Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: The Bloomberg Factor
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Nov 8, 2019
Author: Vicomte13
Post Date: 2019-11-08 10:26:16 by Vicomte13
Keywords: None
Views: 16602
Comments: 91
He might just do it. Michael Bloomberg, billionaire 38-times-over and former two-term successful Republican, then Independent, Mayor of New York, may enter the 2020 Presidential race. Apparently, he has been indicating to his inner circle that he does not want to run, and did not intend to, because he expected Joe Biden to be the Democrat nominee. But now that Biden is fading fast, and Elizabeth Warren with her very socialistic ideas appears poised to win the nomination, Bloomberg is apparently going to step in to run for the Democrat nominations. For my part, I have little doubt that if he does, he will win that nomination, and having done so, will then go on to win the presidency. The election will be a "battle of the billionaires", but Bloomberg will be a very compelling candidate for Independents, for NeverTrump Republicans (Democrats will always vote for the Democrat nominee regardless). Bloomberg would likely be a very good President.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-30) not displayed.
.
.
.
#31. To: misterwhite (#29)
Of.course you will disregard the various taxes that put a torpedo under the keel of the assertion that the poor pay no taxes and therefore should have no say. But the poor and working taxes DO pay taxes - plenty of them.
And Social Security would be on stronger financial footing if the federal government stopped stealing $150 billion from it every year to give to those who are disabled (the wasteful SSDI) and never paid into it. Take that money from the general fund. " Hear, hear !!! Instead of taking money out of the general fund for welfare, just abolish those programs. If states want that, they can fund it. States that do not want it, should not have to pay for it !!!
Si vis pacem, para bellum Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. "If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went." (Will Rogers) "No one ever rescues an old dog. They lay in a cage until they die. PLEASE save one. None of us wants to die cold and alone... --Dennis Olson " People that say money can't buy you happiness, have never paid an adoption fee
Who made that assertion, Mr. Strawman?
Your little fag loving baby killer is going nowhere. You have no political instincts. Vic the sick supporter of sicko abortionists and child murder. Billionaire Michael Bloomberg is failing to garner significant support for his longshot presidential bid nationally, a Reuters/Ipsos poll released this week shows. Bloomberg, who signaled his intention to jump into the crowded Democrat primary field this week by filing paperwork to appear on the ballot in Arkansas’ March 3 presidential primary, is failing to see any sort of significant support nationally, according to the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll. The poll, which surveyed 2,235 adults between November 12–14, 2019, showed only three percent of Democrats and independents supporting the former New York City mayor. Former Vice President Joe Biden (D) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) led in support with 19 percent, followed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) with 13 percent. Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D) followed with six percent support, and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) fell to three percent, tying with Bloomberg despite a months-long presence in the race. The remaining candidates garnered two percent support or less: #National @Reuters/@Ipsos Poll (11/12-14): Biden 19% Sanders 19% Warren 13% Buttigieg 6% Harris 3% Bloomberg 3% Yang 2% Booker 1% Klobuchar 1% Gabbard 1% Bullock 1% Bennet 1% Steyer 1% Castro 1% Delaney 0% Williamson 0% Messam 0% Sestak 0%https://t.co/WdZUskWK96 — Political Polls (@Politics_Polls) November 15, 2019 from Breitbart
Oi! Ave you got a loicense for that big gulp mate?
'What kind of man gives cigarettes to trees?'
Yes, Bloomberg is a nagging Dutch Aunt on some stuff, but that stuff is trivial.
Vic is excited about the pro abortion Catholics he would appoint to the Supreme Court.
