Will Bloomberg be the nominee?

[joko104]

Democrats should just accept that like with Hilary Clinton it doesn't matter what they want. The the super rich that own the entire MSM, press and Internet will order you to vote for one of their fellow billionaires, the Democratic Party bosses will agree, so you will do as you are ordered to do because a majority of Democrats always do what they are ordered to do by the wealthiest corporations and people on earth.

Democrats should accept that the corporate-fascists have taken completely control of the Democratic Party and have mobilized the most radical elements of the Democratic Party as their mob. Liberalism no longer exists in the Democratic Party. It is being fully replaced with corporate fascism.

The November election will ratify that politics no longer is for politicians and there is no such thing as climbing the political and government service ladder. Politics, starting at the presidential level, is a money contest. If you want to be president, you have to be from the business sector of the super rich. Wealth = qualifications - and all you peasants might as well accept it.

Bloomberg will be rammed down Democratic voters throats and a majority will willingly swallow, unless in the next couple of weeks Jeff Bezos decides to run. Bernie Sanders will be used again as the spoiler to eliminate the other Democratic candidates, just like that was the purpose of the Senate trial to ground the Democratic Senators running for president.

 

[Cordelier]

Whether on is religious and believes in Adam and Eve or not, with Lucy in Africa, every person on the face of this earth had the same ancestor and their ancestors came out of Africa. Then from one races we formed into many due to the environment and other factors. Today, with globalization, inter racial marriage, travel, wars with GI's doing what GI's do, along with numerous other reason, we are now reverting from any races back to one.

Well said. Truth in point, we've always been one race - we're all homo sapiens. Any cosmetic differences we've come to highlight over time have been just that - cosmetic differences. Just like anything else that divides us - we erect our own barriers. We set our own limits. I think there's a powerful message waiting out there for one of the Democratic candidates to find - and out of all of them in the race now, Buttigieg is the best one to carry it. I started out supporting Hickenlooper. When he dropped out, I switched to Klobuchar, but they were both choices I made with my head, not my heart. I did give Biden a good, hard look but he just doesn't have "it". If he did, he would been President 30 years ago. Sanders and Warren are too far to the left to get anything done, even if they do manage to get elected. It's got to be Buttigieg... but he's got to realize that for himself.

 

[mrjurrs]

no...

 

[Perotista]

Well said. Truth in point, we've always been one race - we're all homo sapiens. Any cosmetic differences we've come to highlight over time have been just that - cosmetic differences. Just like anything else that divides us - we erect our own barriers. We set our own limits. I think there's a powerful message waiting out there for one of the Democratic candidates to find - and out of all of them in the race now, Buttigieg is the best one to carry it. I started out supporting Hickenlooper. When he dropped out, I switched to Klobuchar, but they were both choices I made with my head, not my heart. I did give Biden a good, hard look but he just doesn't have "it". If he did, he would been President 30 years ago. Sanders and Warren are too far to the left to get anything done, even if they do manage to get elected. It's got to be Buttigieg... but he's got to realize that for himself.

I also started out backing Hickenlooper, but then went to Steyer. I liked Amy and would support her if she wins the nomination. At least she'll get some delegates out of Iowa.

I've always like Joe Biden, but his time has passed. I'd support him against Trump, same for Amy Klobuchar.

 

[joko104]

OK, I am THE only poster on this forum predicting Michael Bloomberg will be the Democratic Party's nominee.

We'll see if I am just in outer space, or am I the only one on this forum who call look thru all the smoke and mirrors to see the obvious? All of this is being very skillfully orchestrated to knock out the other candidates to make it a Sanders vs Bloomberg election - all to define Bloomberg as moderate.

Time will tell.

 

[GreatNews2night]

OK, I am THE only poster on this forum predicting Michael Bloomberg will be the Democratic Party's nominee.

We'll see if I am just in outer space, or am I the only one on this forum who call look thru all the smoke and mirrors to see the obvious? All of this is being very skillfully orchestrated to knock out the other candidates to make it a Sanders vs Bloomberg election - all to define Bloomberg as moderate.

Time will tell.

You'll be wrong, as usual.

I wish Bloomberg won, because I think he has better chances at beating Trump. Bloomberg's problem is not the general election, is the nomination. He won't be able to be the nominee.

