Bloomberg called paid sick "a godawful law," & Living wage reminds Bloomberg of Soviet communism...

[tenderfoot]

Bloomberg called paid sick "a godawful law," & Living wage reminds Bloomberg of Soviet communism; he says he'll stop it in court if he has to...

Asked about the city's "living wage" legislation during his regular Friday morning radio appearance on WOR, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said, "The last time we really had a big managed economy was the USSR."

On Wednesday night, City Council speaker Christine Quinn announced that negotiations were finally complete on a living wage bill that would require some recipients of large economic development subsidies to pay their employees at least $10 an hour.

Quinn calls it "the most impactful living-wage law in the United States," but experts say it will actually impact about 500 workers a year.

Even so, today, Bloomberg compared the legislation to communism and said he would veto the bill and if the veto is overridden, his administration will file a lawsuit.

"It's interesting if you think about it," said the mayor. "The last time we really had a big managed economy was the USSR and that didn't work out so well."

"It would be great if all jobs in the city paid a lot of money and had great benefits for the workers. Not good for the employers. But if you force that you will just drive businesses out of the city."

https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2012/04/living-wage-reminds-bloomberg-of-soviet-communism-he-says-hell-stop-it-in-court-if-he-has-to-003389

[apcalc]

1. I doubt businesses would leave the city...sounds very R in his response Imo.

[mr_lebowski]

31. That he does ... frighteningly so ... disappointing to read (nt)

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

101. But Mike's a Democrat now... so give him a break!! Now Bernie OTOH...

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[Zolorp]

2. Don't care, first concern is defeating Sanders

That is all that matters right now.

[Autumn]

4. I thought the first concern was to defeat Trump?

Be careful what you wish for. Bloomberg won't defeat Trump.

[Zolorp]

5. Can't defeat Trump of Sandrs is nominated

Gotta defeat Sanders first, otherwise defeating Trump is moot. There is no way for Sanders to win if he is nominated, IMO.

[Autumn]

7. Who do you think will magically become the nominee and win the GE should bLoomberg

knock Bernie out? FYI. He won't knock Bernie out and he won't beat Trump in the GE.

[Zolorp]

21. Bloomberg will defeat Trump without a lot of effort

Sanders would lose badly.

So badly that Trump would regain full control of all three branches of government.

[totodeinhere]

19. We can't be sure if Bloomberg could beat Trump either. If he gets the nomination

a lot of people from the party's left wing will be pissed. They won't vote for Trump but they won't be very enthusiastic about Bloomberg. And if the party's base is not enthused we lose in November because we cannot win without the solid support of the base. And we know that the zombies in Trump's base will be voting.

[Zolorp]

23. Bloomberg gives pissed off Republicans somebody they can vote for

So the childish left won't make a difference.

If we have to depend upon undependable voters, we are doomed.

[totodeinhere]

32. There aren't many Republicans in that group and I think they will be a non

factor. Trump has a very high approval with Republicans.

[Celerity]

57. So you are saying actual Republicans are now reliable Democratic voters

simply because... Bloomberg.

That seems a real dice roll, especially as Rump is rolling at 95% or so approval ratings with Rethugs.

[Autumn]

22. Bernie can and will defeat Trump. It seems his chances are better now that BB has knocked

down a couple of Democratic hopefuls. I think someone, somewhere, is kicking themselves for their miscalculations.

[Zolorp]

25. If Sanders is the nominee there is no chance of him defeating Trump.

None.

There is at least a 50% chance that he hands Trump the first unanimous Electoral College win since Washington, though.

There is no way this country will elect a man with his baggage.

[Autumn]

27. You are wrong. " unanimous Electoral College win" ? Try another fantasy.

[customerserviceguy]

37. Agreed

DC won't go for anything other than a Democratic candidate, so that makes unanimous impossible.

[Celerity]

59. [phone]

[Zolorp]

61. You laugh now.

You'll be crying on November 4 if Sanders is nominated.

[Autumn]

79. I'm laughing now, November 4 when Bernie is the nominee I will be crying with joy.

[Zolorp]

80. On November 4th, if Sanders is the nominee

the entire world will be cringing in terror at a second Trump term because there is no way Sanders can defeat Trump.

