for profit Shitstain U. But that's OK with Guy.

Share this post


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

What's made up in either perspective? D's right in what he says - and so am I.  Liz Warren's salary isnt outta sight in comparison to comparable positions in other places. I'm correct in my observation that the rust belt voters she's reaching out to will see her as an ivy-league Elite who benefitted from the high cost of college.  This isnt a denigration of anyone, its not justifying that someone should or shouldn't support anyone- its merely pointing out a perceptual obstacle to obtaining that support.  Of course, you will dismiss all this as manufactured right wing hatefulness, and that attitude, my friend, is how the folks who act like you impede others consideration of your perspective. 

No, you aren’t correct in this as matter of fact. You are correct in matter of belief. It’s your belief, just like you believe “city folk” don’t get “rural folk”. And it very, very, very much is rightwing hatefulness that being a Harvard elite only matters if you are a Democrat; Republicans can be rich Harvard educated “men of the people” like the fraud Tom Cotton.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not going to find it to link but MSNBC has an interview with Warren re the discussion she had with Bloomberg during the commercial break, interesting how they can put politics aside when not on camera. She does end with the fact that Mike has dumped $6 million into Oklahoma and $400 million over all and is willing to double that.

She then segues into the candidates who dropped out for lack of funding and listed some of their great ideas, how she asked if she could incorporate those into her campaign while giving them credit.  Her bottom line is do we want to trade one arrogant billionaire for another? I don't although I would vote for Mike over Donald, the lesser of two weevils.  Unlimited monies in politics results in those with the gold make the rules. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

He's up against big money.  He has no choice but to speak loudly and often. 

Not sure why? He's beating "Undecided" pretty decisively and "Undecided" is absolutely clobbering Steyer.

I'm not sure what "Undecided" has in the way of a remaining campaign war chest, but I suspect it's where it started. Zero.

Share this post


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

2010 and 2011 Pocahontas and husband had $950,000 income each year. Not bad! 

I loved it when Bloomberg claimed he earned his billions and Sanders shot back that perhaps his workers contributed to those "earnings"

Why the fuck are you talking about Warrens salary at a time when she had no workers to earn it for her?  She took the salary offered to her for her skills and her skills alone. She earned in in your job market.

Next?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Social media platform Twitter said on Friday it was suspending 70 accounts of supporters of billionaire Democrat presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg's for "spam-like" behavior.

The suspension came days after the Wall Street Journal revealed that Bloomberg had hired 500 people to regularly post messages on social media supporting him.

https://www.dw.com/en/twitter-suspends-bloomberg-supporters-for-spam-ahead-of-nevada-caucus/a-52474962

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

warren a distant 4th in nevada....with sanders looking strong....

 

trump is laughing......the only 2 candidates trump is worried about are biden and bloomberg

Share this post


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

warren a distant 4th in nevada....with sanders looking strong....

 

trump is laughing......the only 2 candidates trump is worried about are biden and bloomberg

with 3% counted.

Anyway. Ever heard the expression "better to die on your feet than live on your knees" ?

A Trump win in 2020 may have it's advantages in the longer term. Rotten meat eventually becomes fertiliser , half rotten meat just stinks.

(that's of course if he doesn't blow us all to dust)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4m ago10:49

The Nevada Democratic party has finally begun releasing official results, and Bernie Sanders has an early lead.

With 28 precincts reporting, Sanders had racked up 22 county delegates. Elizabeth Warren was in second place, with 14, followed by Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg with 13 apiece.

:D

Share this post


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

4m ago10:49

 Elizabeth Warren was in second place

no way she finishes #2....she's fighting with tom steyer, amy, and mayor pete for the crumbs after bernie has a huge win, followed by the idiot biden....her debate performance added nothing to her finish in nevada....she's done come super tuesday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question?

Why isn't Bloomberg listed as a caucus candidate?

      Votes
Candidate   Delegates Share Count
  54.1% 477
  17.5% 154
  9.5% 84
  9.1% 80
  6.8% 60
  3% 26
  0% 0
  0% 0
  0% 0
  0% 0
  0% 0
 
Uncommitted
  0% 0
 
 
 

Share this post


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

A question?

Why isn't Bloomberg listed as a caucus candidate?

      Votes
Candidate   Delegates Share Count
  54.1% 477
  17.5% 154
  9.5% 84
  9.1% 80
  6.8% 60
  3% 26
  0% 0
  0% 0
  0% 0
  0% 0
  0% 0
 
Uncommitted
  0% 0
 
 
 

he didn't submit the necessary support docs in time...he will be on most of the super tuesday ballots

Share this post


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

A question?

Why isn't Bloomberg listed as a caucus candidate?

       
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
 
 

 

He skipped Nevada and SC.

His first ballots are on Super Tuesday.

 

Share this post


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

 

He skipped Nevada and SC.

His first ballots are on Super Tuesday.

 

OK. so how come he got a seat in the debate? 

Did he buy one?

Share this post


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

OK. so how come he got a seat in the debate? 