 

[concernedpuma]

Well said. Truth in point, we've always been one race - we're all homo sapiens. Any cosmetic differences we've come to highlight over time have been just that - cosmetic differences. Just like anything else that divides us - we erect our own barriers. We set our own limits. I think there's a powerful message waiting out there for one of the Democratic candidates to find - and out of all of them in the race now, Buttigieg is the best one to carry it. I started out supporting Hickenlooper. When he dropped out, I switched to Klobuchar, but they were both choices I made with my head, not my heart. I did give Biden a good, hard look but he just doesn't have "it". If he did, he would been President 30 years ago. Sanders and Warren are too far to the left to get anything done, even if they do manage to get elected. It's got to be Buttigieg... but he's got to realize that for himself.

Hmmmm. I can't seem to catch the fascination with the Mayor of a marginal city. Where is the groundswell originating? I see him aa a nice fellow, but Presidential? I don't get that. Unless one wishes the same marginalization for the United States, what is the attraction?
Regards,
CP

 

[Cordelier]

I also started out backing Hickenlooper, but then went to Steyer. I liked Amy and would support her if she wins the nomination. At least she'll get some delegates out of Iowa.

I've always like Joe Biden, but his time has passed. I'd support him against Trump, same for Amy Klobuchar.

I said in another thread that I'd vote for the reanimated corpse of Vladimir Lenin if it was running against Trump. We've got one as Vice President, so why not President?

 

[Cordelier]

Hmmmm. I can't seem to catch the fascination with the Mayor of a marginal city. Where is the groundswell originating? I see him aa a nice fellow, but Presidential? I don't get that. Unless one wishes the same marginalization for the United States, what is the attraction?
Regards,
CP

Let's face it, Puma... the bar for being "Presidential" isn't exactly at an all-time high as of late. I've got concerns about Buttigieg's experience... but let's face it, he's undeniably a smart cookie. And I respect the fact that he voluntarily chose to put himself in harm's way when he just as easily could have stayed home and pulling down six figures - without even having to pretend he had bone spurs. I don't know whether Buttigieg has got "it" or not... that'll be up to him to demonstrate. I'm just willing to give him a very open mind and suspend a lot of the disbelief I've had up to this point.

 

[joko104]

You'll be wrong, as usual.

I wish Bloomberg won, because I think he has better chances at beating Trump. Bloomberg's problem is not the general election, is the nomination. He won't be able to be the nominee.

There certainly is a possibility that am proven to be absolutely was incorrect in my prediction.

 

[Bullseye]

He's pumping ****pots full of money into California and running commercials with BHO extolling his virtues. Guess Joe is looking up at the underside of a bus.

 

[joko104]

It is bizarre watching 70+ year old millionaires and billionaires claiming that someone who is an age 37 Harvard Rhodes scholar, Afghanistan War veteran and elected mayor of a mid-sized city in the Midwest running as a left of center liberal moderate is a just a kid - while someone like Steyer has no expensive on his resume other than being a billionaire.

Those old, white 70+ year olds are debating the same debate in the 1960s by the American Socialist Party! It is possible that a majority of Democrats don't have 1960s old hippy values and MIGHT find a more tolerant liberalism more consistent with their own views. Were I a Democrat, he would be my choice at this point - though this could change.

 

[concernedpuma]

Let's face it, Puma... the bar for being "Presidential" isn't exactly at an all-time high as of late. I've got concerns about Buttigieg's experience... but let's face it, he's undeniably a smart cookie. And I respect the fact that he voluntarily chose to put himself in harm's way when he just as easily could have stayed home and pulling down six figures - without even having to pretend he had bone spurs. I don't know whether Buttigieg has got "it" or not... that'll be up to him to demonstrate. I'm just willing to give him a very open mind and suspend a lot of the disbelief I've had up to this point.

Fair 'nuff . I will do the same. I am always looking for progress for the United States. I would only ask that after the dust settles, you will fairly consider President Trump. Deal?
Regards,
CP

 

[Cordelier]

Fair 'nuff . I will do the same. I am always looking for progress for the United States. I would only ask that after the dust settles, you will fairly consider President Trump. Deal?
Regards,
CP

I'm not anti-Republican, Puma... I voted for Bush, Sr. (twice), voted for Dole in '96 and Bush, Jr. in '04. I would have walked through fire for McCain in 2000... would have done so again in 2008... until he picked Palin. That broke it for me. I haven't even considered voting Republican since the moment she walked across the stage at Drake University... and I'll tell you straight - I'm not going to consider it until the lunatic fringe that controls it now gives way to the sensible center once again. I know you'll probably argue that the Democratic party is probably heading for it's extreme fringe now too... and who knows? Maybe it is. If so, I'll look for a third option.