[redstateblues]

103. He would lose in a landslide. He would turn blue states purple

[totodeinhere]

34. I'm sorry but I just have to laugh at that prediction.

There is no way that any Republican could beat Bernie in California, New York and a few other blue states. Suggesting that Bernie would get zero electoral votes is ludicrous. But it could be a close election overall and we will need to be sure that our base is energized.

[Celerity]

58. Any, and I mean ANY of our candidates pulling zero EV's is patently

absurd. As if DC, California, Hawai'i, etc etc etc are going to vote for Trump. Pure tosh. Peak tosh.

[Zolorp]

62. You failed to factor in the Communism baggage in Sanders' past

If anybody could hand a Republican a unanimous EC win, it's Sanders.

[Celerity]

66. I failed in nothing, the assertion is laughable nt

[Zolorp]

67. Nominate him and see who is right.

I guarantee a blowout of epic proportions should he be nominated.

[Celerity]

70. now you move goalposts

you said he would literally get ZERO EV's

four
fyra
quatre
cuatro
vier

percent of DC voted for Trump in 2016

the odds of Trump winning there in 2020 are less than the odds of me sprouting wings and flying across the Baltic

[Zolorp]

71. Read the damned post

"There is at least a 50% chance that he hands Trump the first unanimous Electoral College win since Washington, though."

50% is not absolute.

[Celerity]

72. lol, hedge all you want, DC alone (there are many others as well) renders your 50% chance laughable

[Zolorp]

73. Now who is moving goalposts?

[Celerity]

74. I moved nothing

I have never been a Sanders fan, but I am also not a fan of ridiculous statements.

Done here, as this is beyond tedious.

[Zolorp]

75. You moved my statement about a chance into an absolute.

[Celerity]

77. fail

I moved nothing

I did not have to

I never said anything that inferred it was an absolute

but
yes
I will do so now

a 50% chance of Trump winning 540 to Zero in the EV count, regardless of which one of the remaining candidates we nominate, is absolute tosh

[Zolorp]

78. The thread posts prove me right.

[Celerity]

81. no, it proves you were across the board wrong, especially with your original point I replied to nt

[Zolorp]

82. You made something I stated was a chance into an absolute

I am right. You are wrong. It is documented above.

[Celerity]

83. none of my statements either said it was an absolute statement by you nor were they dependent

on it being an absolute statement by you

a 50% chance (what you said) of Trump winning EVERY EV is pure folly

you were bested here

accept your loss and move on

[Zolorp]

84. To quote you, "you said he would literally get ZERO EV's"

I did no such thing.

You took something I clearly stated was a chance and made it into a "literal" absolut.

I am right, you are wrong.

[Celerity]

85. a 50% chance is saying that that is more than just a remote possibility, and a 50% chance is still

a fantasy.

In fact you said AT LEAST 50%, meaning it could be even a higher probability.



You saying there is at least a 50% chance that Trump would get EVERY EV running against Sanders is pure comedy gold.

[Zolorp]

86. Saying it was a 50% is NOT saying it would literally happen

Learn some damned grammar before you say such nonsense next time.

At least look up the damned definition of "literally" before you throw the word around like it was nothing.

[Celerity]

87. You need to learn to accept that what you said was ridiculous, and that you cannot spin your way out

of it.

You lost this one. Now you are trying to pettifog your way out of a ludicrous statement. I do not fall for sophistry, sorry, go find someone who does.

Other posters called you out on it on this very thread too, so it is not only me who sees the ludicrous nature of your positing as well.

[Zolorp]

89. IT wasn't ridiculous

I watched Nixon and Reagan both come close to unanimous electoral college victories and Sanders is a worse potential nominee that we have ever seen before.

You're damed straight there's a good chance Trump would take it all if Sanders is the nominee. The man has NEVER. BEEN. VETTED!

[Celerity]

92. Explain how DC, which voted FOUR % for Trump, is going to magically go for Trump in 2020.

That outcome is needed in order for for Trump to win every EV.