Abortion will be the law of the land until there is SUBSTANTIAL and expensive welfare reform that makes it possible to raise a million more poor babies per year. The Democrats are not proposing that, and to Republicans it is unthinkable. THEREFORE abortion restrictions are a dead letter politically, and I've ceased to worry about the subject. When pro-lifers are ready to get real and support the necessary welfare that inevitably follows from doing away with abortion, then there will be SOME hope of getting the political will to repeal it. But pro-lifers are generally Republicans, with Republican attitudes about welfare. They hate welfare more than they love babies, so by eliminating abortion and providing no safety net, they would create burgeoning poverty and desperation. Every rational being of the center and left knows that, and that's well over half the population. So abortion is here to stay until the Right changes its mind about welfare. That will never happen. So abortion is here to stay, period, by their choice. I have ceased to worry about the issue, because the necessary economic concessions by the Right to allow abortion to be re-criminalized are not there. As long as the Right is unrealistic, there will be no movement on abortion, and the issue becomes a nullity. I know it makes you feel good to rage about it, and it certainly empowers the Republicans to keep duped rubes like you in the ranks, actually believing you're accomplishing something. You're accomplishing nothing, other than empowering a bunch of rich guys to concentrate money in their pockets, while dangling a pro-life carrot in front of your face to keep you walking forward pulling their cart.
Freedom from an overbearing government is never trivial.
'What kind of man gives cigarettes to trees?'
Lol. Are you unaware of immigrations effects on poverty? Hell, if it was t for flooding the country with well over four million people a year for forty plus years, everyone who wanted a job would have one, housing costs would be negligible, wages would cover a middle class life for all, and taxes would be small. You seem to be advocating for the current system, which burdens everyone at the same time you’ve taken a baseball bat to their knees. When people who are productive wake up to the rigged system of paying taxes to support people brought into this country for the sole purpose of lowering their wages, I’m afraid they may take it out on the wrong people. People EXACTLY like (((Bloomberg))) are the problem.
'What kind of man gives cigarettes to trees?'
Well, the Left would say that the right to abortion IS freedom from government. The Right would disagree. I say that abortion is murder, but it's been found to be constitutionally mandated over and over again, so to change that would require either a constitutional amendment or the Supreme Court to overrule Roe (which won't happen with the current court makeup). If they do overturn it, abortion will revert to the states, and most of the states will continue to allow it, especially all of the big states. And the states that don't allow it will have a spike in births of the poorest single mothers. And then, 16 years later, a steady rise in the crime rate, unless they really invest heavily in these new babies (which, under present political circumstances, they will not).
Meh. Subsidizing someone’s crap life choices results in more crap life choices. Was a time when women didn’t bang everything that looked pleasing to them because of how difficult life could get. Now? We subsidize everything when someone complains even in the slightest about anything. You ever consider what trajectory for society you are advocating for?
'What kind of man gives cigarettes to trees?'
No that is just how you want it. How Vic dreams isn't the way it works. Abortion becomes illegal simply if the Supreme Court strikes it down. Where do you get the notion that thievery by the government has to be involved? I may address your other retarded points you tried to make at another time. It was some stupid shit you said.
You love thieves stealing more than you like babies. IN fact in your post here you said you don't give a shit about them anymore. I'm thinking you never did you being pretty much a democrat. If those Catholics ever got off their asses they could end abortion. But those democrat appointed Catholics can't seem to get their heads out of their asses and end the murders.
You really are a retard aren't you!
There should be a question mark not an exclamation point at the end. Retardo.
I have, and I do. I don't seem to be able to penetrate the stubborn unrealism of Republicans. By going down into the fuhrerbunker and fighting to the bitter end, the Republicans and simply ensuring a bitter end that need not happen. But I've been over this ground so many times before, I'm all out of energy to do it again.
No. I'm a very intelligent man who is telling you the truth, and trying to save you people from yourselves. But you're in the fuhrerbunker, headed towards the bitter end. You needn't be. But you are.
