Anarchistbear said:

---

Ousting Trump and the national debt aren't big deals to me. I wouldn't necessarily vote for either.

---

Wow. I'm surprised, and don't understand why that is, and what does matter to you, then.

concordtom said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

In CNN's poll of Iowa Democrats, Bloomberg's favorable rating was 18%. His unfavorable was 59%. In conservative Iowa. That is what being a socially liberal, fiscally conservative billionaire gets you with Midwest voters. Bloomberg would get slaughtered by Trump throughout the Midwest. People have got to go beyond the top line liberal and conservative designations

---

Polls won't be favorable until he begins to sell himself. Get out there and campaign. Show yourself.
He's better get started and quit letting pop quiz suppositions define him.

---

As I said previously, feel free to dream about what you wish voters would want. I'm not saying you are wrong on the issues, but he is exactly the opposite of what plays in the Midwest. Issue polling and focus groups are extremely clear on this. Selling social liberalism and fiscal conservatism isn't going to help him in Iowa. He is taking a peanut butter and liver sandwich and an anchovy and jelly sandwich and combining the "best" bits to make a liver and anchovy sandwich. That approval rating is completely consistent with policy.

concordtom said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Bloomberg is in because we need a return to normalcy

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT4UokjLmsoFhKq0f0Edpbih06QyZupoA7xchoMSX0dfh6FgZHKNQ&s

---

Michael .1% Bloomberg can go to hell.

---

Heck, I was about to come over here to suggest you Dems may finally have something going. Went down MB's positions on all sectors, and he sounds electable, maybe even drawing away a number of evil Republicans. Ah, but then even his own party wishes hell upon him. I better just stick with the FB and BB boards. The homogeny of thought here gives one stomach acid.

---

Well the thing with Mike Bloomberg is it's difficult to tell which party he's in, given he's switched a few times. He's gong to enter the Alabama Democratic primary...but was a GOP as mayor of NYC? At this point I'd say he has some good policy positions for people...but it's difficult to tell exactly what he stands for besides lowering sugar and tobacco consumption. Economy-wise, he's a .1%'er. He can't win.

---

Bloomberg for Prez!!

He will hire experts in the fields for his cabinet and to head up the various departments. They will consult with him but he will delegate authority to them and allow them to run their area.

He sees the job of president as an organizational manager, not a popular figure head. He has actually built a very successful business with many many employees and so the federal government is an e tension of that.

Similarly, as 3-term Mayor of NYC, a city larger than some nations in terms of population and $$$, he has political experience to do the job.

Trump had neither the business management not political experience, and he certainly doesn't have the personality nor communication skills required for the job.

Bloomberg is a fiscal conservative - necessary to reign in the insane deficit!!!

Bloomberg is a social liberal and environmentalist, aligning with my personal values.

It's sad that you say it's hard to know what he stands for. All you have to do is a bit of research. He's not an unknown.

Regarding sugar and tobacco, he didn't take away people's right to it. He merely made it more expensive or difficult - which is a good thing when trying to break an unhealthy vise.

Maybe he could rewrite the tax code and wean some entrenched industries off their pork barrel subsidies.

As a moderate, he could win lots of republicans and destroy trump in the general!!! Like, massive landslide. He just needs to win the Democratic nomination first. I'm all for it!

---

Why do you say a fiscal conservative will reign in the deficit? Every conservative President in my life has exploded the deficit.

---

I hear no Democrats speaking of deficit control. I stead, Warren and Bernie have large social programs proposed, and I hear nothing about how they'll pay for it. The 2% solution? I don't believe that will work. Either it won't ever get passed or it... it's just a bridge too far. If you want to implement something like that, start with .25% and build a mechanism for collection and enforcement. People can change their citizenship, you know.

But anyways, to continue, Trump certainly IS NOT going to control debt. His economic mouthpiece is charming but disingenuous. I don't believe the plan!!!

So, Bloomberg understands finance, has run a city budget very successfully, and his own company as well. I respect the Bloomberg business product, as a former customer. Meanwhile, Trump's past business reputation was a massive train wreck of unpaid contractors, bankruptcies, Atlantic City got stuffed with his failure (much like what Al Davis did to Oakland in moving back and having income guaranteed).

---

1. Democrats have always been responsible with the federal deficit. Democrats always put great effort into paying for their programs (because that is the only way to make them sustainable).

2. Nobodies base ever got worked up by talking about the deficit.

3. Fiscal conservatives have been trying for decades now to prove that MMT is correct. Like Cheney said, "deficits don't matter. Reagan proved that."

concordtom said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Bloomberg is in because we need a return to normalcy

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT4UokjLmsoFhKq0f0Edpbih06QyZupoA7xchoMSX0dfh6FgZHKNQ&s

---

Michael .1% Bloomberg can go to hell.

---

Heck, I was about to come over here to suggest you Dems may finally have something going. Went down MB's positions on all sectors, and he sounds electable, maybe even drawing away a number of evil Republicans. Ah, but then even his own party wishes hell upon him. I better just stick with the FB and BB boards. The homogeny of thought here gives one stomach acid.

---

Well the thing with Mike Bloomberg is it's difficult to tell which party he's in, given he's switched a few times. He's gong to enter the Alabama Democratic primary...but was a GOP as mayor of NYC? At this point I'd say he has some good policy positions for people...but it's difficult to tell exactly what he stands for besides lowering sugar and tobacco consumption. Economy-wise, he's a .1%'er. He can't win.

---

Bloomberg for Prez!!

He will hire experts in the fields for his cabinet and to head up the various departments. They will consult with him but he will delegate authority to them and allow them to run their area.

He sees the job of president as an organizational manager, not a popular figure head. He has actually built a very successful business with many many employees and so the federal government is an e tension of that.

Similarly, as 3-term Mayor of NYC, a city larger than some nations in terms of population and $$$, he has political experience to do the job.