It will never happen, not with Sanders, not with any of the others.

There are other states too (HI, VT, CA, for example) that will never go Trump even with Bernie as the nominee, but all I need to disprove your statement is one entity awarding delegates not going for Trump, that being DC.

This is NOT 1972 anymore, and even 1972 was not a 100% EV loss. Nixon lost MA and DC (he only got 21.56% of the vote in DC). In 1984 Reagan lost MN and DC (Reagan won only 13.73% of the vote in DC)

The other modern 90% plus EV landslides were Roosevelt in 1936 , and he still lost VT and ME (the closest ever in modern times to 100% as FDR only semi-narrowly lost those 2), and then LBJ in 1964, and he lost AZ, LA, MS, AL, SC, and GA (he was crushed in AL and MS.)

In 1820, James Monroe won every state and received all but one of the electoral votes. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams received the only other electoral vote, which came from faithless elector William Plumer.

The only 100% EV vote wins ever were our first two POTUS elections, won by George Washington, who ran uncontested in 1789 and 1792.

[Zolorp]

94. Because Sanders has a long affiliation with Communism

It started in '77 and ran through the fall of the Berlin wall.

It is all well documented.

And too many voters in DC served the United States government during the cold war.

Sanders is Pure Electoral Poison, even in DC.

[Celerity]

95. It will never ever happen, and I will make an absolute statement; IF Bernie wins the nomination he

will win DC, 100% guaranteed.

Bernie winning the nomination may well be a loss for us, the nation, the world. He may well get crushed by Trump. I do not want him to win the nomination, BUT zero percent chance he loses every single EV. DC will go Blue no matter who. It is a fantasy to suggest otherwise.

[Zolorp]

96. And I am saying that Sanders is the ONLY potential nominee who could actually LOSE DC.

[Celerity]

97. you may need to find a new Sanders-stopper to support, especially if it comes down to 2 candidates

New NBC/WSJ poll, in a 1 on 1 primary race, Sanders 57%, Bloomberg 37%

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6779408/200085-NBCWSJ-February-Poll.pdf



here is the headline number in terms of voter support for all our candidates atm

[Zolorp]

99. Meaningless at this point in the primaries

And all I am worried about at this point is making sure Sanders is not nominated. I am promoting Bloomberg now because he seems the best positioned to take out Sanders by pushing his baggage on television 24X7. I really don't care who is nominated, so long as it is not Sanders. Everybody else at least has a chance of defeating Trump. Sanders has no chance whatsoever.

[Celerity]

100. Although I do not think Bernie would be a good choice for our nominee, I also have concerns about

Bloomberg as well. I think both can potentially rip our party apart, at least partially. I do NOT look at Sanderite ant-Bloomberg stances, I look at people who support other candidates. I also have been reading up a lot on Bloomberg. He has an extraordinarily problematic past.

If Pete falters, I have changed my mind as to whom I will support. I do admit to being excited at first about Bloomberg, but, as long as he is a viable candidate, I will (although I already cast my overseas California ballot for Pete) be so hoping that either Biden (the far more likely) or Warren comes out on top. Klobuchar has the same issue Pete does (and far less of a good campaign apparatus) insomuch as the both struggle mightily with my fellow people of colour. Pete, Amy, Steyer and probably Warren (barring some large upsets) are done after Super Tuesday. I am counting on Biden now coming in a strong 2nd (or even first) in Nevada, and then hopefully winning South Carolina in a big way. If he too falls after Super Tuesday, then I shall really start to worry about the party and the general, as Bloomberg has a simply massive amount of baggage, as does Sanders.

Trump has put into place a disastrous new archetype, that being the buying of American elections by billionaire candidates. THAT is also poison for democracy as well. I am in no way predicting this, BUT, if it does come down the Bernie and Bloomberg and it goes full-blown warfare, with anything and everything on the table, I truly fear for a Sanders actual spoiler role, or even, if he can pull it off, a 3rd party indie run. I can see a path where that happens, and it will ensure a Trump victory, which in turn will ensure a potential death blow to the Union via Trump taking the SCOTUS to a 7-2 or even 8-1 (if Sotomayor's severe diabetes forces her out) HARD RW composition for 2 or more decades. That is on top of the RW rest of the federal judiciary.

