SF Mayor London Breed Endorses Mike Bloomberg (illegal, illegals, elections)

[capoeira]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

It would actually put me in a bad spot if it were Bloomberg vs Trump because I like both.

Bloomberg will raise taxes while Trump might get them lowered again. I really dislike Bloomberg's proposed securities transaction tax of .1%.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN20C1P5

"Among the most eye-catching proposals are a tax of 0.1% on transactions in stocks, bonds and payments on derivative contracts"

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by SocSciProf

I told you he had no chance to win the Presidency. Republicans may embrace such candidates, and Democrats can run a clueless, mean, unlikable person and help that candidate win. But Democrats are not going to vote for a Presidential nominee with that record. Not in the 21st century. And many Democratic voters will be so disgusted they will stay home. Therefore, if he gets the nomination, he puts every Democrat on the ballot at risk.

LOL, it's funny you think Democrat politicians are these sweet angels who have never done wrong before or after running for office. You must be very young or not watch or read news.


Not to mention, while Bloomberg's policy of stop and frisk was controversial now and he said it was a mistake looking back. His intentions were good and this happens to be the ultra-liberal mindset where they don't understand their policies are actually bad for the innocent person. I see parallels to SF and the homeless. When Bloomberg got in there were a ton of murders, being a numbers person, those murders happened in neighborhoods with high Black populations. The majority of those murdered were Black too. Bloomberg didn't say "oh it's just happening in Black neighborhoods, who cares, let's focus on the wealthy areas instead" no he wanted to save lives in those neighborhoods, which was the motivation from stop and frisk. Now the way it was executed was wrong, but in the end he still saved hundreds of Black lives. It's sort of like how people in SF lump all homeless as one, they don't understand that taking out the dangerous drug crazed homeless is making the lives of innocent homeless people terrible and more dangerous.

[SocSciProf]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

LOL, it's funny you think Democrat politicians are these sweet angels who have never done wrong before or after running for office. You must be very young or not watch or read news.

I'm a social scientist. Of course I know that all political parties have some demons and exploitable errors. Fact is, ALL human organizations and ALL humans have some demons and errors and bad things they did. Even me. Even you. But you cannot be maintaining that all humans and all human organizations have done equally bad things. I may have killed fly several decades ago, but that does not make me Charles Manson. The Republicans may have passed a tax bill and Democrats may have passed a draconian crime bill but, so far, neither has sent 6 million people to crematoria. So, errors can be big or small. In that sense, Bloomberg has done worse things than Pete, Bernie, Warren, and several others.

Now, making a mistake, or even doing something harmful, is not in and of itself disqualifying. One factor that determines voter response is if the person understands the mistake and made amends long before they start asking for our votes. Simply apologizing isn't sufficient. Bloomberg could give a total of 3 billion dollars to the exact victims of stop and frisk, along with counseling services and assistance purchasing homes (to get them back on track). New York City police records will show every single person who was victimized, and any holes can be filled with research efforts to discover other victims. Now, he had to do that a few years ago--doing it now is just buying votes. But he is in a unique position to make amends. And he has not. He has barely even apologized. And that's just stop-and-frisk. What about his other neoliberal policies and his objectification of women?

Finally, I notice you pivot. Before he was the one who could beat Trump. Now you want to play the "What about . . ." game. You still think Bloomberg can beat Trump? If so, there's a golden bridge that spans the Golden Gate, and I am willing to sell it to you, cheap!

[bmw335xi]

Yes 100% I believe Bloomberg is the only one who can beat Trump. When I said they killed Bloomberg, I’m talking about the primary. He would have to win the Democratic base, which seem to be to in love with Sander’s free everything platform. If Bloomberg got the nomination, Democrats would vote for him because he still isn’t Trump, and you’d see a lot of Independents and even a decent amount of Romney/McCain Republicans.

[SocSciProf]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

Yes 100% I believe Bloomberg is the only one who can beat Trump. When I said they killed Bloomberg, I’m talking about the primary. He would have to win the Democratic base, which seem to be to in love with Sander’s free everything platform. If Bloomberg got the nomination, Democrats would vote for him because he still isn’t Trump, and you’d see a lot of Independents and even a decent amount of Romney/McCain Republicans.

Congratulations! I will send you the bridge deed as soon as I receive the $1,000.00 check made payable to SocSciProf. Congratulations again!

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by SocSciProf

Congratulations! I will send you the bridge deed as soon as I receive the $1,000.00 check made payable to SocSciProf. Congratulations again!