Heh. I guess it’s been a long time since I was active here. I’m as much a Republican as Ron Paul is. (Nominally) I guess you are going to have a difficult time trying to change my mind because I understand human nature much better than you. I know for a fact, that if you create favorable conditions for individuals to thrive while living immorally, you will get more immorality. Look. I really dgaf about anothers life choices, just don’t ask me to work my ass off so your bad choices don’t inconvenience YOU. (not you specifically...) You may as well be advocating for the taxpayers to buy all the heroin or whatever junkies want. The policy of doing that is completely consistent with the concern fagging over the other issue you use to justify taking productive peoples money. Look, I truly believe you’re a very decent human, I just wish you would understand tough love is the only thing that works in the long run on the macro level, and is the best for this society overall. You REALLY want to stick it to the 1%? Channel your energies into denying them cheap labor and increased costs for housing, energy, schools, roads, blah blah blah. You fix that, and 90% of this country’s issues become ever more manageable. Don’t be one of the saps who help create the problem, and then ‘fix’ it. It’s crap like that, that leads society down the drain ever faster. This kind of issue can’t be taxed away, doing so will insure that it will always need to be fed more and more.
'What kind of man gives cigarettes to trees?'
This is a true statement. You are dealing with someone who thinks we should have worldwide welfare. He thinks we should transfer our wealth to the rest of the world. He said so in the past.
I have no desire to "stick it" to the 1%. That is the Democrats and their politics of greed. Rather, I desire to maintain the world hegemony we already have: it keeps the peace. THAT requires the vast military and intelligence network and foreign aid system we have. If we cut IT, we cut our own power, and our weakness is a provocation to every ne'er do well on the planet. It's expensive, and I'd love to slough off that load, just as I'd like to flop down exhausted and slough off the burden of protecting a family in a complicated and challenging world. But the latter is not an option, and neither is the former - not unless I want war. When we stepped away from the world in the 1920s and 1930s, we got World War II as repayment. We learned, and understood we had to fight the Cold War. That's over. Now, we're fighting a global war on Islamism. And winning it, but as that fade, China is rising as an aggressive power. Now, each of these fresh wars we fight, ends up leaving behind fewer enemies. Nations that used to be adversaries become neutral or friendly. We are WINNING, but ah slowly, and with a perpetual, large drain on our resources. It is painful. But if we drop the load now, we will pay more dearly in the future. If we stay the course, this very course likely will end in a peaceful world whose security issues we can manage at considerable expense and without war. In short, it's worth it. But that means a permanent security apparatus that costs a lot of money in perpetuity. We cannot borrow money in perpetuity without eventually breaking our economy. We need to balance the budget, and we cannot do that by substantially cutting the military or intelligence infrastructure. We need to raise more taxes, and the top 1% is undertaxed relative to the rest of the society. Therefore, they must be taxed. In a similar vein, we cannot abolish Social Security, or Public Schools, or Medicare or public financing of roads, ports, railroads and airports. Those are necessary parts of our infrastructure, all of them. I know that you will never be reconciled to that reality, and this is the Achilles' Heel of the Republican Party. You're STILL trying to turn back the New Deal, STILL arguing hackeneyed beliefs that didn't work back then (which is why we made the changes we made), won't work now, and aren't going to be tried. By holding the line against reality, you permanently limit yourselves to a minority of the electorate (and give low birth rates and immigration, a dwindling minority). Once again, we have to pay for all of these things, and that mighty military, and we can't do that with perpetual debt. We need to raise more taxes, and the least taxed element of the society is the wealth of the wealthy (the MOST taxed thing is wages of workers). Democrats make a virtue of the taxation - their objective is the taxation ITSELF, the knocking down of the rich. I think that sort of thinking is pathological. But the thinking that we can be a prosperous and stable modern society without a heavy government footprint, or have world peace without the American Imperium, is wrongheaded in its own right. We do. Which means we need more revenue. We have to tax something. We