IF that occurs, the RW will attempt to roll back ALL post Brown v Board civil rights, up to and including Brown itself via hundreds of feeder cases spewing up from the Red states. They also will not stop at simply devolving things back to the states on this. They will make it the law of the land and then attempt to bully the Blue states into full acceptance, at which point, say around the late 2020's or so, you will start to have full and open talk of starting the process (whatever that may be) for succession by the big Blue states. I can see all becoming a vicious circle culminating in the attempted break-up by 2040 at the latest. The Blue states will never submit to a full blown radical theocratic nation form of government, which is exactly where we are headed if Trump gets his reelection.

Also, strictly speaking of our party, IF Bloomberg did win the nomination, and did proceed to go full-blown Republican vote chaser, that lurch to the right could very well be so great that its starts to have the effect of a truly large amount of the progressive left finally pack it in by the millions and attempt to form an true 3rd party. There is but so far into the centre right we can go with the law of diminishing returns kicking in, especially as the voting populace becomes far more non Boomer and even older. Anecdotal stories on here aside, people in my age cohort (I am 1996-born, so lets call it 18 to 30yo's by November 2020) are in no way, shape or form wholeheartedly embrace a party that makes a run to the centre right in order to make up for lost millions of farther left voters who will quite possible flee.

Much of what is in (and will be splashed coast to coast as the extreme vetting begins in earnest) Bloomberg's background is anathema to people my age, people who are not obsessed with politics, and simply will not buy into a 'hold your nose' and suck it up as Trump is worse' framing simply because they will look at it as a false choice. We do NOT have to run a billionaire with some pretty horrid things (racially, gender-wise, Rethug Bush and Rethug Senator-supporting, etc etc) in his background as our standard bearer, let alone take the party in a centre right direction. It simply is not true that it can only be Bernie or only be Mike. People in their two camps will attempt to do that, or at least some will, but that is a recipe for disaster IMHO.

I so hope Biden, Warren, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, and Steyer expose Bloomberg completely tomorrow at the debate, and do so to Bernie as well. It needs to be done to the both of them, for the sake of starting to bring our Party together for the general. Warren (in regards to Bernie) and then the 3 main moderately left-liberals (Biden, Pete and Amy) in regards to Bloomberg, ALL need to step up and do this to avoid a trainwreck that I truly see looming on the event horizon.

[Zolorp]

105. I don't believe for a minute Bloomberg wants to be president

He wants Trump out and he wants Sanders to not be nominated.

I share these goals.

[nobuddy]

12. Trump fears Bloomberg

[Autumn]

16. Ya think? He probably just fears Bloomberg will get a better score in their golf games.

[nobuddy]

17. Bloomberg beat them all

he doesn't just front run primaries, but golf outings too.

[Autumn]

24. Alrighty then.

[nobuddy]

26. you are welcome to join the front runner's campaign

the Bloomtrain is pulling out of the station

[Autumn]

29. In that case I think I'll stand on the tracks. But thanks for the nice invite

[customerserviceguy]

39. With the Bloomtrain

we're the ones tied up on the tracks.

[zackymilly]

63. Welcome to DU, I think. n/t

[totodeinhere]

36. Wow that's quite a foursome. n/t

[The Mouth]

20. Bernie is more of a threat to billionaires

[customerserviceguy]

41. Not really

Bernie cannot get the support in Congress he needs for his wildest ideas. Bloomie's been making money off of sharpies for years with his tout sheet on how to steal money from working people in the financial markets.

[The Mouth]

90. OK, point

Bloomberg is even scarier. Trump without the overt racism but a bit more charm and actual smarts and money.

[customerserviceguy]

91. I would say

that the audios and videos we've seen of Bloomberg's speeches are pretty overt. Now, they're digging out some homophobia and transphobia.

I get that some people figure it's going to take a billionaire to get rid of Trump, but I'm curious why they didn't latch on to Steyer a tenth as much as they've glommed on to Bloomie. At least Steyer has a political record he can be proud of before the Democratic Party.

