Bloomberg would likely be a very good President.

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?

" Bloomberg would likely be a very good President. "

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight !!!!!

LOL !!!!!!!

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.

You realize this is someone who has been threatening to run for prez every year for the last 20 years, right? And he always pretends that people are actually begging him to run but these go-Mike-go people can never be found.

It all reminds me of the endless imminent announcements that Mario Cuomo or Ted "The Swimmer" Kennedy were yet again to announce that they weren't running for the Dem nomination for prez. Again.

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.

Bloomberg is the most successful businessman to ever run for President, and has had high success and low scandal in a high, politically brutal office. It's a lot easier to be hereditory Senator from Massachusetts, and hereditary governor of New York State, than to be the mayor of New York City. Bloomberg was more successful as a politician, and was recognized by his constituents as effective, as opposed to a political grandee.

Bloomberg took the subway to work when he was Mayor. Imagine any of the major political assclowns doing that. They'd get shouted off the train everyday.

Bloomberg ran New York City, well, for 12 years. No riots,no crime outbursts, no scandals to speak of, no self-aggrandizing nonsense.

Of course Bloomberg has always been wanted to be ASKED to run, but the partisans Democrats don't like him, really, because he's really a Republican in temperament and isterests (finance, steady leadership).

Bloomberg would not enter if Biden were not a dead man walking.

Bloomberg would not enter if Biden were not a dead man walking.

I think Wall Street Dems are terrified of a Warren presidency. They are even cutting off donations to incumbent Senate Dems for 2020, doing anything and everything to keep her from getting the nomination.

And Biden is their alternative.

And someone prod me when someone gets around to telling us the gay mayor of some little town in Indiana is more qualified to be prez than a three-time NYC mayor and business leader.

I don't think Bloomy is all that serious about running. He really is too old. Hell, nearly all these candidates (including Trump) are too old.

You know nothing about what he would do if elected, yet you say he would likely be a very good President?

I think Bloomberg calculates that if nobody does anything, Warren will get the nomination - and I think he's right about that.

I think millions of others calculate that too, and ARE asking Bloomberg behind the scenes to run.

I think that Bloomberg doesn't really want to be the Democratic candidate for President, but that he calculates that there is a real risk Warren will be the nominee, and an impeached Trump won't win..which means President Warren.

And I think Bloomberg will run for President, as a Democrat, if he sees a realistic threat that could happen.

I think Wall Street Dems are terrified of a Warren presidency.

I work with Wall Street Dems. They figure that if Warren is the nominee, that Trump will win re-election. They're glum about that - they don't like Trump, particularly because of the China trade drama. But they figure that there's just no way America really would elect an outright socialist.

Great success in private enterprise is an indicator of likely success in public service.

Success at what? Undoing everything Trump put in place?

for NeverTrump Republicans (Democrats will always vote for the Democrat nominee regardless).

I dunno.... Many of the lefties may just get discouraged and decide to stay home... But if they're replaced by the Bushbot Neocons who're looking for a "respectable" alternative to Trump, then maybe Bloomberg actually has a shot at it.

Bloomburg is a piece if shit and you're an idiot at your prediction. He is a non factor. An also ran.

I'm not an idiot for my prediction, but by calling n a piece of shit you're projecting.

He certainly is a factor. If he decides to run, he'll win, and if he wins, he'll be a good president.

He's not an "also ran", because he's the most successful American businessman, having raised himself up from the middle of the middle class to $38 billion, as opposed to starting out in a rich family and using family wealth and connections to get richer. He started with less, and is seven times more successful economically than Trump.

He's not an also-ran also, because the only office he has ever run for, Mayor of New York, he WON, on the first try, and won two more re-elections because he was very good at being the chief executive officer of a complex, brawling political structure. New York City is a nightmare, and Bloomberg ran it successfully without being a little Mussolini (like Giuliani), and without turning into a race-pandering simperer like DiBlasio.

Success at what? Undoing everything Trump put in place?

Bloomberg is not a political hack. He's not going to come in there and undo everything Trump put in place. He didn't do that with Giuliani.

Bloomberg wanted to do a good job for New York City. He didn't have a bunch of political hobbyhorses.

He will come in there and look at the situation from his own expert viewpoint.

Bloomberg has always been a data analysis expert. That's how he looks at thing. He believes in "the power of information", and he's going to be very analytical in dealing with the US budget, just as he was with New York City's budget.

One of the first things he tackled was NYC's sprawling payroll. He will do the same thing with the federal government and its payroll.

It's certainly true that the Warren/Bernie wing of the Dems will be very unhappy with Bloomberg. Bloomberg's successor, Bill DiBlasio, campaigned on the claim that Bloomberg governed for the top 1%. That's not true, but people who hate billionaires and who want recklessly expensive policies always oppose men who understand the limitations of economics and revenue, which Bloomberg does, and Democrat and Republican politicians clearly don't.

What has Trump "put in place"? Deregulation? Bloomberg will not stop that effort out of hand. He deregulated or rather, updated and modernized regulation across the board in NYC, so that, for example, zoning laws actually reflected modern land use, instead of dwelling in the 1940s. Bloomberg is a very fact-based guy, and his regulatory hand will be based on what is needed, factually, not what is earnestly desired by activists of either stripe.