Did he buy one?

essentially he bought it...he bought so much advertising...hundreds of millions, that he polled high enough to get a seat

Share this post


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

essentially he bought it

HE CERTAINLY DID ! :d

Share this post


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

HE CERTAINLY DID ! :d

well all elections are bought....either by wealthy people like bloomberg, or corporate money flowing into PACs....not a whole lot of difference is there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hugh Janus said:

well all elections are bought....either by wealthy people like bloomberg, or corporate money flowing into PACs....not a whole lot of difference is there?

That may change this cycle.

Next who knows? 

The money poured into your elections is a positive disgrace.

I suppose Bloomberg's depending on the Super Delegates to get him in.

I think he better retire now. His performance on that debate was pathetic.

Share this post


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

The money poured into your elections is a positive disgrace.

I think he better retire now. His performance on that debate was pathetic.

do some reading on "citizens united" if you want to know how campaign financing got so screwed up...

 

bloomberg is not retiring until april at the earliest....all depending on his showing in the upcoming primaries....his awful debate performance may not play much of a role

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Hugh Janus said:

well all elections are bought....either by wealthy people like bloomberg, or corporate money flowing into PACs....not a whole lot of difference is there?

 

18 minutes ago, Hugh Janus said:

well all elections are bought....either by wealthy people like bloomberg, or corporate money flowing into PACs....not a whole lot of difference is there?

Or Washington’s, Jeffersons, Rooselvelts(s), Kennedy’s, Bushes, etc 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a chance that warren gets over 10 percent in nevada....which she would consider a win, considering that she has been hovering at med-high single digits recently

Share this post


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

OK. so how come he got a seat in the debate? 

Did he buy one?

Meli, How can you think of yourself as an educated commentator if you don’t even know the answer to this?

Share this post


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

 

Or Washington’s, Jeffersons, Rooselvelts(s), Kennedy’s, Bushes, etc 

citizens united changed all of that....

Share this post


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

Meli, How can you think of yourself as an educated commentator if you don’t even know the answer to this?

I don't. I'm here to ask questions.

Sanders is romping home. Big Union membership in Nevada?

Looks like the scaring the caterers union backfired.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you’d watch Warren stripping skin off CEOs and recalcitrant government officials, you’d realize that she can get under Trumps skin and provoke one of his temper tantrums we’ve heard so much about.

Its the other candidates who are lightweights on the debate stage. Fundraising is Mikes job. He should stick to that, since he’s basically the epitome of “ok Boomer”. Bidens too old. Sanders to commie. Klobuchar too normal and nice. Buttigieg too young.

Share this post


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

That may change this cycle.

Supposedly, Bloomberg had done some 'on the ground' study a year ago and realized that he really didn't have very much in common with the fine folks from Iowa and New Hampshire and Nevada.  "Caucus" states and retail politics weren't his strong suit.  So he decided to go with his true strength - money... shit tons of money.  Remember last election and talk of 'billion dollar war chests'.. yea.. he STARTS with one.

If you've ever played a holdem Tournament, he's the guy with a monster stack.  He doesn't have to play well.  He just has to not totally fuck up and he can outlast all but a few opponents.  His only real risk is that one of his opponents gains so much momentum that by the final table, there's an even stack.

 

 

Share this post


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

I don't. I'm here to ask questions.

 

Well, thats BS and very disingenuous  

tell us about your elections.   who is watching those while you spend time here, and the cries and stench of burning koalas keep you awake at night?

 

Share this post


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

Supposedly, Bloomberg had done some 'on the ground' study a year ago and realized that he really didn't have very much in common with the fine folks from Iowa and New Hampshire and Nevada.  "Caucus" states and retail politics weren't his strong suit.  So he decided to go with his true strength - money... shit tons of money.

If you've ever played a holdem Tournament, he's the guy with a monster stack.  He doesn't have to play well.  He just has to not totally fuck up and he can outlast all but a few opponents.  His only real risk is that one of his opponents gains so much momentum that by the final table, there's an even stack.

 

Or possibly the oysters have finally learned to beware of fat men and skinny sporting weskits and watch chains :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Well, thats BS and very disingenuous  

tell us about your elections.   who is watching those while you spend time here, and the cries and stench of burning koalas keep you awake at night?

You calling someone “disingenuous” is rich. Why don’t you shut up and allow other people to talk? Your constant belittling others is annoying.

Share this post


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

Well, thats BS and very disingenuous  

tell us about your elections.   who is watching those while you spend time here, and the cries and stench of burning koalas keep you awake at night?

 

You flatter me :)

Our politics are very dull, the biggest scandals we can come up with is MP's accepting $600 shooting club memberships then giving the club a grant. 

We kind of like it that way..but is is rather dull.

Share this post


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

You calling someone “disingenuous” is rich. Why don’t you shut up and allow other people to talk? Your constant belittling others is annoying.

Philly Sailor? Isn’t that an oxymoron?

did you know that koalas are not even bears? They are marsupials most closely related to wombats. Yet we have not heard one iota about burning wombats. Koalas have a very good PR department !!!