[The Mouth]

93. Blind hatred

like embracing Stalin to get rid of Hitler.

[pecosbob]

88. Unless they're in the arms business

[progressoid]

47. Oops.

Post deleted.

[demmiblue]

55. Hmm...

4 posts deleted in less that three months.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

102. Mike won't defeat Bernie either... Joe thought the same thing and we see how that's turned out!

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together & can't be bought!!
Jump on the Bernie Bandwagon & join the revolution!!

[LanternWaste]

8. Your response is what happens when one stares into the abyss for too long.

(regardless of what little distemper we pretend is all that matters)

[samir.g]

10. Bloomberg is helping Sanders

by splitting the non-Sanders vote even further.

[Zolorp]

14. he is coalescing that support

His numbers keep going up.

Had Biden not faltered, I doubt he would be running a single ad right now.

[Hekate]

18. Jeez Louise, Zolorp

[cherryinpa]

33. Wait

Are you saying your priority is to defeat at Democrat ally?

And that outweighs the need to defend workers rights?

Surely you misstated that.

[redqueen]

38. Wow you've been here a whole month now

Look at that.

[customerserviceguy]

42. Enough time for the check to clear. n/t

[zackymilly]

65. There are a lot of new members here for Bloomberg lately. nt

[rockfordfile]

64. No. That kind of talk is way out there.

[BusyBeingBest]

3. He's changed his mind. But if consistency over the years is your primary concern,

go for another candidate.

[Skya Rhen]

6. He was 70 at the time. Nah - his repugnant Republican views are set. n/t

[BusyBeingBest]

11. It's up to each primary voter to decide if he's going to hold to his current platform.

Things like flip flopping or evolving used to concern me, but now I'd rather win with a recent convert than lose with someone more consistent, but without the fight or resources or support to go all the way.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

9. Gee, he's done a lot of changing his mind lately. What happened?

I just saw a video of him claiming communist China is not a dictatorship because they fear their constituents. Yet a city with actual votes and democracy is communist Russia.

[honest.abe]

13. Trump?

I do not doubt he is sincere considering what Trump is doing to this country.

[BusyBeingBest]

15. He became a Democrat, is what happened.

Not overly concerned with foreign policy just yet, will wait and see a fleshed-out philosophy and not judge a few quotes. Because after all, Bernie has a lot of baggage in that department as well, and I don't judge that too harshly either.

[customerserviceguy]

43. Sure, just like

Trump became a Republican. Trump had a lot of center-progressive views up until the Obama administration, and the stupid MAGAts were fooled into thinking that he changed.

It's sad for me to see so many here who are falling for Bloomie's fake apologies.

[BusyBeingBest]

46. I don't know that they're fake. Nothing about his life story

that I've read so far, including stuff from his time as Mayor, suggests he's totally an amoral sociopath. He did raise good kids, also. Maybe he does feel bad now. I don't know.

[customerserviceguy]

48. The era of Trump

has thrown all of the rules out of the window.

What was it Maya Angelou said about "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time." We seem to have forgotten her sage advice.

[BusyBeingBest]

50. I think people really want to view a person as good or bad--

because our brains evolved to quickly fit things into easy and clear categories, for our own safety and survival. I just don't get a "bad-guy" vibe from Bloomberg, just more of a guy who sometimes is a jerk but other times does the right thing.

[customerserviceguy]

51. Well, wait

until more stuff tumbles out about what Bloomie's said and done. I expect a fair amount of it to come out at the debate, if Bloomberg shows up for it.

[BusyBeingBest]

53. I'm sure, they're waiting to take their whacks.

[jcmaine72]

28. Don't ya just love all the people nonchalantly dismissing all the horrible shit this man has said

and stood for all these years on the grounds that it was "years ago"? Meanwhile, this "years ago" was a recently as the years of the Obama administration when Bloomberg was already a senior citizen. That's hardly some hazy, long-ago slip of the tongue made when Bloomy was still in short pants hangin' out with Spanky and Alfalfa inside the old He-Man Woman Hater's Club, is it?