ALREADY tax working and middle class wages at a high rate. We ALREADY tax middle class property (land, houses and vehicles) at a moderate rate. We ALREADY tax middle class investment returns (dividends, interest, employee stock options) at a moderate rate. And we don't tax upper class wealth at all. We tax the upper class to the extent they are attached to the middle class economy (their houses and cars), but we DON'T tax their wealth. There are special tax loopholes - indeed the whole structure of the tax code itself - allows most upper class wealth to grow untaxed. This is a huge advantage to them, and is the reason they have accumulated a greater and greater percentage of the total American national wealth. The Democrats are obsessed with that. I am not. I am focused on the fact that we need more revenue to pay for all of the necessary services, and everybody else is tapped out. All of that upperclass wealth that has heretofore escaped taxation needs to be subject to it, at the same rate that the middle and working classes already pay. I do not advocate screwing the rich. I advocate that they pay THE SAME portion of their wealth as taxes that the middle class does. As things stand, they pay far, far less, and we cannot sustain our government on the revenues currently coming in. What we need costs more than what we raise. We need to raise more, and the wealthy are the one untapped part of the economy that should be paying for it. THAT is primarily where I come from. I RECOGNIZE that an already elitist party is by its nature limited in numbers. And I recognize that it can only be marginalized further if it takes a "Let them eat cake" mentality, it will not be able to hold the line on important things, like national security (which the Democrats would cut). We need Democrats to be reasonable on national security, and Republicans to be reasonable on social welfare. Neither are. So we need Independents to keep dragging the lunatic fringes back to the center.
Do you want to make a bet that I can't find you saying that you want to stick it to the rich? I think I can find multiple posts of yours that say that you do want to stick it to the rich.
Your first post about the first two world wars is severely lacking in a historical perspective. It’s people EXACTLY like Bloomberg who started the first, which led to the second. It had absolutely nothing to do with ‘stepping away from the world’ as you put it. Rather, it was a planned provocation against the German people by very powerful banking interests. www.globalresearch.ca/hid...e-first-world-war/5600090 The popular narrative is of course bullshit. The rest of the word salad can be summed up by your tell about my opinions forever being in the minority due to demographics is pretty solid. I recognize people who’s opinions that are close to mine will have no voice soon. Ya, it’s true. We will see more and more Ilhan Omar’s, more AOCs, more Maxine Waters’ etc. making laws and appointing judges. You seem to want to roll over and give them the inch already, not seeing how it will end for you and yours. Leftists are quick to scream demographics are destiny, and are not quite bright enough to see exactly where it WILL lead. I wish your family luck. I’m sure if you think the left will give you the same treatment that Tolstoy received , well, good luck with that as well.
'What kind of man gives cigarettes to trees?'
So? If I were to go sorting through your comments and words over the last 20 years of your life, and string them together, you'd sound like a poop-slinging monkey. I don't do that, because it accomplishes nothing. I'd spare myself the effort, if I were you. Because, you know, INTERNET and hyperbole go together like apple pie and cheese.
I don't advocate rolling over for anybody. On the things I want to see them a advance on, I want to see that advance because they're right.
The Germans were aggressive barbarians who attacked their neighbors, and lost. Unable to learn from their mistakes, they did it again, harder, and lost again, much harder. They learned after the second time around.
I see you didn’t read the link. The First World War was a travesty, and not at all started by the Germans.
'What kind of man gives cigarettes to trees?'
Advance sounds a lot like ‘progress’. Once you’ve bitten from the apple of the government being the arbiter of who gets what, rather than being a government that secures the liberty of the people, well, you’re just the other side of the coin in a crime spree. I see zero difference between you and those you have disdain for. Again, the real problems are caused by things you don’t address, like population replacement and growth, and not the dog and pony of the so called left/right. (The parameters of acceptable discourse, wherein everyone has agreed to just put lipstick on a dying pig.)
'What kind of man gives cigarettes to trees?'