Trump had neither the business management not political experience, and he certainly doesn't have the personality nor communication skills required for the job.

Bloomberg is a fiscal conservative - necessary to reign in the insane deficit!!!

Bloomberg is a social liberal and environmentalist, aligning with my personal values.

It's sad that you say it's hard to know what he stands for. All you have to do is a bit of research. He's not an unknown.

Regarding sugar and tobacco, he didn't take away people's right to it. He merely made it more expensive or difficult - which is a good thing when trying to break an unhealthy vise.

Maybe he could rewrite the tax code and wean some entrenched industries off their pork barrel subsidies.

As a moderate, he could win lots of republicans and destroy trump in the general!!! Like, massive landslide. He just needs to win the Democratic nomination first. I'm all for it!

---

Okay. I have a brilliant idea for funding the government. A $10 tax every time you want to publicly express an opinion. I count 10 opinions in this post alone. $100 bucks! I haven't taken away your right to free speech. Just made it more expensive or difficult. Well, if you are poor that is. Because billionaires can afford to pay more for their vices. And let's be clear. His policy isn't limited to soda and tobacco. He has advocated using taxes across the board to push public health policy. And it is specifically designed to hit the poor hard so he can impose his big educated decision making on everyone else. He can pay any of these taxes and engage in any vices he wants. How about we put a tax of a tenth of a percent of his wealth on his favorite vice. Tobacco is one thing when that behavior impacts the health of those around you. Sugar and other things they are talking about do not. People have the right to decide that maybe some long term health consequences are an acceptable trade off for living a life that they enjoy. Until Michael Bloomberg is willing to eat a perfectly balanced, environmentally optimal brick of "food" three meals a day for the rest of his life while running on a treadmill, he can eff himself. Why does he get to decide which vices are okay and which ones are bad enough to tax so that poor people can't have them?

concordtom said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

It is a legitimate criticism, but no one is talking about the deficit because it's a loser issue. We've run huge deficits for decades with much handwringing, usually by opposition parties wanting to block a proposed policy of the party in power. For the most part people don't see the impact on their lives. What Americans want is no taxes and tons of government programs simultaneously.

---

Thank you.
And, well, Jesus, then, let's just stick our heads in the sand until the nuclear bombs go off.
I mean, seriously, that is asinine to recognize the Debt is a major issue but just ignore it because people haven't had the temerity to deal with it? Come on, man. Then you are just another part of the problem.

The most important advantage that the USA has over all other nations is the fact that the US Dollar is THE premier reserve currency of wealth globally. We cannot lose that advantage. And yet, the debt is a ticking time bomb that threatens exactly that!!

The issue must be addressed. We cannot achieve all the things we hope to achieve (medical care issues, environmental issues, healthy middle class, blue collar manufacturing jobs in Trump flyover states, etc.) without a strong dollar, a strong economy.

---

The last president to balance the budget didn't run on balancing the budget. Running on increasing taxes and cutting government programs, as he has proposed is political suicide and if your goal is to beat Trump you should recognize that. You can't cut the deficit if you aren't in office. I'm just explaining to you why they aren't going to campaign on it. Overall, historically the stock market has done much better under Democrats and the deficit has ballooned much more under Republicans. I ripped into Warren's funding plan for healthcare as totally unrealistic and I think that it is important that we pay for our policies. However, not talking about a loser issue on the campaign trail doesn't mean you don't govern on it.

I think we do need to address debt. I also think we need to address the wealth gap which Bloomberg will do absolutely nothing to do. He is mainly trying to stop Bernie or Warren from coming after his cronies. Maybe I have more faith that a Democrat that doesn't advocate for lowering the corporate tax rate and doesn't defend executive bonuses at corporations is the way to go. Bloomberg is a Wall Street stooge that will make the rich richer and the middle class poorer. His policies to balance the budget will primarily hit the middle class. His vice taxes primarily hit the poor and he's joked that he'll get into heaven because of all the lives he's saved. He's better than a republican, on these issues, but not a lot.

Don't know why you wouldn't like Biden who is a free trade, debt conscious Democrat who will increase taxes on the wealthy rather than block all corporate reform.

But yeah, if beating Trump is your goal, I suggest you walk into the Midwest on a campaign of raising their taxes, cutting their programs, taxing their sugar and fat, promoting free trade, blocking any Wall Street reform while advocating for NY/California values on social policy. That will resonate really well.

concordtom said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

In CNN's poll of Iowa Democrats, Bloomberg's favorable rating was 18%. His unfavorable was 59%. In conservative Iowa. That is what being a socially liberal, fiscally conservative billionaire gets you with Midwest voters. Bloomberg would get slaughtered by Trump throughout the Midwest. People have got to go beyond the top line liberal and conservative designations

---

Polls won't be favorable until he begins to sell himself. Get out there and campaign. Show yourself.
He's better get started and quit letting pop quiz suppositions define him.

---

The guy just has no chance. He's entering the race too late to gain much traction when many people have already started supporting one of the other top contenders, and his policy platform just isn't very popular in a national election.

Feel free to support who you want, but try not to delude yourself into thinking that your priorities are everyone's priorities.

concordtom said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Michael .1% Bloomberg can go to hell.

---

That's twice you've referred to him as a .1%er.
What do you have against rich people?
Does the size of one's bank account disqualify a candidate?

---

Nothing against rich people, just the polices they back that has generated a record income gap and inequity, which is bad for democracy. See I believe in democracy and money and stuff like corporations are individuals has corrupted democracy in the U.S.

I don't believe the .1% govern with the interest of the people at hand: healthcare, education, infrastructure, fair wages. Instead they want to widen the gap and screw as many people as possible. Trump is like a 3%'er and look what he did.

In any case, Mikey Bloomberg can't win, and as you have pointed out clearly...he's NOT a Democrat. Right now he's apologizing for his infamous "stop and frisk" policy in NYC. He can't win.