But I can't and I won't vote for a President who seeks to divide instead of unite. I can't and I won't vote for a President who turns his back on the plain and simple fact that we are a nation of immigrants, who is willing to tear children from their parents and lock them in cages. I can't and I won't vote for a President who turns his back on the Puerto Rico in their hour of dire need, simply because they have a different skin color or speak a different language. I can't and I won't vote for a President who attacks and castigates honorable men and women who put on the uniform and who have bled or risked death while he wraps himself up in the flag. That's just the way it is. If the Republicans ever nominate someone worthy of the office and whom I can respect, I'll give them fair consideration again. Until that point, though... I've got to say the odds are slim to none... and Slim left town.

 

[swing_voter]

Bloomberg is getting a lot of endorsements. Trump's ex Secretary of the Navy endorsed Bloomberg yesterday.

I think Bloomberg would make a fine president.

 

[vesper]

The impeachment/trial sucked all the oxygen out of the Democratic Primary election debates and candidates campaigns, plus grounded the 3 Democratic senators still in the election - the only legitimate candidates they had. This cut a clear path for Michael Bloomberg, who claims Elizabeth Warren talking about breaking up the 2 largest monopolies on earth (Amazon and Google) makes her "too radical.' You'll never hear Bloomberg criticizing any fellow mega billionaire or mega billion dollar corporation. According to Bloomberg, the 14th richest man on earth, all the other Democrats for president are "too radical" for promising universal healthcare, free college, erasing student debts etc.

The DNC just changed their rules for the debate exclusively to get Bloomberg, a 77 year old white male New York moderate Republican, into the debates. The MSM and press - all now entirely owned by Bloomberg's fellow mega billionaires and mega billion dollar corporations - has attacked all Democratic candidates except for Bloomberg, for which there has not been one major critical story.

Will Michael Bloomberg be the Democratic Party's nominee? In my opinion this is very likely. Sanders will be used to prove Bloomberg isn't "too radical" like Sanders and all the other Democratic candidates like Bloomberg claims.

(SORRY, won't let me put up a poll or I messed up). But it is somewhat a yes or no question. I say yes, unless someone else maybe gets in it.)

There was an article this week from the Cook Report and their take is you can not compartmentalize this primary because of so many factors. It is not your standard primary and nothing proves that point more than a billionaire jumping in late dropping hundreds of millions in ads and was able to get the DNC to change their rules to allow him into the next debate.

It is really impossible to even make an educated guess at this point who will emerge victorious.

1. You have Democratic pundits worried that Bernie will win and if that happens they would surely lose the election and suffer down ballot races.

2. You have Democratic pundits worried that if Buttigieg emerges as the winner he will become the first Democratic nominee to lose the black vote since Alfred E. Smith in the 1920's that would result in losing the election. Van Jones seems to be concerned about it.



3. If by some chance Bloomberg would get the nomination and even worse if he ended up getting it through a brokered convention, it would be really hard for Bernie supporters to get behind a Bloomberg nomination.

4. The pundits have been talking a lot about the disappointment of the number of people who came out to caucus in Iowa while Trump's team was on the ground caucusing also and they showed up in great numbers exceeding expectations. You got to wonder how many that showed up were registered Democrats.

5. And then there is this. The exe director of the Democrats for Life of America which are 21 million strong, wrote an op-ed about the party's far push to the left over late term abortion up to birth. She goes on to say up till now they have been loyal soldiers for the Democratic party but since this change not anymore.
Kristen Day: Buttigieg and 2020 hopefuls, don'''t cancel 21 million pro-life Dems if you want to beat Trump | Fox News.
Of course that doesn't equate into automatic votes for Trump but it could mean that a good number of pro-life Democrats will sit out this election.

 

[concernedpuma]

I'm not anti-Republican, Puma... I voted for Bush, Sr. (twice), voted for Dole in '96 and Bush, Jr. in '04. I would have walked through fire for McCain in 2000... would have done so again in 2008... until he picked Palin. That broke it for me. I haven't even considered voting Republican since the moment she walked across the stage at Drake University... and I'll tell you straight - I'm not going to consider it until the lunatic fringe that controls it now gives way to the sensible center once again. I know you'll probably argue that the Democratic party is probably heading for it's extreme fringe now too... and who knows? Maybe it is. If so, I'll look for a third option.

But I can't and I won't vote for a President who seeks to divide instead of unite. I can't and I won't vote for a President who turns his back on the plain and simple fact that we are a nation of immigrants, who is willing to tear children from their parents and lock them in cages. I can't and I won't vote for a President who turns his back on the Puerto Rico in their hour of dire need, simply because they have a different skin color or speak a different language. I can't and I won't vote for a President who attacks and castigates honorable men and women who put on the uniform and who have bled or risked death while he wraps himself up in the flag. That's just the way it is. If the Republicans ever nominate someone worthy of the office and whom I can respect, I'll give them fair consideration again. Until that point, though... I've got to say the odds are slim to none... and Slim left town.

