Bloomberg

[WestCanMan]

22 hours ago, Argus said:

 There are no practical limits. Most money is spent on advertising. You can start a PAC, and then advertise, running tens of millions of dollars worth of attack ads on other candidates, as long as you don't specifically run ads in favor of your candidate. But it amounts to the same thing. The NRA, for example, spent $30 million to help elect Trump, and won't say where the money came from. There have been suggestions Russia funneled money through them.

 

[WestCanMan]

22 hours ago, Argus said:

 There are no practical limits. Most money is spent on advertising. You can start a PAC, and then advertise, running tens of millions of dollars worth of attack ads on other candidates, as long as you don't specifically run ads in favor of your candidate. But it amounts to the same thing.

Maybe he wants to put his face front and center in the war against Trump instead of starting a PAC and being more or less anonymous? He's a billionaire former mayor of NYC, I could see ego being a huge part of it. 

Would he be allowed to just buy up commercial spots on TV and run Trump attack ads if he wasn't "running"? Again, I don't know. I'm just guessing here, and I never claimed to be doing more than that.

Fact is, when Bloomberg announced his candidacy, I thought that he was going to be a serious candidate and run as a capitalist Democrat. He is putting in such a half-assed effort that I don't believe that to be the case anymore, unless he's just lost his fastball (and his curveball, knuckleball, and his ability to catch or hit).

Quote

The NRA, for example, spent $30 million to help elect Trump, and won't say where the money came from.

There are over 5 million NRA members, $30M isn't a lot of money for a group that big. They probably have 1,000 members who could foot 1/6th of that bill themselves and not be too hard pressed.

Quote

There have been suggestions Russia funneled money through them.

There have been suggestions that Santa Claus funnelled money through them.

[Right To Left]

On 11/27/2019 at 3:21 PM, Argus said:

No, it's because people like you want a pure left candidate who is absolutely unelectable. If Trump wins re-election it will be because of the progressives like Warren and Sanders.

Sanders offers what used to be mainstream Democrat ideas 40 or 50 years ago, but you and so many others who've been marinating in rightwing pro-biz propaganda since Reagan, call it extreme left! That is only because the Republicans have kept pushing the line of scrimmage further and further to the right, while corporate-funded Democrat traitors allow themselves to get pushed on issues they don't really believe in and aren't willing to defend!

I've told more than a few Obama loyalists who have kept repeating the mantra that 'Obama had no choice.....Republican congress blah blah blah" that certain issues like TransPacific Partnership (where he no doubt had some IOU's riding on) he was willing to fight for them and fight hard! His well compensated Wall Street and Big Pharma speeches along with his two new mansions since leaving the White House are the trail of evidence that he was a fraud going in and that the Democrat leadership knew this and that's why they got behind him in 08 rather than expected standard-bearer - Hillary. 

And don't put Warren in the same box as Bernie Sanders! She is also a fraud....which was obvious at her debate performance when she could be seen smirking whenever Bernie was thumping away about public healthcare....an issue that she claims to believe in.....NOW! I think Bernie would be a weak leader....like Jeremy Corbyn has turned out to be for Labour, but he does have core principles and things he believes in.....other than personal advancement!

[Yzermandius19]

2 hours ago, Right To Left said:

Sanders offers what used to be mainstream Democrat ideas 40 or 50 years ago, but you and so many others who've been marinating in rightwing pro-biz propaganda since Reagan, call it extreme left!

Sanders offer McGovernism, which is far left nonsense that gets steamrolled in America. He is clearly far left, he wants a level of socialism that even the "socialist" nations he champions would think is too far left. He is not a centrist Democrat, and never would be at any point in the history of the party. He honeymooned in the Soviet Union and constantly made excuses for socialist regimes. He even calls himself a socialist, which is extreme left in America, and always was.

Edited December 1, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Rue]

You know that  joke it works like this....a guy walks into a bar in Washington and he sees Jerry Seinfeld sitting having a drink with Sarah Silverman and he slaps him. Seinfeld says, o.k. so you don't like my humour, but I retired rich. Five minutes later another guy walks up to Sarah Silverman and says, I hate both of you and pushes her and walks away. So she says, o.k. not everyone thinks I am funny. Then Gilbert Godfried walks in to join them and sits down and suddenly a guy walks up to him and says-you whiny bastard and slaps him and Gilbert says, "so ok not everyone likes my voice".

Then this guy stands up from a corner and says, " My name is Taxme, I am from Canada and let me tell you, the world is going to pot, uyou know why? You Jews. That's why. Look at what Epstein did.  Look at Trump's son in law.  Look at that guy running the impeachment process. Shame on all of you. You should all be shipped in a capsule to Mars". (that's the politically correct version edited due to recent developments with Don Cherry and the former Coach of the Calgary Flames)

Then another guy stands up and  yells, "Yah and bastards sank the Titanic too!" At this point Godfriend says, "now wait a second, before you go further, I did not kill Jesus I do not own a bank or produce Hollywood movies and I am not in the illuminati my dick is too small...and Jerry interupts and says hey what is with that why the Titanic?" ..then the guy yells back.. Shiff, "Bloomberg, Iceberg  yer all the same to me."