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Bloomberg is in because we need a return to normalcy

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT4UokjLmsoFhKq0f0Edpbih06QyZupoA7xchoMSX0dfh6FgZHKNQ&s

---

Michael .1% Bloomberg can go to hell.

---

Heck, I was about to come over here to suggest you Dems may finally have something going. Went down MB's positions on all sectors, and he sounds electable, maybe even drawing away a number of evil Republicans. Ah, but then even his own party wishes hell upon him. I better just stick with the FB and BB boards. The homogeny of thought here gives one stomach acid.

---

Always nice to get Republican input on what Democrats should do.

---

What would Meatloaf do is the question.

---

Easy answer:

Anything for love.

---

But he wouldn't do that.

---

bearup said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Bloomberg is in because we need a return to normalcy

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT4UokjLmsoFhKq0f0Edpbih06QyZupoA7xchoMSX0dfh6FgZHKNQ&s

---

Michael .1% Bloomberg can go to hell.

---

Heck, I was about to come over here to suggest you Dems may finally have something going. Went down MB's positions on all sectors, and he sounds electable, maybe even drawing away a number of evil Republicans. Ah, but then even his own party wishes hell upon him. I better just stick with the FB and BB boards. The homogeny of thought here gives one stomach acid.

---

Always nice to get Republican input on what Democrats should do.

---

What would Meatloaf do is the question.

---

Easy answer:

Anything for love.

---

But he wouldn't do that.

---

---

calbear93. This is not the first time I've screwed up in replying.

But he wouldn't do that.

Let's take it to the limit and assume you mean "vocally support Trump"

ML has already done 'that'.

In case you were just riffing on Meatloaf songs:

I think the Meatster scared Gary sane.

bearister said:

---

I think the Meatster scared Gary sane.

---

+1000
That just ain't possible, but................................

OaktownBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Bloomberg is in because we need a return to normalcy

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT4UokjLmsoFhKq0f0Edpbih06QyZupoA7xchoMSX0dfh6FgZHKNQ&s

---

Michael .1% Bloomberg can go to hell.

---

Heck, I was about to come over here to suggest you Dems may finally have something going. Went down MB's positions on all sectors, and he sounds electable, maybe even drawing away a number of evil Republicans. Ah, but then even his own party wishes hell upon him. I better just stick with the FB and BB boards. The homogeny of thought here gives one stomach acid.

---

Well the thing with Mike Bloomberg is it's difficult to tell which party he's in, given he's switched a few times. He's gong to enter the Alabama Democratic primary...but was a GOP as mayor of NYC? At this point I'd say he has some good policy positions for people...but it's difficult to tell exactly what he stands for besides lowering sugar and tobacco consumption. Economy-wise, he's a .1%'er. He can't win.

---

Bloomberg for Prez!!

He will hire experts in the fields for his cabinet and to head up the various departments. They will consult with him but he will delegate authority to them and allow them to run their area.

He sees the job of president as an organizational manager, not a popular figure head. He has actually built a very successful business with many many employees and so the federal government is an e tension of that.

Similarly, as 3-term Mayor of NYC, a city larger than some nations in terms of population and $$$, he has political experience to do the job.

Trump had neither the business management not political experience, and he certainly doesn't have the personality nor communication skills required for the job.

Bloomberg is a fiscal conservative - necessary to reign in the insane deficit!!!

Bloomberg is a social liberal and environmentalist, aligning with my personal values.

It's sad that you say it's hard to know what he stands for. All you have to do is a bit of research. He's not an unknown.

Regarding sugar and tobacco, he didn't take away people's right to it. He merely made it more expensive or difficult - which is a good thing when trying to break an unhealthy vise.

Maybe he could rewrite the tax code and wean some entrenched industries off their pork barrel subsidies.

As a moderate, he could win lots of republicans and destroy trump in the general!!! Like, massive landslide. He just needs to win the Democratic nomination first. I'm all for it!

---

Okay. I have a brilliant idea for funding the government. A $10 tax every time you want to publicly express an opinion. I count 10 opinions in this post alone. $100 bucks! I haven't taken away your right to free speech. Just made it more expensive or difficult. Well, if you are poor that is. Because billionaires can afford to pay more for their vices. And let's be clear. His policy isn't limited to soda and tobacco. He has advocated using taxes across the board to push public health policy. And it is specifically designed to hit the poor hard so he can impose his big educated decision making on everyone else. He can pay any of these taxes and engage in any vices he wants. How about we put a tax of a tenth of a percent of his wealth on his favorite vice. Tobacco is one thing when that behavior impacts the health of those around you. Sugar and other things they are talking about do not. People have the right to decide that maybe some long term health consequences are an acceptable trade off for living a life that they enjoy. Until Michael Bloomberg is willing to eat a perfectly balanced, environmentally optimal brick of "food" three meals a day for the rest of his life while running on a treadmill, he can eff himself. Why does he get to decide which vices are okay and which ones are bad enough to tax so that poor people can't have them?

---

Apologies, but this is not a very sharp critique and argument on your behalf.
Sin taxes, you are saying, are more burdensome on the poor that on the rich: regressive. You'd be correct. But if Soda Pop is 5x the price of water, maybe people will choose to drink water, and therefore not put themselves into the hospital with unnecessary expenses that may be borne upon the general population (in terms of increased health insurance premiums, missed days at work (inefficiency), medicare, or other payment mechanism.

The same argument has been successfully argued for why motorcyclists need to wear helmets. I get that you are for total freedom here, but what you are arguing about has nothing to do with how rich Bloomberg is.

Simply stated, he recognizes that soda and smoking are bad for people, bad for society/economy, and so a Sin Tax is trying to change behavior. So, please argue the general use of Sin Taxes, and not how rich MB is that he doesn't have a clue and can go F himself.