You really think a socialist who isn't even a Democrat who wants to outlaw private insurance, force big companies to give ownership to employees, etc has a better chance than an intelligent moderate who knows Trump's weaknesses and has the upper hand on those weaknesses? lol yeah, keep drinking the kool-aid. I'm sure there are a lot of 18 year olds who are excited about free everything, but come election day... they won't be there.

[Tulemutt]

Since so many people are afraid of the socialist bogeymen: Surprise! there have been plenty of ”democratic socialists” elected in America in the past ... and yet no cities or states or the nation were converted to state or worker-owned Gulag labor. Read about Milwaukee’s history of “socialist” mayors. See how scary scary scary that city fared.

socialists-were-winning-elections-america-long-before-bernie-sanders-aoc

https://www.washingtonpost.com/histo...e-sanders-aoc/

Lmfao

[llowllevellowll]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

Yes 100% I believe Bloomberg is the only one who can beat Trump. When I said they killed Bloomberg, I’m talking about the primary. He would have to win the Democratic base, which seem to be to in love with Sander’s free everything platform. If Bloomberg got the nomination, Democrats would vote for him because he still isn’t Trump, and you’d see a lot of Independents and even a decent amount of Romney/McCain Republicans.

You're framing a strawman when you refer to Sanders' "free everything", and it makes me wonder how astute you are politically. Nothing is free. Just like the subsidies and the war/defense expenditures that are approved by the federal government aren't free. They too are costly.

It's funny to me, though, that when we're talking about necessities for the working classes in 2020, we have to refer to these as "free everything" yet we don't refer to billion dollar corporations shirking tax obligations as "free everything".

We have a socialist nation already, it's just that the working classes are forced to line the pockets of those corporations, particularly ones that work in healthcare, insurance, and defense. I've yet to see a Republican refer to any of this as welfare, socialism, or freebies.

Side note: what is so scary about improving the middle class in this great nation? Economically speaking, every dime you put back into families' bank accounts, they're going to recycle it directly back into the economy. Why wouldn't you want that?

Back to the "free everything". I'll HAPPILY prioritize and subsidize healthcare and education for the working classes in an effort to create a smarter, healthier workforce who is strapped with far less debt and is able to more quickly contribute to the economy. Ask yourself who it benefits to keep them straddled down with medical and student loan debts and if it makes sense to continue those practices? It seems to me that if you're going to peddle the wonders of Capitalism, you would surely want more consumers with more ability to consume, UNLESS of course, lobbyists are simply paying for the proper candidates (and that includes both parties).

[davdaven]

Originally Posted by davdaven

In a post Iowa/New Hampshire world, I'm starting to see advantages to Bloomberg. I'm leaning more towards Klobuchar than Buttigieg at this point (had been evenly divided) but am hoping for some progress between now and the lead up to Super Tuesday. It's time for Biden, Warren, and Steyer to go and for some endorsements to come in.

Considering last night's debate, Bloomberg either needs to improve 1000% for the next one or move aside. Warren did well, but she went after Bloomberg and not Sanders. People who would have voted for Bloomberg probably would not have voted for Warren anyway.

If Sanders clenches the nomination, the Democratic party might as well save us all the time and effort and just let Trump run unopposed. His base consists of a bunch of wild-eyed freeloaders and PC SJWs, but what's left of the Middle Class in swing states don't want a socialist in charge. They worked hard for what they have, and they aren't interested in voting for somebody who wants to freely redistribute their wealth. It's bad enough that Trump is already taking away from the Middle Class to give to the wealthy. If either Trump or Sanders wins, we might as well write the obituary for the Middle Class.

[llowllevellowll]

Originally Posted by davdaven

Considering last night's debate, Bloomberg either needs to improve 1000% for the next one or move aside. Warren did well, but she went after Bloomberg and not Sanders. People who would have voted for Bloomberg probably would not have voted for Warren anyway.

If Sanders clenches the nomination, the Democratic party might as well save us all the time and effort and just let Trump run unopposed. His base consists of a bunch of wild-eyed freeloaders and PC SJWs, but what's left of the Middle Class in swing states don't want a socialist in charge. They worked hard for what they have, and they aren't interested in voting for somebody who wants to freely redistribute their wealth. It's bad enough that Trump is already taking away from the Middle Class to give to the wealthy. If either Trump or Sanders wins, we might as well write the obituary for the Middle Class.

Another straw man. The Middle Class wouldn't be redistributing anything. The middle class owns almost nothing in this country. You both might be right, though, that Sanders would lose to Trump but it's not because of the reasons anyone has stated; it's because no one seems to have any clue who or what a democratic socialist system would benefit. Neither one of you have done it or yourself any service by misrepresenting its effect on the middle class.