[cherryinpa]

35. Yes

What is it about Bloomberg that allows so many in our party to ignore his severely problematic background? Is it his magnetic personality? Strong views on social justice and / or economically progressive ideals?

It doesn't seem to be that.

But he seems to have something that is attracting Democrats to him like flies on shit.

[squirecam]

40. This I don't know

I can’t stand either Bernie or Bloomberg. I’d vote for anyone else in the primary over them.

[Autumn]

44. As was stated up thread, Bloomberg is the chosen one to take out Bernie. That's a hell of an

attraction to a lot of people.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287533062#post2

[customerserviceguy]

45. It's a sign of desperation, I fear

A month ago, it was assumed that Joe Biden would be doing well about this point, and that he was the one who could get the nomination and defeat Trump in the fall. Of course, after a fourth place finish in Iowa and a fifth place finish in New Hampshire, things have changed.

Along comes the smell of money and it's perceived ability to win elections, and desperate people are willing to ignore progressive principles out of raw fear. It's Bloomie following the old Trump playbook.

[Devil Child]

52. "But he aint trump" and "you WILL vote for Bloomberg"

Either seem to be the preferred response to a critical piece of information regarding Bloomberg.

[Autumn]

54. We will but other Dems won't. I live in a rural community we have some good Dems here.

They are posting and sharing this letter on FB. It's being shared like crazy.

Mr. Bloomberg,

I won’t even hesitate before calling you stupid. Farming is so damn easy, right? Come to my small community and last one freakin day on a farm, I dare you. And I don’t just mean get things done, but get them done RIGHT the FIRST time.

Farming is HARD WORK. Farmers cannot sit in an office all day, never worrying about the weather like you can. They have to plan their days accordingly, never staying home when the ice storm hits because those baby calves depend on them. Day in and day out, they work to make sure their animals are fed and taken care of before themselves. Not only that, but those “little seeds” you speak of, that is how they provide for their family.

You are clearly disconnected from modern agriculture if you don’t think intelligence and technology come into play. Have you been on a sprayer, tractor or combine? Are you blind to the fact that with production and genetic improvements, each farmer now feeds 155 people per year, up from 26 in the 1960s?

So before you go insulting the backbone of our country, think about what all that 2% of the United States does for you. The food on your dining room table that feeds your family? Thank a farmer. The designer clothes that you cannot seem to live without? Thank a farmer. The fuel you use on a daily basis to go from campaign to campaign? Thank a farmer. That makeup that your daughters are so obsessed with? Thank a farmer. The sports ball that your grandson can’t get enough of? Thank a farmer.

Let’s take it a step farther. Think about all of the indirect jobs there are in the United States because of agriculture: grocery stores, farm machine manufacturers, agriculture education, restaurants, the list goes on and on.

Farmers don’t just provide for the country, they also build it. These men and women are some of the smartest, faithful, hard-working people in the United States. And they choose to instill these qualities in their families as well, so that you will be fed and clothed for many generations.

Stop belittling an industry that you could not live without… because I promise you, you would not survive a damn day without us.

[Squinch]

76. Oh good. That Fox News Russian Bot talking point

that completely lied about what Bloomberg said about farming seems to have hit it's mark.

The people here who spread it must be so proud.

[Squinch]

30. Today he's calling for $15 minimum wage and paid sick and family

leave for men and women.

[BlueWI]

60. Well..

He's evolved to stances that would put him ahead of the curve if this were 2000 instead of 2020.

Paid family sick leave for men and women? I hope so.

[zackymilly]

68. Both men AND women? Wow. What a revolutionist! nt

[Squinch]

69. Essentially he is the same as all the others on these issues. So no

not a "revolutionist" but his positions are not a problem.

[uponit7771]

106. No one in their right mind trust this shift is ...soooooooooooo ... many areas.

[Squinch]

107. So call me crazy. I don't think he cares enough about this

issue to go back on the campaign promises he makes about it. He'll put it in place quick and move on to his three pet issues: erasing Filthy Donnie's legacy, climate change and gun control.