With apologies to the original version.

This joke Zionist Conspirators of America and Canada, Chamber 666

Rue Grandmaster and keeper of Sarah Silverman's underpants

Happy Chanukah to all you Trump Supporters

Edited December 2, 2019 by Rue

[Right To Left]

On 12/1/2019 at 3:14 PM, Yzermandius19 said:

Sanders offer McGovernism, which is far left nonsense that gets steamrolled in America. He is clearly far left, he wants a level of socialism that even the "socialist" nations he champions would think is too far left. He is not a centrist Democrat, and never would be at any point in the history of the party. He honeymooned in the Soviet Union and constantly made excuses for socialist regimes. He even calls himself a socialist, which is extreme left in America, and always was.

Define "McGovernism" then! Because from what I remember of George McGovern's winning campaign for the Democratic nomination in 72 ......the last time it was a truly democratic party..... and disastrous loss to incumbent President -  Richard Nixon, was that McGovern's focus and the media's focus also, was on his pledge to pull US troops out of the Vietnam War. There was little else that received much focus. And as a harbinger of what would likely happen if Bernie some way/somehow won the nomination, George McGovern was knee-capped by his own Party....who decided they would rather lose and have a 2nd Nixon term in the White House, than win with an anti-war candidate who would ruin the highly profitable war and armaments business.

As for Bernie again...I couldn't give a crap where he went on his honeymoon, and he qualifies his socialism as 'democratic' socialist....and has elaborated a number of times since he first ran 4 years ago, that his socialist model is the Euro social democrats....like Sweden/not the Soviet Union or whatever you're hysterical about!

[bush_cheney2004]

47 minutes ago, Right To Left said:

Define "McGovernism" then! Because from what I remember of George McGovern's winning campaign for the Democratic nomination in 72 ......the last time it was a truly democratic party..... and disastrous loss to incumbent President -  Richard Nixon, was that McGovern's focus and the media's focus also, was on his pledge to pull US troops out of the Vietnam War. e war and armaments business.There was little else that received much focus....

 

Not so....McGovern also campaigned on a national minimum income and the media destroyed him for the debacle with his first running mate, Sen. Thomas Eagleton and his non-disclosed electroshock mental health treatments.    Sargent Shriver was added to the Democratic ticket after Eagleton was dropped...post convention.

McGovern has been the poster boy for crazy left wing candidates ever since, something that Bloomberg need not fear.

 

 

Edited December 3, 2019 by bush_cheney2004

[Right To Left]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Not so....McGovern also campaigned on a national minimum income and the media destroyed him for the debacle with his first running mate, Sen. Thomas Eagleton and his non-disclosed electroshock mental health treatments.    Sargent Shriver was added to the Democratic ticket after Eagleton was dropped...post convention.

McGovern has been the poster boy for crazy left wing candidates ever since, something that Bloomberg need not fear.

 

 

You forgot to mention that Richard Nixon also proposed a minimum income for poor people...but didn't follow through on it. 1972 was a different time, and it'x not useful to judge any political leaders back then by today's definitions of right and left. Nixon also brought in the FDA, FCC, the EPA and the first "Earth Day."  No doubt a lot of that was not stuff he wanted to do, but that was a time when the pendulum was moving to the left on a number of issues.....besides war!

Certainly Eagleton shouldn''t have tried to keep his medical history secret. As I recall, the electroshock treatments were supposedly to alleviate depression. It wasn't like he was schizophrenic and stuck in an institution. A similiar case today, he would have been prescribed antidepressants and that would be the end of the story.

[Yzermandius19]

14 hours ago, Right To Left said:

You forgot to mention that Richard Nixon also proposed a minimum income for poor people...but didn't follow through on it. 1972 was a different time, and it'x not useful to judge any political leaders back then by today's definitions of right and left. Nixon also brought in the FDA, FCC, the EPA and the first "Earth Day."  No doubt a lot of that was not stuff he wanted to do, but that was a time when the pendulum was moving to the left on a number of issues.....besides war!

Certainly Eagleton shouldn''t have tried to keep his medical history secret. As I recall, the electroshock treatments were supposedly to alleviate depression. It wasn't like he was schizophrenic and stuck in an institution. A similiar case today, he would have been prescribed antidepressants and that would be the end of the story.

The political paradigm hasn't changed, the cycle has just come back around, and you lack perspective of American political history is all. Going far left has never won the Democrats an election, and it's not going to work now either.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Yzermandius19