All cars have to be manufactures with safety belts, since I was a child. They didn't have them before.
And people get tickets if they don't wear their seatbelts.
Cars also need to have airbags now.
And you can get a ticket for driving while texting or while drunk.
Why do we have such laws?

Some have complained that because Cory Booker is vegan he might be for laws against the consumption of meat. He'd be right from the standpoints of the environment and general population health - but that would never fly.
So, we as a nation, need to decide these things. Apparently you are a "libertarian" who would not turn in your machine guns, if you had any.

Yes, we can use public policy to change behavior. Soda and cigarettes are not good, that is known now. But you say it's too regressive on the poor? Well then, perhaps we can come up with a strategy to not make them suffer. Oh, I know, how about a PROgressive income tax policy. We will take money away from the rich to help offset the regressive policies elsewhere.

The thing is, if you are going to have a sin tax, EACH pack of cigarette needs to have that disincentive. There isn't any other way I can think of right now to achieve that.

I hate your argument here. It sucks.
Sorry.

Another Bear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Michael .1% Bloomberg can go to hell.

---

That's twice you've referred to him as a .1%er.
What do you have against rich people?
Does the size of one's bank account disqualify a candidate?

---

Nothing against rich people, just the polices they back that has generated a record income gap and inequity, which is bad for democracy. See I believe in democracy and money and stuff like corporations are individuals has corrupted democracy in the U.S.

I don't believe the .1% govern with the interest of the people at hand: healthcare, education, infrastructure, fair wages. Instead they want to widen the gap and screw as many people as possible. Trump is like a 3%'er and look what he did.

In any case, Mikey Bloomberg can't win, and as you have pointed out clearly...he's NOT a Democrat. Right now he's apologizing for his infamous "stop and frisk" policy in NYC. He can't win.

---

It's not just the the rich people's policies. Studies show that poor people like to have a lower income tax bracket because they think one day they will get to be in that upper most bracket and they don't want to have to pay high taxes. 99% never achieve that bracket.

So it's the fault of the STUPID MASSES who vote for and otherwise cheer and support the politicians who push those policies. We gotta vote 'em out. We need to educate people.

I'd consider shutting down false news advertising. It's out of control and killing this country.
Too many stupid muther****ers!!!!

MBloomberg not a democrat? Well, he's registered as one, and that's all that is needed.
Trump is not a Republican - but he registered as one and took the party into MADMAN territory.
What's in a name?

And regarding your assertion that the rich only want to widen the gap... Bill Gates has repeatedly said that he'd pay more in taxes. And Bloomberg is on the record saying the 2017 tax cut bill was a total disaster.
You are just playing Rich-Poor politics. Not well thought out.

True, lots of selfish rich people would balk at any increases to taxes, even though they are at historical lows, a fact they are likely not even aware of!

sycasey said:

---

concordtom said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

In CNN's poll of Iowa Democrats, Bloomberg's favorable rating was 18%. His unfavorable was 59%. In conservative Iowa. That is what being a socially liberal, fiscally conservative billionaire gets you with Midwest voters. Bloomberg would get slaughtered by Trump throughout the Midwest. People have got to go beyond the top line liberal and conservative designations

---

Polls won't be favorable until he begins to sell himself. Get out there and campaign. Show yourself.
He's better get started and quit letting pop quiz suppositions define him.

---

The guy just has no chance. He's entering the race too late to gain much traction when many people have already started supporting one of the other top contenders, and his policy platform just isn't very popular in a national election.

Feel free to support who you want, but try not to delude yourself into thinking that your priorities are everyone's priorities.

---

I am deluded.
People don't know what's good for them.
(And I suppose, neither do I?)

It doesn't make much sense to debate all this until Bloomberg enters, stumps, campaigns, advertises, and people get a sense of who he is and what he's about. Maybe I'd even change my mind then. Polls and opinions right now are too much hearsay.

He's being stupid in wasting time.
I dunno what he's waiting for.

concordtom said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Michael .1% Bloomberg can go to hell.

---

That's twice you've referred to him as a .1%er.
What do you have against rich people?
Does the size of one's bank account disqualify a candidate?

---

It does for me now.

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Michael .1% Bloomberg can go to hell.

---

That's twice you've referred to him as a .1%er.
What do you have against rich people?
Does the size of one's bank account disqualify a candidate?

---

It does for me now.

---

I'm sorry, sir - you've been too successful in life.
You are disqualified. It says so right here in the Constitution.

1. Must be natural born citizen.
2. Must be over the age of 35.
3. Must not be too well off.

We need people who still have a long runway of wealth in front of them, so they are tempted to lie and cheat their way to the top, just like Donald Trump has exhibited for us.

(Okay, joking. I understand, you want people OF the people, who are in touch with "the people".)
I just think he comes across as honest, sincere, and a very thoughtful manager. And his business supports those successful qualities. - Trump's never told me diddlesquat positive about him. It did tell me a TON of negative stuff about him, though. Why other people did not see that is beyond me!!!!!
"I'm a billionaire!"
Oh, he must be good - people thought.
NO. He sucked as a businessman, was a shady character decades ago, and fooled masses of people. I call those people who voted for him "Stupid Muther****ers!"

concordtom said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Michael .1% Bloomberg can go to hell.

---

That's twice you've referred to him as a .1%er.
What do you have against rich people?
Does the size of one's bank account disqualify a candidate?

---

It does for me now.

---

I'm sorry, sir - you've been too successful in life.
You are disqualified. It says so right here in the Constitution.

1. Must be natural born citizen.
2. Must be over the age of 35.
3. Must not be too well off.

---

Why would anyone expect a rich person to act in the interest of anyone other than other rich people?

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Michael .1% Bloomberg can go to hell.

---

That's twice you've referred to him as a .1%er.
What do you have against rich people?
Does the size of one's bank account disqualify a candidate?

---

It does for me now.

---

I'm sorry, sir - you've been too successful in life.
You are disqualified. It says so right here in the Constitution.

