Bloomberg'$ $peech

[jerseyguy]

Hello?

Hello?

Is anybody out there?

You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options
You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options
You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options
You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options
You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options
You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options
You've chosen to ignore content by Plenipotentiary Tom. Options

No one worth mentioning.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Bloomietown for Gun Grabbiness plans to $pend $60 million

Everytown for Gun Safety announced on Monday its plan to $pend at least $60 million in the 2020 election, which is nearly double what the National Rifle Association (NRA) spent in 2016.

Oh dear. That makes them twice as evil as the NRA doesn't it?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Hah! I guess $teyer bought the talking point that rich people can just buy elections.


Looks like he would have to $pend 40 million or so to really compete with Uncommitted, whoever that is.

Starting to think Uncommitted Tom would be a good screen name and might get a billionaire to pay me their going rate of $40k for my vote.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Looks like $teyer is still throwing good money after bad in the belief that rich people can just buy elections. Not sure where Jules got these New Hampshire results but here they are.

Another result that shows how piss poor all those polls leading into the primaries were.  They were more about hope than fact. 

Candidate - Votes - % - Delegates

Bernie Sanders 71,759 - 25.7% - 9

Pete Buttigieg 68,141 - 24.4 - 9

Amy Klobuchar 55,164 - 19.8 - 6

Elizabeth Warren 25,899 - 9.3 - 0

Joseph R. Biden Jr. 23,475 - 8.4 - 0

Tom Steyer 10,035 - 3.6 - 0

Tulsi Gabbard 9,001 - 3.2 - 0

Andrew Yang 7,880 - 2.8 - 0

 

[Jules]

Not sure where Jules got these New Hampshire results but here they are.

Then you shouldn't be quoting it to prove a point.  Do what I did.  Look it up.

 

[MR.CLEAN]

Looks like $teyer is still throwing good money after bad 

I guess that is what being a billionaire is all about

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

I thought this was interesting.. Skip to Minute 8.

Bloomberg is telling major donors to just 'sit it out' for now.

Ironic that this isn't an issue.

agree.....its the huge issue....

mike doesn't need your money to win, 

the others are almost broke......while trump has plenty of cash...

thankyou supreme court and "citizens united"

Always glad to see some fellow fans of Bloomberg'$ $peech!

 

[BeSafe]

Always glad to see some fellow fans of Bloomberg'$ $peech!

Bloomberg is welcome to spend his money.  For me, the issue is, and always has been, disclosure.

What I singled out is the fact that Bloomberg is ACTIVELY SUPPRESSING the fund raising capabilities of others in the Democratic Party and the media just seemed to shrug.. 'huh, that's interesting.. but moving on!"

I also thought it was ironic about how the poaching of talent works and the fact that the campaign supporters actively expect to get rewarded later.  That's a level of bluntness that I found refreshing.

 

[Jules]

What I singled out is the fact that Bloomberg is ACTIVELY SUPPRESSING the fund raising capabilities of others in the Democratic Party and the media just seemed to shrug.. 'huh, that's interesting.. but moving on!"

The media consists of corporations.  Corporations enjoyed a windfall with the Trump tax cut.  So did billionaires.  The corporate media is betting Bloomberg won't raise his own taxes and therefore not theirs either.  That's why the media is quiet on this.

 

[BeSafe]

The media consists of corporations.  Corporations enjoyed a windfall with the Trump tax cut.  So did billionaires.  The corporate media is betting Bloomberg won't raise his own taxes and therefore not theirs either.  That's why the media is quiet on this.

Which is at the root of my belief that the media is complicit in Donald Trump and not the deplorables - they never stood a chance.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

What I singled out is the fact that Bloomberg is ACTIVELY SUPPRESSING the fund raising capabilities of others in the Democratic Party and the media just seemed to shrug.. 'huh, that's interesting.. but moving on!"

I didn't watch the video you shared but suggesting others refrain from $pending seems like legit expression to me and not suppression at all.

As with much of Bloomberg'$ $peech, I'm not a fan of the content but will always defend his right to say stuff. Or even $ay stuff.

 

[BeSafe]

I didn't watch the video you shared but suggesting others refrain from $pending seems like legit expression to me and not suppression at all.

As with much of Bloomberg'$ $peech, I'm not a fan of the content but will always defend his right to say stuff. Or even $ay stuff.

Again, if he wants to actively suppress fund raising, that's totally his option.  But he doesn't have a 'right' to do it in secret.  If any of those folks feel like taking about it, they can and should (and Yang did!).  That's fine.