Share this post


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

Or possibly the oysters have finally learned to beware of fat men and skinny sporting weskits and watch chains :)

If you believe Yang, Bloomberg has been poaching talent from the other campaigns by paying 50% above rate and encouraging the whales to wait.. throw their money in later when it's more clear who the likely candidate is.  That's a SUPER compelling argument - no one wants to throw millions at dead campaigns.  And that also means that Bloomberg has less competition on Super Tuesday for media buys. 

It was fun but I it's going to get ugly for Buttigeig and Klobuchar.  The argument against them is they don't appeal to minorities and if they get crushed in Nevada (which it appears is going to happen), it's going to make the next week a long one.  They need momentum to keep raising money they need for their campaigns.  Both have enough money to get to Super Tuesday but they're going to be hamstrung.  Warren has kept her slugger's chance alive but that's about it.  if Bernie holds on and wins a clear majority, it's going to be very hard to derail him.   The knock against Bernie was that his support was always around 30-35% so there were 65% uncommitted... but if he starts getting over 50%, that argument becomes pretty hollow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

amy is all done if styer beats her in nevada...and how biden can claim a weak 2nd place finish is a victory is beyond me....he all done too...his campaign is a joke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

If you believe Yang, Bloomberg has been poaching talent from the other campaigns by paying 50% above rate and encouraging the whales to wait.. throw their money in later when it's more clear who the likely candidate is.  That's a SUPER compelling argument - no one wants to throw millions at dead campaigns.  And that also means that Bloomberg has less competition on Super Tuesday for media buys. 

It was fun but I it's going to get ugly for Buttigeig and Klobuchar.  The argument against them is they don't appeal to minorities and if they get crushed in Nevada (which it appears is going to happen), it's going to make the next week a long one.  They need momentum to keep raising the money they need for their campaigns.  Both have enough money to get to Super Tuesday but they're going to be hamstrung.  Warren has kept her slugger's chance alive but that's about it.  if Bernie holds on and wins a clear majority, it's going to be very hard to derail him.   The knock against Bernie was that his support was always around 30-35% so there were 65% uncommitted... but if he starts getting over 50%, that argument becomes pretty hollow.

Well, the oysters surprised everyone last time. They may well surprise you all again and vote for who they can trust the most regardless of the media frenzy. 

Never underestimate an oyster. 

Share this post


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

well all elections are bought....either by wealthy people like bloomberg, or corporate money flowing into PACs....not a whole lot of difference is there?

Why isn't Steyer competitive?

Share this post


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

Why isn't Steyer competitive?

Because no one takes him seriously.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Philly Sailor? Isn’t that an oxymoron?

did you know that koalas are not even bears? They are marsupials most closely related to wombats. Yet we have not heard one iota about burning wombats. Koalas have a very good PR department !!!

because wombats don't live in trees? They live in massive underground burrows and apparently have been seen herding other animals to safety..unsung heros.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, I'm joking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Because no one takes him seriously.

I agree, but the "money always wins" line ignores such things. And ignores the fact that Hillary out$pent Trump, one of a long line of people who have learned the hard way that money doesn't always win. Bloomberg has out$pent the NRA and lost repeatedly, as I have mentioned in the thread about his $peech. He's also vastly out$pent them and won, as he recently did in Virginia. Still wasn't enough to pass the scary weapons ban, though...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Why isn't Steyer competitive?


he's not spending enough......and not with the right people in the right places

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Hugh Janus said:


he's not spending enough......and not with the right people in the right places

 

From M$NBC

106403173-1582302709666demjancampaignfin

I can't find any numbers for how much "Undecided" has spent.

Looks like he's $pent plenty to beat the rest of the field, except Bloomberg.

The amount remaining is one of your metrics when talking about Warren. Steyer has over a quarter of a billion. Behind Bloomberg but ahead of Trump and all others.

That would seem to leave "he's doing it wrong" which suggests that it's not all about the money. Kind of my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Hugh Janus said:

citizens united changed all of that....

What do you think was the biggest change that resulted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2020 at 3:49 PM, d'ranger said:

She isn't out of money, that she isn't accepting corporate, PAC and Super Pac money means she is trailing those that do.

Update

Quote

In recent days, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar have accepted aid from super PACs, while Biden and Pete Buttigieg took their help earlier in the race.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2020 at 12:17 PM, Cristoforo said:

Meli, How can you think of yourself as an educated commentator if you don’t even know the answer to this?

She probably hasn't had the time to see if there's a Wikipedia entry on the subject. And if there isn't - no way she'd actually read any primary sources.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2020 at 12:02 PM, Olsonist said:

Of course, Shitstain is an East Coast Ivy elite who benefited directly from his for profit Shitstain U. But that's OK with Guy.

Of course.   Have you noticed that when you've got nothin' - your hatefulness compels you to make shit up? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2020 at 8:27 PM, phillysailor said:

You calling someone “disingenuous” is rich. Why don’t you shut up and allow other people to talk? Your constant belittling others is annoying.

That's funny coming from you.... 

Share this post


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

That's funny coming from you.... 

In what way? Pure invective without substance ain't my style. I don't tell people to hush up just because of where they live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this