1. Must be natural born citizen.
2. Must be over the age of 35.
3. Must not be too well off.

---

Why would anyone expect a rich person to act in the interest of anyone other than other rich people?

---

Yo, that's easy.
Once you've lived a life of luxury, you can become philosophical and in asking yourself "what next", often times people become altruistic.

Look at Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.
Michael Bloomberg is ALSO a member of the Giving Pledge (give half to charity, as a value statement and as a practice).

You can't take it with you, so it is an endless pursuit to try and collect more and more and more, even more than your descendants will need to live a VERY VERY EASY life.

There are some people who are wired, in an evil sense, to always want more and to never become philosophical about it, who will never want to help their fellow man. Those are the pitiful ones whose life has been a waste of time. Trump is one of them. There are many wall street bankers and executive types who have been fatefully corrupted, as well.

Maybe Bloomberg is not as I say. But of what I know of him, he seems to have society in mind.
Go listen to some interviews and let me know what you think.

The fact of being rich does not corrupt one's soul.
I will say that I have rich people on both sides of my family.
One person has never matured much.
Another person set up prize money, anonymously, for good deeds done by ordinary citizens. You've got to judge THE PERSON, not the BANK ACCOUNT.

concordtom said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Bloomberg is in because we need a return to normalcy

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT4UokjLmsoFhKq0f0Edpbih06QyZupoA7xchoMSX0dfh6FgZHKNQ&s

---

Michael .1% Bloomberg can go to hell.

---

Heck, I was about to come over here to suggest you Dems may finally have something going. Went down MB's positions on all sectors, and he sounds electable, maybe even drawing away a number of evil Republicans. Ah, but then even his own party wishes hell upon him. I better just stick with the FB and BB boards. The homogeny of thought here gives one stomach acid.

---

Well the thing with Mike Bloomberg is it's difficult to tell which party he's in, given he's switched a few times. He's gong to enter the Alabama Democratic primary...but was a GOP as mayor of NYC? At this point I'd say he has some good policy positions for people...but it's difficult to tell exactly what he stands for besides lowering sugar and tobacco consumption. Economy-wise, he's a .1%'er. He can't win.

---

Bloomberg for Prez!!

He will hire experts in the fields for his cabinet and to head up the various departments. They will consult with him but he will delegate authority to them and allow them to run their area.

He sees the job of president as an organizational manager, not a popular figure head. He has actually built a very successful business with many many employees and so the federal government is an e tension of that.

Similarly, as 3-term Mayor of NYC, a city larger than some nations in terms of population and $$$, he has political experience to do the job.

Trump had neither the business management not political experience, and he certainly doesn't have the personality nor communication skills required for the job.

Bloomberg is a fiscal conservative - necessary to reign in the insane deficit!!!

Bloomberg is a social liberal and environmentalist, aligning with my personal values.

It's sad that you say it's hard to know what he stands for. All you have to do is a bit of research. He's not an unknown.

Regarding sugar and tobacco, he didn't take away people's right to it. He merely made it more expensive or difficult - which is a good thing when trying to break an unhealthy vise.

Maybe he could rewrite the tax code and wean some entrenched industries off their pork barrel subsidies.

As a moderate, he could win lots of republicans and destroy trump in the general!!! Like, massive landslide. He just needs to win the Democratic nomination first. I'm all for it!

---

Okay. I have a brilliant idea for funding the government. A $10 tax every time you want to publicly express an opinion. I count 10 opinions in this post alone. $100 bucks! I haven't taken away your right to free speech. Just made it more expensive or difficult. Well, if you are poor that is. Because billionaires can afford to pay more for their vices. And let's be clear. His policy isn't limited to soda and tobacco. He has advocated using taxes across the board to push public health policy. And it is specifically designed to hit the poor hard so he can impose his big educated decision making on everyone else. He can pay any of these taxes and engage in any vices he wants. How about we put a tax of a tenth of a percent of his wealth on his favorite vice. Tobacco is one thing when that behavior impacts the health of those around you. Sugar and other things they are talking about do not. People have the right to decide that maybe some long term health consequences are an acceptable trade off for living a life that they enjoy. Until Michael Bloomberg is willing to eat a perfectly balanced, environmentally optimal brick of "food" three meals a day for the rest of his life while running on a treadmill, he can eff himself. Why does he get to decide which vices are okay and which ones are bad enough to tax so that poor people can't have them?

---

---

Quote:

---

I hate your argument here. It sucks

---

I hate your argument. It sucks a lot more. It is likely the single dumbest post you have ever made. It basically is that if we accept any government intrusion, we have to accept all government intrusion. If I don't allow someone to sell a gun to a 3 year old, I can't argue that it is not the government's business if I allow a 3 year old to drink a soda.

Quote:

---

But if Soda Pop is 5x the price of water, maybe people will choose to drink water, and therefore not put themselves into the hospital with unnecessary expenses

---

Yeah. I get that. In other words, the government is telling poor people what they should consume and what they should purchase. It is their decision not the government's.

Quote:

---

that may be borne upon the general population (in terms of increased health insurance premiums, missed days at work (inefficiency), medicare, or other payment mechanism

---

You really want to go down this path? Any risky behavior should be regulated because the general population might have higher health costs? No football. No skiing. No contact sports. No sex. Car crashes are a leading cause of death. You only get to drive when necessary to get to work. Otherwise we can have Amazon deliver everything you need to your home. No ice cream. Who gets to decide this? Sitting on your butt posting on the internet instead of being active (but not dangerously active!) is bad for your health. Tax that too. Why is it other people's vices that get taxed? Again. If he wants to eat a brick of perfectly engineered food products for the rest of his life, fine. Otherwise, let's tax his food at a rate that makes it hurt as much as his taxes hurt the poor.

Quote:

---

The same argument has been successfully argued for why motorcyclists need to wear helmets

---

Actually one of the arguments that was made against an obvious, basic safety measure DECADES ago was that if we regulated that people would want to start regulating stupid minor things like what you decide to drink.