No link can change the fact that the Germans invaded Belgium and France in 1914, starting the world war, not the reverse. Neither France nor Belgium invaded Germany. Germany invaded them, starting the war, and killing and crippling millions of Frenchmen and Belgians in the process. What happened in the East, between Serbia and Austria, Germany and Russia, were the problem for those Eastern countries. When the Germans lunged WESTWARDS, because their own war plans were rigid and didn't allow for any other contingency, they elected to start a world war. Later, they elected to attack shipping, including neutral American shipping, with their submarines, causing great loss of life, and bringing the Americans into the war, thereby sealing their own fate. Nothing in your link can change the well-known reality of the past 100 years, and nobody can bring back all of those innocent French and Belgians who died due to naked German military imperialism. The Germans started both World Wars, and the Allies ended them. Had the Germans been intelligent, their military planners should have seen that they could not possibly beat the Allies in either war, and they should have come to a negotiated settlement they would not have liked very much (because the weaker party is never happy with the outcome of negotiations with the strong). Instead, they were hotheads, went to war, and were ultimately destroyed. World War I was Germany's fault, because Germany made it a war by unilaterially attacking Belgium and France. From the American perspective, in both wars with Germany, the Germans initiated war by sinking American ships. In the second war, Germany outright declared war first, and immediately went after American ships.
The pig ain't dying. The American economy and population are growing, and American power in the world continues to expand into those crannies where it formerly was not. Government always has been the final arbiter of disputes, because individuals do not have the right to resort to violence to get their way, and the courts belong to the government. This was as true 400 years ago as it is today.
What is government of the people, by the people, for the people; and how does that fit into the context of the difference between the Rule of Law, and the Rule of Men?
It is a line in a speech from Abraham Lincoln, specifically, the Gettysburg Address. As far as legal force in that line: there is none. It was a rhetorical device in a speech by a President who died 154 years ago. As far as a descriptor of what America is, it's pretty good. We have a government "OF the people", meaning that it is manned, top to bottom, by citizens. It is a government "BY the people" both because the initial establishment of the government was through a popular revolution, and because the people selected to be the rulers are selected by the people in elections. It is a government "FOR the people", because the government's purpose is to better the life of the people in various ways - by 'establishing justice, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty with each new generation'. The government has done a pretty good - not perfect, but pretty good - job of doing that (at least compared to other governments in the world. As are as "Rule of Law" versus "Rule of Men" goes, that is simply a matter of the distinction between law and prerogative. Absolute onarchies and their republican homologues: distatorships, both vest absolute power in a man, who then delegates his power to subordinates he selects. This government appartus of ruler and satraps then has discretionary control over everything. They decide what the law will be, case by case, as an emanation of their own will and opinion. A just ruler will have just laws, and an unjust ruler, unjust laws. The law itself is the personal opinion of a man or a small cabal of men. Rule of Law, by contrast, means that laws, established through normal and predictable processes, governs the behavior of ALL men, including the rulers, and the rulers can be held accountable to the law. The concepts fit together with democratic republican government, because the legislators are chosen by the people, as are executives and, either directly or indirectly, judges - they're all subject to the laws they pass, and imposing or changing law requires process.
Oh, well, what about a moral force? The law itself is the personal opinion of a man or a small cabal of men. Organized Criminal predators certainly seem to act like it is -- Especially when securing the inalienable rights of the prey contradicts the feeding of the predatory, self-worshiping, cabal. chosen by the people Not chosen by the cabal (or the vanguard elite), are you sure?
Given that TRUMP won the election, and BOTH sides have been tearing their hair out and bleeding out the eyeballs ever since, yeah, pretty sure.
You mean "Our Boy". What was FBI informant Felix Sater (sometimes Satter) doing in the Trump organization anyhow?
I heard your homely wife milks cows and all the neighbors vxh.
I don't follow inside baseball. No idea.
You mean both facades of the two-party dialectic cattle chute that America's founders warned against inflicting on their republic.
George Washington warned against parties. The Founders in general eagerly engaged in partisanship as soon as the country started.
VXH and his Felix Slater nonsense again. The guy is a head case.
Comments (72 - 91) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#32. To: misterwhite (#26)
" Cut the sanctimony. People who are receiving Social Security and/or Medicare paid into those government programs.