That's how he did it in NYC. He made campaign promises. People thought they were uncharacteristic, but he kept those promises because, I think, he felt they were part of the contract he had struck with the people that let him move on to work on his pet issues.

One of which was to reduce the skyrocketing murder rate of young black men and another of which was to reduce the NYC incarceration rate. Both of which he did very successfully.

[uponit7771]

108. Of course, his analyst are dead wrong about MB's appeal. Humans don't choose knock offs vs the

... original if there's no cost value in the knock off.

Right now Bloomberg is Trump light (IE why he appealed to Trump for so many years) if one doesn't take seriously Bloomberg's shift, which after a while the hits keep coming and Mikes heart and mind comes to the forefront HE'S REPUBLICAN.

NEVER in history, I'm starting

[Squinch]

109. This is a smear. You know perfectly well it isn't true.

Trump isn't literally keeping Planned Parenthood's doors open. Bloomberg is.

Trump isn't keeping major American cities in the Paris Accord. Bloomberg is.

Trump isn't successfully taking on the NRA and getting gun control legislation passed. Bloomberg is.

Trump didn't reduce the murder rate of young black men by 50%. Or reduce the incarceration rate by 40%. Bloomberg did.

Trump isn't proposing to tax the rich and corporations and up the capital gains tax to the same level as the earned income tax. Bloomberg is.

Trump actually molested women. Bloomberg said sexist things in the 90s.

I could go on.

Your post is a smear of a Democratic candidate. I won't alert on it, but it's a clear violation of the TOS.

[uponit7771]

110. Yeah, Bloomberg is less [fill in blank] than Trump means he's Trump Light. No one believes ...

... all Bloomberg's republican right wing views on women, race, economy, schools etc etc have changed in just 9 months.

All Trump would have to do is hug Bloomberg's ... RECORD ... during the general and Bloomberg is done for.

On the other hand Biden is a direct contrast to Bloomberg, with Bloomberg's money Biden can't lose.

[Squinch]

111. Biden has lost and lost badly twice before. I love him but he's

not the guy for this.

And once again, you can look at what Bloomberg has said, or you can look at what he's done. Stop and frisk was immoral and ineffective, but you and I have already discussed at length that Biden and BS are also vulnerable on race issues.

And Bloomberg has done a LOT of things that did a lot of good for a lot of people.

And PS, in my list above, another way Bloomberg is trumps opposite: if he gets elected there will be a path to citizenship for all undocumented residents, and all the immigration shit will end day one.

PS again, if we're going to have these discussions, please stop name calling the candidate I support. You know as well as I do that he's not "trump-lite" and in many ways he is trumps opposite.

[uponit7771]

112. Not relevant to the point that Bloomberg is most like Trump relative to the other candidates and

... all Trump has to do is hug Bloomberg's record and people wont want the knock off.

Biden was Obama's VP so that negates whatever loss's he has spending 8 yrs with a well loved public figure.

No one else's **RECORD*** is as vulnerable on damn near ... EVERY ... issue in regards to progressive views than Bloomberg's.

Bloomberg might rank high but just in 3 out of ten areas but that's negated by being polar opposite in the rest of the areas.

That's where Trump hugs him as the knock off.

And PS, in my list above, another way Bloomberg is trumps opposite: if he gets elected there will be a path to citizenship for all undocumented residents, and all the immigration shit will end day one.

Few people believes this ... Bloomberg has been outwardly and openly antagonistic when it comes to race. His numbers among blacks are horrid.

[Squinch]

113. You have dug in on a position that willfully discounts all the

available evidence.

There is nothing more for us to say to each other on this.

May the person most likely to beat trump win. And I wish you well.

[uponit7771]

115. Please state your evidence that Bloomberg's leftward swing is trustworthy. I'm no a bigot, I'm

... mostly speaking from what I can see are the facts

[Squinch]

116. I have always liked you. For that reason I'm going to put

you on ignore till the primaries end and we can come back together as allies.

[LeftTurn3623]

56. LA LA LA

I cant hear you - I will support Bloomberg because he has good ads.

[David__77]

98. Bloomberg can stimulate Bolshevism lol

...

[ecstatic]

104. Honestly? I don't care. nt