Quote:

---

but what you are arguing about has nothing to do with how rich Bloomberg is

---

It absolutely does because he is making a choice for others knowing full well that the main driver is they can't afford it so will have to do what he wants. Meanwhile, the tax would never impact his behavior at all, so he has no fear that someone will try to interfere in his choices.

Quote:

---

Simply stated, he recognizes that soda and smoking are bad for people, bad for society/economy, and so a Sin Tax is trying to change behavior. So, please argue the general use of Sin Taxes, and not how rich MB is that he doesn't have a clue and can go F himself.

---

I didn't say he doesn't have a clue. I said he can go F himself. There are lots of things that are bad for people and society. It is not the responsibility of every person to maximize the healthiness of their behavior so that they don't cost society money in healthcare. Sin taxes should not be used for every little thing. You are making exactly the argument against government healthcare that conservatives make. Once the government has to pay for your healthcare, they will be motivated to regulate your behavior to keep those costs down. He can put his money into health education. Everyone has a phone in their pocket that can count steps. Studies have shown that more steps significantly lowers risk of heart disease. Let's have a tax based on number of steps you take every day.

Quote:

---

All cars have to be manufactures with safety belts, since I was a child. They didn't have them before.
And people get tickets if they don't wear their seatbelts.
Cars also need to have airbags now.
And you can get a ticket for driving while texting or while drunk.
Why do we have such laws?

---

Take them one at a time:

1. Seat belts - basic product safety. Most people wanted them. The car companies were cheap SOB's and had to be forced.
2. Using seatbelts - because it is a basic safety function, it is extremely unobtrusive, my parents generation were a being moronic not using them on principle. And while your heart disease at 70 instead of 75 might cost me pennies, if I hit you in my car and you don't wear the belt my liability can go from thousands to millions.
3. See #1
4. Yeah, well you kill other people doing that. You don't get to engage in behavior that kills people. If you want to kill yourself a couple years early, that is your business.

Quote:

---

Some have complained that because Cory Booker is vegan he might be for laws against the consumption of meat. He'd be right from the standpoints of the environment and general population health - but that would never fly.

---

The difference being that Cory Booker has made it clear that it is his choice to be vegan and he has no right to make others follow his path. I don't know why you even bring this up here since you are essentially citing a guy who understands he doesn't get to decide how everyone eats as a defense for someone who thinks he does. So again. Like 90% of the population, Booker gets it. F Bloomberg for being a pompous ass who thinks he gets to substitute his decision making for everyone else's. The fact that you think that is even on the table if it would "fly" is telling. Or does it not "fly" because you and Michael Bloomberg like animal products more than soda?

Quote:

---

Apparently you are a "libertarian" who would not turn in your machine guns, if you had any.

---

eff you asshat. I'm not a libertarian. Arguing that government should not regulate my food choices does not make me a libertarian. I don't walk into a school with my diet coke and blow people's heads off. I never argued for no regulation. People should have information. People should be offered reasonably safe products. People should expect that behavior that hurts others will be regulated. Saying that the government doesn't get to decide whether I eat a beef burger or a soy burger does not make me a libertarian who pushes every argument to the extreme. My choice of food. My choice of how much I exercise. My choice of friends. My choice of sex partners, I think we can agree that those are a lot more integral to who I am and how I choose to live my life and a lot less intrusive to how someone else lives theirs than if I click a seatbelt or blow smoke in somebody's face or drive drunk or carry dangerous weapons.

concordtom said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Michael .1% Bloomberg can go to hell.

---

That's twice you've referred to him as a .1%er.
What do you have against rich people?
Does the size of one's bank account disqualify a candidate?

---

Nothing against rich people, just the polices they back that has generated a record income gap and inequity, which is bad for democracy. See I believe in democracy and money and stuff like corporations are individuals has corrupted democracy in the U.S.

I don't believe the .1% govern with the interest of the people at hand: healthcare, education, infrastructure, fair wages. Instead they want to widen the gap and screw as many people as possible. Trump is like a 3%'er and look what he did.

In any case, Mikey Bloomberg can't win, and as you have pointed out clearly...he's NOT a Democrat. Right now he's apologizing for his infamous "stop and frisk" policy in NYC. He can't win.

---

It's not just the the rich people's policies. Studies show that poor people like to have a lower income tax bracket because they think one day they will get to be in that upper most bracket and they don't want to have to pay high taxes. 99% never achieve that bracket.

So it's the fault of the STUPID MASSES who vote for and otherwise cheer and support the politicians who push those policies. We gotta vote 'em out. We need to educate people.

I'd consider shutting down false news advertising. It's out of control and killing this country.
Too many stupid muther****ers!!!!

MBloomberg not a democrat? Well, he's registered as one, and that's all that is needed.
Trump is not a Republican - but he registered as one and took the party into MADMAN territory.
What's in a name?

And regarding your assertion that the rich only want to widen the gap... Bill Gates has repeatedly said that he'd pay more in taxes. And Bloomberg is on the record saying the 2017 tax cut bill was a total disaster.
You are just playing Rich-Poor politics. Not well thought out.

True, lots of selfish rich people would balk at any increases to taxes, even though they are at historical lows, a fact they are likely not even aware of!

---

That is a republican cliche. Poll after poll after poll show that the poor and middle class think the wealthy should pay higher taxes. It is the rich people's policies. It is just that republicans have usually wrapped their candidacy around a lot of things like social conservatism and traditional values that many working class people like. Which is exactly why running a socially liberal guy who pushes pro Wall Street policies is stupid.

Masses may be stupid but you don't convince them by telling them they are stupid so you are going to decide fore them how they live their lives.

Oaktownbear seems pretty quick to call anybody who disagrees with him stupid. In my opinion there is only one stupid vote in 2020. A vote for Trump.

