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: 16562
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
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 74.
#1. To: Vicomte13 (#0)
What's his platform? What's he running on? You know nothing about what he would do if elected, yet you say he would likely be a very good President?
That's right. I know that he is one of the most successful business leaders in the world. Donald Trump did well for himself, starting with family wealth and building it up to $3 to $4 billion. Bloomberg started far lower - middle class, lower-tier hire - and built a $38 billion empire. He is, I believe America's greatest living truly self- made billionaire. (The others started with considerable family wealth and connections built on it. Bloomberg started out as a regular kid in Massachusetts. Bloomberg has built a business seven times the size of Trumps, without the bankruptcies. He is the most successful private sector chief executive who will be on the ballot. Great success in private enterprise is an indicator of likely success in public service. And Bloomberg has already demonstrated great success in a public service Chief Executive job. He was mayor of New York for 12 years. Without any of the major scandals of either the Republican Giuliani who preceded him, nor the Democrat diBlasio who succeeded him. Bloomberg masterfully handled THE most difficult mayoral job in the country, ran it in a non-partisan fashion, ran it smoothly and competently. He was a very good mayor of New York. The only grousing about him was that he was a bit of a nanny, pushing for taxes on big sugary drinks for health reasons. As mayor, Bloomberg showed his executive style, and it would be a relief after the endless drama of Trump, Obama, Bush and Clinton. Thirdly, Bloomberg is not a rabid partisan. He ran as a Republican in New York to get on the ticket. Then, he ran for re-election as an Independent, because he had proven his ability in the role. If he is elected President, he will be the most bipartisan leader we have had since Eisenhower. And that would be good for the country. We know that he's not going to come up with crazy ideas that destroy business - that's the reason that he'll be entering the race in the first place: to prevent a Warren or a Sanders from getting the nomination, and possibly getting themselves elected. And, when it comes to the battle of billionaires, anything Trump can do, Bloomberg can do better. There will be a lot of confidence in Bloomberg from the beginning. His platform will be the same as it was in New York: I'm a competent manager of money and people and competing interests, obviously. I'll use that skill to run the country better. I'm non-partisan, and I don't like drama. Bloomberg will win in an landslide, and he'll be a fantastic President. He's got a 12 year public track record and a 40 year private sector career record. He's a humble, practical guy. He will apply his obvious intelligence and leadership to run the country as successfully as he ran New York and Bloomberg enterprises. And he'll do it without drama. Trump made fun of him for his height today (Bloomberg is 5' 8"). If there were something else to attack Bloomberg on, he would. There isn't. If Bloomberg runs, Trump is toast.
Oi! Ave you got a loicense for that big gulp mate?
Yes, Bloomberg is a nagging Dutch Aunt on some stuff, but that stuff is trivial.
Freedom from an overbearing government is never trivial.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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 don't follow inside baseball. No idea.
VXH and his Felix Slater nonsense again. The guy is a head case.
LOL. For being such a nobody Ol' Felix sure does get your and ol Tight Shirt Tom Fitton's panties in a bunch. "It was Andrew Weissmann who, as supervising assistant U.S. attorney, signed the agreement that brought Sater on as a government informant. Federal prosecutors wrote a letter to Sater’s sentencing judge on August 27, 2009, in an effort to get him a lighter sentence: “Sater’s cooperation was of a depth and breadth rarely seen.” Sater also was reportedly a CIA informant in the mid-2000s for the CIA during his undercover work with Russian military and intelligence officers."
Trump won and will stay in office. Israel is the good guys. You are a douche bag that needs flushed. You aren't worth debating you are to stupid.
There are no replies to Comment # 74. End Trace Mode for Comment # 74.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestBloomberg would likely be a very good President.
#4. To: misterwhite (#1)
You know nothing about what he would do if elected, yet you say he would likely be a very good President?
#35. To: Vicomte13 (#4)
#36. To: Dead Culture Watch (#35)
#39. To: Vicomte13 (#36)
#41. To: Dead Culture Watch (#39)
Freedom from an overbearing government is never trivial.
#42. To: Vicomte13 (#41)
(Edited)
#47. To: Dead Culture Watch (#42)
You ever consider what trajectory for society you are advocating for?
#49. To: Vicomte13 (#47)
#51. To: Dead Culture Watch (#49)
#53. To: Vicomte13 (#51)
#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.
#58. To: Vicomte13 (#55)
#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
#67. To: Peromischievous leucopus (#65)
What was FBI informant Felix Sater (sometimes Satter) doing in the Trump organization anyhow?
#70. To: Vicomte13 (#67)
#72. To: A K A Stone (#70)
Felix Slater nonsense
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-doj-for-docs-on-fbi-cia-informant-in-trump-organization/
#73. To: Peromischievous leucopus (#72)
LOL. For being such a nobody Ol' Felix sure does get your and ol Tight Shirt Tom Fitton's panties in a bunch.
#74. To: A K A Stone (#73)
You aren't worth debating you are to stupid.
To is a preposition with several meanings, including “toward” and “until.” Too is an adverb that can mean “excessively” or “also.” Just to be clear: two is pronounced the same as to and too, but it can't be used instead of either of them because it's a number.
Replies to Comment # 74.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]