You seem to be a solid thinking individual. I disagree with much of what you have written, but still respect your ability to decide. I don't believe we can argue, since your own and my decisions are based upon what we each truly believe. I hope that after some of the silly dust-up accusations against the President have settled, you may change your mind. That being written, I will respect your vote as cast for the candidate you think best to lead us, no matter who you may choose.
Regards,
CP

 

[Cordelier]

You seem to be a solid thinking individual. I disagree with much of what you have written, but still respect your ability to decide. I don't believe we can argue, since your own and my decisions are based upon what we each truly believe. I hope that after some of the silly dust-up accusations against the President have settled, you may change your mind. That being written, I will respect your vote as cast for the candidate you think best to lead us, no matter who you may choose.
Regards,
CP

Well, thank you kindly, Puma... but I've got to ask you - you describe the accusations against the President as a "silly dust-up", but doesn't it give you any pause for thought about how obstructive this administration has been toward Congressional investigations? I don't know what your frame of reference is, but when I compare President Trump's actions to President Reagan's during Iran-Contra, the difference seems pretty stark. Reagan let his people testify when they were subpoenaed... you had Cap Weinberger and George Schultz, you had National Security Advisers - MacFarlane and Poindexter testifying. You had NSC staffers like Oliver North testifying. Hell, the President even opened up the relevant portions of his personal diary! President Reagan knew there was probably going to be some embarrassing things revealed by all of this openness.... but he was willing to run that risk, because the good of the country demanded that the facts be revealed. His own potential political embarrassment was secondary to that. He could have claimed Executive Privilege and fought Congress in the courts and tied things up indefinitely, but he didn't... he didn't because he didn't feel he had anything to hide. To me, that was leadership... being willing to step up and face the music, come what may.

President Trump's actions just leave me with the sinking feeling that the information we have been able to obtain is just the tip of the iceberg. And as damning as the information is that has been revealed, I think there's a lot more beneath the surface. And I have deep fears for the future of this country because of it. I hope I'm wrong, but my gut tells me I'm not... it tells me that because I've seen from President Reagan's actions the way a President is supposed to act when confronted by solid accusations of wrong-doing, and it's the exact polar opposite of the way this one is operating.

 

[concernedpuma]

Well, thank you kindly, Puma... but I've got to ask you - you describe the accusations against the President as a "silly dust-up", but doesn't it give you any pause for thought about how obstructive this administration has been toward Congressional investigations? I don't know what your frame of reference is, but when I compare President Trump's actions to President Reagan's during Iran-Contra, the difference seems pretty stark. Reagan let his people testify when they were subpoenaed... you had Cap Weinberger and George Schultz, you had National Security Advisers - MacFarlane and Poindexter testifying. You had NSC staffers like Oliver North testifying. Hell, the President even opened up the relevant portions of his personal diary! President Reagan knew there was probably going to be some embarrassing things revealed by all of this openness.... but he was willing to run that risk, because the good of the country demanded that the facts be revealed. His own potential political embarrassment was secondary to that. He could have claimed Executive Privilege and fought Congress in the courts and tied things up indefinitely, but he didn't... he didn't because he didn't feel he had anything to hide. To me, that was leadership... being willing to step up and face the music, come what may.

President Trump's actions just leave me with the sinking feeling that the information we have been able to obtain is just the tip of the iceberg. And as damning as the information is that has been revealed, I think there's a lot more beneath the surface. And I have deep fears for the future of this country because of it. I hope I'm wrong, but my gut tells me I'm not... it tells me that because I've seen from President Reagan's actions the way a President is supposed to act when confronted by solid accusations of wrong-doing, and it's the exact polar opposite of the way this one is operating.

Well put big C. I get your comparison, but I feel a great deal of what the the President did was for purpose of protecting the third branch. You likely disagree, I understand, but at some point there is an obligation of each branch to dig in their heels. I believe President Trump benefitted, intended or not, from protecting the Executive branch from another branch held in majority by an opposing political party. If President Trump was able to protect the Executive branch from an opposing majority party in another branch, I feel that to be a satisfying result.
Regards,
CP

 

[Mongidig]

Bloomberg is getting a lot of endorsements. Trump's ex Secretary of the Navy endorsed Bloomberg yesterday.

I think Bloomberg would make a fine president.

At least he is normal.

 

[joko104]

Bloomberg is getting a lot of endorsements. Trump's ex Secretary of the Navy endorsed Bloomberg yesterday.