Well, ok, 2 stupid votes. I'll throw Tulsi in there also.

dajo9 said:

---

Oaktownbear seems pretty quick to call anybody who disagrees with him stupid. In my opinion there is only one stupid vote in 2020. A vote for Trump.

Well, ok, 2 stupid votes. I'll throw Tulsi in there also.

---

He called my post stupid first.

Otherwise, the rest of your post is wise.

bearup said:

---

calbear93. This is not the first time I've screwed up in replying.

But he wouldn't do that.

Let's take it to the limit and assume you mean "vocally support Trump"

ML has already done 'that'.

In case you were just riffing on Meatloaf songs:

---

Sorry - not sure where you were going with all that.

I was just extending Sycasey's joke.


"Anything for love
Oh I would do anything for love
Oh I would do anything for love, but I won't do that
No, I won't do that"

calbear93 said:

---

bearup said:

---

calbear93. This is not the first time I've screwed up in replying.

But he wouldn't do that.

Let's take it to the limit and assume you mean "vocally support Trump"

ML has already done 'that'.

In case you were just riffing on Meatloaf songs:

---

Sorry - not sure where you were going with all that.

I was just extending Sycasey's joke.


"Anything for love
Oh I would do anything for love
Oh I would do anything for love, but I won't do that
No, I won't do that"

---

That was the second option above (riffing) which I'm all in favor of BTW. The more humor and music the better.

I had a lengthy preamble that I edited out which included, "I've read quite a few of your posts, and, FWIW, consider you to be "fair".

I hadn't been following all that closely, so when I saw kelly09's post of 11/16 at 11:28

MEATLOAF!

i didn't know if he was referencing the singer or a sort of food. Now, I believe is was trying to convey that ML
had already done "that"....declared himself a Trump supporter. But that's just and educated guess.

As you know, subtlety is extremely hard to convey when not speaking. You may not get any of this=>my bad.

I'd continue the riff, but I've grown weary of ML....so I'll go with

Without quoting that whole long thing, let me first just say:
LOL at our back and forth, and
BRAVO at your response!

I was mainly trying to say, think I said so, that we as a society need to decide where and when to impose regulations on individuals and businesses. I clumsily and quickly lumped in a wide variety of topics, from soda to seatbelts to veganism. You astutely sifted thru those and added that maybe exercise be regulated.
For the record, I am vegan (not a meat eater as you guessed) and I do not exercise as much as I should, and I'd love to get a tangible reward for doing so, say, in the form of tax benefits?
As with meat consumption, exercise regs is a new concept for many and would not be politically palatable. But as with a soda and cigarette tax, I think it's a good thing.

My main point, again, is that with the soda tax, you go off rails angry that Bloomberg is so rich and pompous and unaffected by the tax to render the effort to discourage soda consumption as wrong. Because, I ARGUE that society SHOULD be an arbiter of some behaviors! That's why it's called society. We outlaw murder, speeding, graffiti. And while soda consumption is a far cry from that, I was just saying that we as a society have to decide on where to draw the line between liberty and social conformity.

And I forgot to mention - motorcycle helmets!!

dajo9 said:

---

Oaktownbear seems pretty quick to call anybody who disagrees with him stupid. In my opinion there is only one stupid vote in 2020. A vote for Trump.

Well, ok, 2 stupid votes. I'll throw Tulsi in there also.

---

That's the main thing here that we all agree on. Let's say it together:
Fuqq Trump
Fuqq Trump
Fuqq Trump
Fuqq Trump
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OaktownBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Oaktownbear seems pretty quick to call anybody who disagrees with him stupid. In my opinion there is only one stupid vote in 2020. A vote for Trump.

Well, ok, 2 stupid votes. I'll throw Tulsi in there also.

---

He called my post stupid first.

Otherwise, the rest of your post is wise.

---

I did call his post stupid first. He was definitely given pass to rip me one in return. No problem.

Quote:

---

Studies show that poor people like to have a lower income tax bracket because they think one day they will get to be in that upper most bracket and they don't want to have to pay high taxes. 99% never achieve that bracket.

---

Quote:

---

That is a republican cliche. Poll after poll after poll show that the poor and middle class think the wealthy should pay higher taxes. It is the rich people's policies.

---

I suppose we'd have to examine that. I vaguely re all seeing a report about it being true, not just talking points.

And the proof is in the pudding. If poor and middle truly wanted to stick it to the rich, why haven't they voted them out?
You claim it's because other issues are bundled and confuse. Hmmm. I'll take the other side on that.

All these things are good topics for debate. Too bad if we (all us here - at least the Trump hating reasonable ones) were to sit together in a room and iron out solutions it wouldn't amount to a hill of beans. Well, it might help us figure out who we wanted to vote for. :-)

Every now and again I like checking in on Trump's approval rating by state. According to the link below (which is the first to pop up in google, the battleground states for 2020 are https://electoralvotemap.com/2020-battleground-states/]), I compared that to the approval rating from the Morning Consult (https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/). Trump's approval rating is in parenthesis and the electoral votes is in brackets:

1. Arizona (-4) [11]
2. Texas (+2) [38]
3. Minnesota (-14) [10]
4. Wisconsin (-17) [10]
5. Michigan (-13) [16]
6. Florida (-2) [29]
7. Georgia (-3) [16]
8. North Carolina (-3) [15]
9. Pennsylvania (-9) [20]
10. New Hampshire (-20) [4]
11. Maine (-13) [2]
12. Nebraska (-4) [1]

I don't know why New Hampshire is considered a battleground state, but these people classify it that way. As for the results, that is a whole lot of disapproval, and several states are not even that close (see the midwest).

It is also interesting to note that Louisiana and Kentucky who both approve of Trump just voted in Democratic governors.

As I've said repeatedly, the way to win is to get people to the polls. To get people to the polls (or to vote), you have to have a candidate people are passionate about.