#33. To: Vicomte13 (#31)
of the assertion that the poor pay no taxes
#34. To: Vicomte13 (#0)
#35. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
#36. To: Dead Culture Watch (#35)
#37. To: Vicomte13, Dead Culture Watch (#36)
Yes, Bloomberg is a nagging Dutch Aunt on some stuff, but that stuff is trivial.
#38. To: A K A Stone (#37)
Vic is excited about the pro abortion Catholics he would appoint to the Supreme Court.
#39. To: Vicomte13 (#36)
#40. To: Vicomte13 (#38)
(Edited)
Abortion will be the law of the land until there is SUBSTANTIAL and expensive welfare reform that makes it possible to raise a million more poor babies per year. The Democrats are not proposing that, and to Republicans it is unthinkable. THEREFORE abortion restrictions are a dead letter politically, and I've ceased to worry about the subject.
#41. To: Dead Culture Watch (#39)
Freedom from an overbearing government is never trivial.
#42. To: Vicomte13 (#41)
(Edited)
#43. To: Vicomte13 (#38)
Abortion will be the law of the land until there is SUBSTANTIAL and expensive welfare reform that makes it possible to raise a million more poor babies per year.
#44. To: Vicomte13 (#38)
They hate welfare more than they love babies,
#45. To: Vicomte13 (#38)
I know it makes you feel good to rage about it, and it certainly empowers the Republicans to keep duped rubes like you in the ranks, actually believing you're accomplishing something. You're accomplishing nothing, other than empowering a bunch of rich guys to concentrate money in their pockets, while dangling a pro-life carrot in front of your face to keep you walking forward pulling their cart.
#46. To: A K A Stone (#45)
You really are a retard aren't you!
#47. To: Dead Culture Watch (#42)
You ever consider what trajectory for society you are advocating for?
#48. To: A K A Stone (#45)
You really are a retard aren't you!
#49. To: Vicomte13 (#47)
#50. To: Dead Culture Watch (#49)
#51. To: Dead Culture Watch (#49)
#52. To: Vicomte13 (#51)
I have no desire to "stick it" to the 1%.
#53. To: Vicomte13 (#51)
#54. To: A K A Stone (#52)
Do you want to make a bet that I can't find you saying that you want to stick it to the rich? I think I can find multiple posts of yours that say that you do want to stick it to the rich.
#55. To: Dead Culture Watch (#53)
You seem to want to roll over and give them the inch already, not seeing how it will end for you and yours.
#56. To: Dead Culture Watch (#53)
(Edited)
Rather, it was a planned provocation against the German people by by by very powerful banking interests.
#57. To: Vicomte13 (#56)
#58. To: Vicomte13 (#55)
#59. To: Dead Culture Watch (#57)
I see you didn’t read the link. The First World War was a travesty, and not at all started by the Germans.
#60. To: Dead Culture Watch (#58)
#61. To: Vicomte13 (#60)
the courts belong to the government
#62. To: Peromischievous leucopus (#61)
What is government of the people, by the people, for the people; and how does that fit into the context of the difference between the Rule of Law, and the Rule of Men?
#63. To: Vicomte13 (#62)
(Edited)
As far as legal force in that line: there is none.
#64. To: Peromischievous leucopus (#63)
Not chosen by the cabal (or the vanguard elite), are you sure?
#65. To: Vicomte13 (#64)
Given that TRUMP won the election
#66. To: Peromischievous leucopus (#65)
#67. To: Peromischievous leucopus (#65)
What was FBI informant Felix Sater (sometimes Satter) doing in the Trump organization anyhow?
#68. To: Vicomte13 (#64)
BOTH sides
#69. To: Peromischievous leucopus (#68)
You mean both facades of the two-party dialectic cattle chute that America's founders warned against inflicting on their republic.
#70. To: Vicomte13 (#67)
#71. To: A K A Stone (#70)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]