Besides that, what has Trump put in place? Illegal immigration. Bloomberg's position on illegal immigration was tempered and rational - he was not a sanctuary city/open borders/ give illegals the vote guy. He did understand that illegals are part of the economy, and you have to pay attention to what you do. He pointed out the failures of past immigration policy: it was posturing without funding. He may not build a wall, but there is no reason from his positions and his past to think he's going to just throw open the borders the way that other Democrats certainly will.

What else? Tax cuts? Bloomberg will conduct his own analysis of tax policy (and it will be a hell of a lot more based in reality than either the Republicans or Democrats). He's not going to go to strike down the tax law. He's going to ensure that the tax law is structured to favor entrepreneurial activity and employment, while generating the revenue the government needs. He'll also focus on expenditures, like he did when he was mayor.

There is no reason, at all, to believe that Bloomberg would behave like a Democrat hack. He didn't behave like a Republican hack when he became mayor as a Republican. He didn't behave particularly politically at all. He acted like the data-driven guy that he is, and sought the best solution for the City he governed. He'll do the same as President, which he will be if he decides to run.

New York City and Connecticut are where liberal douche bags get elected by progressive thieves like yourself You and Michael make normal Anericans puke. Non factor just like you.

New York City is where the business and financial innovations the make the world are made, and where the decisions that govern the economy are decided. The folks who make those decisions reside in nearby Connecticut, where the sea air is nearby and the houses and woods are beautiful and clean.

New York City's economy is larger than Russia's, and huge amounts of tax revenues are drained out of NYC every year to Albany and to Washington DC, to help prop up the rest of America. America's top minds, top artists, top financiers and top innovators are concentrated here. Without us, you would be poorer than you are, and America would be a hell of a lot poorer than it is.

We don't "make normal Americans puke". We create the jobs that normal Americans work.

"Progressive theives"? Michael Bloomberg and I, and New York City, give a whole lot more of what we have and do to the rest of America than we ever get back. I pay more in TAXES than median American families earn as gross income.

And do you know why? Because I am much more intelligent than average Americans - I've worked sometimes ridiculous hours for many years, doing hard things that few people have the actual mental capacity to do AT ALL. And I'm surrounded by men and women as talented or more talented than me. THAT is New York.

What is the basis for your looking down on New Yorkers? Biting the hand that feeds you?

You dont create shit you push paper and bullshit. Puke!

Where can I buy the latest products you have put together in your workshop?

New York doesn't feed me. You liberals think highly of your immorality.

Aren't you on Social Security? And Medicare?

He is a respectable manager and businessman, but we have very different values and goals. We have made progress on the abortion issue here in the heartland over the last decade, and I will not support a guy like him who is knee-jerk pro-abortion as a "right".

Also, we have made progress on RKBA, with many States expanding their recognition of a citizen's right to self defense. Again, Bloomberg is a knee-jerk anti-RKBA elitist.

His foreign policy positions have been typically in line with the Neo-cons. That alone disqualifies him. Even with Tulsi Gabbard as a running mate I would not trust him.

He makes no effort to recognize the social and financial strain of mass immigration on the working class.

He succeeded in pushing abortion pills in schools available to 14 year olds without parental consent.

I am no great fan of Trump, but Bloomberg with a Democrat controlled House and possibly a "coattails" Senate would be a huge setback for families and liberty.

Aren't you on Social Security? And Medicare?

Aren't you on welfare and food stamps?

Bloomberg would likely be a very good President.

Yeah because he hates the first amendment and religious freedom. You stupido.

In a move with no precedent in New York City history Mayor Michael Bloomberg will shut down after today the worship services of scores of what he calls “these religious groups.” At least 55 churches and synagogues are affected.

https://www.nycreligion.info/mayor-bloomberg-closes-22-manhattan-worship- services-today-list/

Fuck you and your anti christian bigotry. We don't need a baby killer anti christian like you would vote for.

Baby killers make good presidents according to hillary supporter Vic the dick.

Yeah because he hates the first amendment and religious freedom.

Bloomberg hates the second amendment even more. And he loves to insert himself into state elections like a stinking carpetbagger.

Ask any Mainer. In the 2016 election Bloomberg forced Question 3 onto the ballot, which would have made ANY gun transfer subject to a federal background check...even guns given as gifts! We narrowly defeated that initiative...something like 51% to 48%.

https://www.votenoquestion3.org/

Bloomberg would disarm the American people...

Aren't you on Social Security? And Medicare?

Cut the sanctimony. People who are receiving Social Security and/or Medicare paid into those government programs.

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.

Aren’t you on welfare and food stamps?

No. I PAY for those programs through my high tax bracket. But I am happy those programs exist, and am happy to pay the taxes required to make them continue to, so they are available for me or my family and friends in case some calamity befalls us causing us to need it.

Everybody pays taxes.

47% of tax filers pay no federal income tax.

I don't care if they pay some stupid state sales tax, qualifying them to be included in your over-broad blanket statement.

No. I PAY for those programs

No you pay the interest on the debt for your stupid programs that are wasteful.

" Cut the sanctimony. People who are receiving Social Security and/or Medicare paid into those government programs.

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 !!!

of the assertion that the poor pay no taxes

Who made that assertion, Mr. Strawman?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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?

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.

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.

They hate welfare more than they love babies,

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.

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.

You really are a retard aren't you!

You really are a retard aren't you!

There should be a question mark not an exclamation point at the end.

Retardo.

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.

You really are a retard aren't you!

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.

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.