What I found curious was the response that it's a nothing-burger.  If Democrats truly don't care, then who am I to disagree?   I'm still voting my conscience, regardless of what the pollsters/pundits tell me I should do.  I just found it curious and more than a bit ironic.  As Van Jones summarized, this is exactly what happened to the Republicans in 2016.  I'm always intrigued to watch history repeat itself and how people respond, knowing the end game.  Sort of the political version of Groundhog day paying out in real time.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

What I found curious was the response that it's a nothing-burger.

It kinda is. Bloomberg made a suggestion, Yang commented.

The most amazing and disappointing thing about Bloomberg's candidacy to me is the complete lack of reaction to his continued support for the stupid drug war. That's waaaay out of step with his current party and even the electorate at large, according to pollsters. Seems to be a complete nothingberder though. Go figure.

 

[badlatitude]

I wonder what pissed off Clint Eastwood to drop Trump for Michael Bloomberg?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

I didn't watch the debate, but apparently Bloomberg was bragging about his $peech.
 

"Let's just go on the record, they talk about 40 Democrats," Bloomberg said, referring to former Vice President Joe Biden, his rival who previously boasted of his work helping secure victories for House Democrats in the midterms.

"Twenty-one of those were people that I spent $100 million to help elect," he continued. "All of the new Democrats that came in and put Nancy Pelosi in charge and gave the Congress the ability to control this president, I bough — I got them."

Hah! He didn't quite put the "t" on "bought" but came close enough for clarity.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Bernie doesn't want Bloomberg'$ $peech

...

Michael Bloomberg has promised to spend a billion dollars supporting the Democratic nominee, even if it’s not him. Every candidate has said they’re happy for the help — except Sanders.

Last night, Sanders’s campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, reiterated his objection to the notion that a billionaire would spend on his behalf. “It’s a hard no,” Weaver told NBC News after the debate. “Bernie has said he’s going to fund his presidential campaign with small-dollar contributions, and I think we can do that. I think we can raise over a billion dollars in small-dollar contributions.”

...

Now, Sanders has no power to stop Bloomberg from spending money registering voters, buying ads attacking Trump, and so on. But it would be awkward for the candidate to actively oppose a massive political operation on his behalf, especially when it comes into contact with so many voters through mobilization efforts and ads. Bloomberg spokesperson Howard Wolfson agreed that his boss would submit to Sanders’s wishes. “Bernie said he didn’t want [Bloomberg’s] money, so we’re not going to,” he told NBC. “I don’t think it would be prudent to spend on behalf of somebody who didn’t want it.”

This is definitely a principle. If you truly, deeply object to the idea of billionaires exerting disproportionate influence over political campaigns to the point that you’d rather lose than let one of them help you, then Sanders deserves credit for ideological consistency. But Democrats should consider the possibility that Sanders is not merely pretending to be a fanatic. He may be prepared to follow his convictions to their logical conclusion, at whatever cost. And the message to Democratic voters is, if you want your nominee to have the tailwind of Bloomberg’s billion, nominate anybody but Sanders.

I expect Bloomberg will continue to $peak, whether he's the nominee or not.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Salon Covers Bloomberg'$ $peech
 

...Bloomberg's spending has become a focal point in the Democratic race. Many observers questioned why he was allowed to buy campaign ads during the debate itself.

"What kind of rule allows the candidates to advertise *during* the debate? Or did Bloomberg just buy CBS?" asked New Yorker writer Tad Friend.

"Am I the only one offended by the Mike Bloomberg ad that just aired during the break?" wrote former Labor Secretary Robert Reich. "Big money is destroying American democracy."

...

I think many of the people who would ordinarily profess intolerance to his $peech tolerate it for one simple reason: Gungrabbiness Uber Alles.

 

[jocal505]

 He (Bloomberg) usually out$peak$ everyone and loses.

You are a funny little fellow with much Bloomberg bashing, IMO. Yet Mr. Bloomberg has involved himself in many positive efforts.

Mr. Bloomberg funded the investigative reporters at The Trace, and in a few years they demonstrated campaign finance violations at the NRA. The SHTF, and it has brught the NRA to its knees. The internal documents of Ackerman McQueen have been admitted as pertinent evidence.

 

[Mike in Seattle]

,,, Yet Mr. Bloomberg has involved himself in many positive efforts. ,,,

Like paying for one group to vote another out of the BoR ??

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Good to see Mike Bloomberg putting a few hundred million back into the economy. Who says tax cuts for billionaires don’t create jobs?

Thanks, Sol! A fellow supporter of Bloomberg'$ $peech is always welcome. Some people seem to think it's bad if a billionaire bough...uh...got legislators elected.