I think Bloomberg would make a fine president.

Mike Throw-Blacks-Against-The-Wall Bloomberg? From what I've read on this forum, virtually all progressives and Democrats oppose police abuse - particularly against blacks.

 

[Waddy]

If money makes the difference, Bloomberg will be the nominee. I have to laugh; another old rich white guy leading the party of "diversity and the common man". What hypocrites.

 

[Cordelier]

Well put big C. I get your comparison, but I feel a great deal of what the the President did was for purpose of protecting the third branch. You likely disagree, I understand, but at some point there is an obligation of each branch to dig in their heels. I believe President Trump benefitted, intended or not, from protecting the Executive branch from another branch held in majority by an opposing political party. If President Trump was able to protect the Executive branch from an opposing majority party in another branch, I feel that to be a satisfying result.
Regards,
CP

I know that's his excuse for the behavior, Puma... but it doesn't hold water for me. I try to give the President - whoever the President happens to be - the benefit of the doubt when it comes to privilege matters. But to deny every document and every subpoena out of hand? Come on... if the Administration had shown any sign of a constructive willingness to work with Congress to sort out what it would release and what it wouldn't - some sign of constructive engagement - then I'd give their argument some credibility. But to fight everything out of hand? That's just stonewalling, pure and simple.

Let's face it... it's not like Congress doesn't have valid concerns that need to be addressed. Like the deferral of the aid to Ukraine. According to 2 USC §684, when the President made the decision to defer the aid - regardless of his reasons for doing so - he was still obligated to send a Special Message to Congress informing them of the decision. The GAO Report verifies that the President was in violation of the Impoundment Control Act for not doing so. So don't you think it is incumbent on the President to give the Congress an explanation for his actions?

I can understand blocking the testimony of Bolton and Mulvaney because of the proximity to the President and the potential Executive Privilege issues... but Michael Duffey over at the OMB? Seriously? He seems to have been the point man on the deferral....at the very least, his testimony should have been subpoenaed for the Impeachment Trial. If he couldn't have provided an adequate rationale, then his contact at the White House - Robert Blair - should have been required to testify. If neither one of them had the answers, then it would have been time to address whether or not Bolton and Mulvaney are legitimately covered by Executive Privilege.

I know I made the point earlier about President Reagan... but President Reagan knew the motivation for his actions - freeing the hostages in Beirut - was a worthy goal. As it turns out, the way it was done - including the abuse of the Congressional appropriations process - meant that some members of the Administration broke the law. Maybe President Trump similarly felt that he valid motivations as well. I don't know. But I do know that the Congressional appropriations process was again abused. There needs to be accountability here. The welfare of the nation outweighs the desire of the President to shield himself from the potential for political embarrassment. President Reagan made the right call. I wish President Trump had a sliver of a fraction of President Reagan's integrity and respect for the rule of law as opposed to the law of rule.

 

[EnigmaO01]

The impeachment/trial sucked all the oxygen out of the Democratic Primary election debates and candidates campaigns, plus grounded the 3 Democratic senators still in the election - the only legitimate candidates they had. This cut a clear path for Michael Bloomberg, who claims Elizabeth Warren talking about breaking up the 2 largest monopolies on earth (Amazon and Google) makes her "too radical.' You'll never hear Bloomberg criticizing any fellow mega billionaire or mega billion dollar corporation. According to Bloomberg, the 14th richest man on earth, all the other Democrats for president are "too radical" for promising universal healthcare, free college, erasing student debts etc.

The DNC just changed their rules for the debate exclusively to get Bloomberg, a 77 year old white male New York moderate Republican, into the debates. The MSM and press - all now entirely owned by Bloomberg's fellow mega billionaires and mega billion dollar corporations - has attacked all Democratic candidates except for Bloomberg, for which there has not been one major critical story.

Will Michael Bloomberg be the Democratic Party's nominee? In my opinion this is very likely. Sanders will be used to prove Bloomberg isn't "too radical" like Sanders and all the other Democratic candidates like Bloomberg claims.

(SORRY, won't let me put up a poll or I messed up). But it is somewhat a yes or no question. I say yes, unless someone else maybe gets in it.)

No he won't.

 

[CharloTexan]

OK, you heard it here first, unless someone before me predicted it. No insider info, just wishful thinking ....

At some strategic point before Super Tuesday, Bloomberg "unveils" his Vice Presidential running mate is ... and she steps forward from behind the curtain, .... Michelle Obama. Boooo Ya!!! Now, backup and how does that address all of your Bloomberg concerns/chances. I've got $100 to your $1 they win the nomination and beat Trump.