I can see Bloomberg being ideal for a certain kind of person (Howard Stern was championing him last week). But he's more of a Jeb than a Trump.

Also, he has a history of belittling women and misogyny that Trump will absolutely use against him for full effect. Trump will end up painting himself as a feminist in comparison to Bloomberg. Oh yeah, and there's stop and frisk which will turn off a number of minority voters. The Dems need minority voters and women who are turned off by Trump to vote in order to win.


Meanwhile....

I've railed against soda taxes on other threads. Here's what I hate: I hate that these "sin taxes" only tackle certain "sins." And I hate that they are punitive. Like soda taxes are usually taxed per ounce, rather than a percentage, so that you could end up paying 100% in taxes.

For instance, Philadelphia charges 1.5 cents per ounce, while only charging 10% in alcohol taxes

So somebody who buys a 2 liter (67.7 ounces) for like $.99 ends up paying more than $1.01 in taxes.

Somebody who buys a 12 pack (144 ounces) of beer for $10 only pays $1.00 in taxes.

That's ridiculous. Alcohol should be considered more sinful than soda.

I don't mind a hefty "sin tax" as long as it applies to all sins -- all sugary products, all lattes, all alcohol.

But when you target certain products like soda, it seems like you're targeting certain kinds of people while absolving others.

golden sloth said:

---

Every now and again I like checking in on Trump's approval rating by state. According to the link below (which is the first to pop up in google, the battleground states for 2020 are https://electoralvotemap.com/2020-battleground-states/]), I compared that to the approval rating from the Morning Consult (https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/). Trump's approval rating is in parenthesis and the electoral votes is in brackets:

1. Arizona (-4) [11]
2. Texas (+2) [38]
3. Minnesota (-14) [10]
4. Wisconsin (-17) [10]
5. Michigan (-13) [16]
6. Florida (-2) [29]
7. Georgia (-3) [16]
8. North Carolina (-3) [15]
9. Pennsylvania (-9) [20]
10. New Hampshire (-20) [4]
11. Maine (-13) [2]
12. Nebraska (-4) [1]

I don't know why New Hampshire is considered a battleground state, but these people classify it that way. As for the results, that is a whole lot of disapproval, and several states are not even that close (see the midwest).

It is also interesting to note that Louisiana and Kentucky who both approve of Trump just voted in Democratic governors.

---

Thanks for posting this.

Morning Consult has been growing rapidly.

They report a 95% confidence interval of +/- 2% for NH=>

I don't why it should be considered "battleground" either.

bearup said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Every now and again I like checking in on Trump's approval rating by state. According to the link below (which is the first to pop up in google, the battleground states for 2020 are https://electoralvotemap.com/2020-battleground-states/]), I compared that to the approval rating from the Morning Consult (https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/). Trump's approval rating is in parenthesis and the electoral votes is in brackets:

1. Arizona (-4) [11]
2. Texas (+2) [38]
3. Minnesota (-14) [10]
4. Wisconsin (-17) [10]
5. Michigan (-13) [16]
6. Florida (-2) [29]
7. Georgia (-3) [16]
8. North Carolina (-3) [15]
9. Pennsylvania (-9) [20]
10. New Hampshire (-20) [4]
11. Maine (-13) [2]
12. Nebraska (-4) [1]

I don't know why New Hampshire is considered a battleground state, but these people classify it that way. As for the results, that is a whole lot of disapproval, and several states are not even that close (see the midwest).

It is also interesting to note that Louisiana and Kentucky who both approve of Trump just voted in Democratic governors.

---

Thanks for posting this.

Morning Consult has been growing rapidly.

They report a 95% confidence interval of +/- 2% for NH=>

I don't why it should be considered "battleground" either.

---

New Hampshire was the second closest race in 2016. Clinton won by less than 2800 votes. Approval rating does not equal election results. New Hampshire has been a battleground state for several cycles.

If you guys are using this as some sort of predictor, Trump's approval ratings in many of these states is no worse than election day 2016. His approval rating is very relevant, but it doesn't take the place of polling the race against an actual opponent. This election, at least in the electoral college, is likely to be a dogfight.

OaktownBear said:

---

bearup said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

Every now and again I like checking in on Trump's approval rating by state. According to the link below (which is the first to pop up in google, the battleground states for 2020 are https://electoralvotemap.com/2020-battleground-states/]), I compared that to the approval rating from the Morning Consult (https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/). Trump's approval rating is in parenthesis and the electoral votes is in brackets:

1. Arizona (-4) [11]
2. Texas (+2) [38]
3. Minnesota (-14) [10]
4. Wisconsin (-17) [10]
5. Michigan (-13) [16]
6. Florida (-2) [29]
7. Georgia (-3) [16]
8. North Carolina (-3) [15]
9. Pennsylvania (-9) [20]
10. New Hampshire (-20) [4]
11. Maine (-13) [2]
12. Nebraska (-4) [1]

I don't know why New Hampshire is considered a battleground state, but these people classify it that way. As for the results, that is a whole lot of disapproval, and several states are not even that close (see the midwest).

It is also interesting to note that Louisiana and Kentucky who both approve of Trump just voted in Democratic governors.

---

Thanks for posting this.

Morning Consult has been growing rapidly.

They report a 95% confidence interval of +/- 2% for NH=>

I don't why it should be considered "battleground" either.

---

New Hampshire was the second closest race in 2016. Clinton won by less than 2800 votes. Approval rating does not equal election results. New Hampshire has been a battleground state for several cycles.

If you guys are using this as some sort of predictor, Trump's approval ratings in many of these states is no worse than election day 2016. His approval rating is very relevant, but it doesn't take the place of polling the race against an actual opponent. This election, at least in the electoral college, is likely to be a dogfight.

---

I'm speaking only statistically given the information presented. What you're talking about is a-priori info, and, of course, should be given some weight.....perhaps a great deal.

Whoa, please don't look at me....."some sort of predictor"-wise.