Friday 29th of May 2020

"I don't think billionaires should exist"...

blooming  A people's party that relies on the uber rich. The main problem seems to be that none of them are sympathetic to the needs of Bloomberg's social class, namely billionaires.


Although the Democratic party has always styled itself as the party of the people, akin to Labour in Britain or the Liberals in Canada, it relies on wealthy leftists in entertainment and business to fund its campaigns.

And during this campaign cycle, Sanders and Warren have been particularly outspoken in their disdain for those with cash.

"I don't think billionaires should exist," Sanders said in September, when he proposed an aggressive tax on accumulated wealth, reaching beyond annual income.

Warren, who was among the first to propose a wealth tax, is more lenient about their existence, saying she didn't mind if they were around.


But on her campaign website, she rolled out a "calculator for the billionaires", with a little jab at Bloomberg, who is worth an estimated $52 billion.

"If you're Michael Bloomberg, click here," it reads, informing him that he would pay $3.079 billion under her wealth tax

"Good news — you'll still be extraordinarily rich," the site jokes.

And if you really have an anathema for the super-wealthy, she will sell you a coffee mug that reads, "Billionaire Tears".

Bloomberg isn't playing by the rules

Apparently, Bloomberg hasn't found all this funny.


First, he filed the paperwork that would make him eligible to run in primaries in Alabama and Arkansas, two Deep South states.

And on Thursday, he decided to fully jump in, although he remains somewhat opaque about his goals.

In a Twitter thread earlier this month, Bloomberg's spokesman Howard Wolfson offered some insight into his client's decision.


https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-24/will-michael-bloomberg-make-a-wor...

a big spread just got bigger with a late runner...

dems candidates

 

a late runner:

 

Billionaire and former New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg joined the race for the Democratic presidential nomination Sunday, adding new uncertainty to the party’s already unsettled contest to pick President Trump’s challenger in 2020.

After more than a decade of exploring a White House run, Bloomberg, one of the richest men in the world, enters the race with a huge financial edge over his Democratic rivals — but also with big vulnerabilities. The former Republican is banking on the collapse of Joe Biden’s candidacy, casting himself as a steadier and more viable moderate than the former vice president.

“We cannot afford four more years of President Trump’s reckless and unethical actions,” Bloomberg said on his campaign website. “He represents an existential threat to our country and our values. If he wins another term in office, we may never recover from the damage.”

Bloomberg’s advisors acknowledge he is starting too late to compete effectively in the states that will hold the party’s first four nominating contests in February: Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.



Read more:https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-michael-bloomberg-president-election-2019-story.html

a democrat centrist republican hillary supporter...

Bloomberg served as the 108th mayor of New York City, holding office for three consecutive terms, beginning his first in 2001. A lifelong Democrat before seeking elective office, Bloomberg switched his party registration in 2001 to run for mayor as a Republican. He defeated opponent Mark J. Green in a close election held just weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks. He won a second term in 2005, and left the Republican Party two years later. Bloomberg campaigned to change the city's term limits law, and was elected to his third term in 2009 as an independent on the Republican ballot line.

Bloomberg was frequently mentioned as a possible centrist candidate for the presidential elections in 2008and 2012, as well as for governor of New York in 2010. He declined to seek either office, opting to continue serving as the mayor of New York City. His final term as mayor ended on December 31, 2013.

After a brief stint as a full-time philanthropist, Bloomberg re-assumed the position of CEO at Bloomberg L.P. by the end of 2014. There was widespread speculation that he would run as a third-party candidate in the 2016 presidential election, though he chose not to run, later endorsing Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton for president. In October 2018, Bloomberg changed his political party affiliation back to the Democrats.[6] He announced on November 24, 2019, that he was seeking that party's nomination in the 2020 presidential election.[7]

 

Read more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg

 

 

As a billionaire democrat centrist republican Hillary supporter, Bloomberg slightly resembles our own poor younger millionaire Malcolm Turnbull, who after some hesitation towards Labor and the others, went with the rich Liberal (CONservative) party in Australia in order to become "Prime Minister" whichever way his destiny took him, himself.

 

Gus is too sarcastic too feel comfortable with bagging the bloke, but from day one, Malcolm coup against Turdy Abbott was designed by him, himself, he, to make sure the CONservatives (the rich class who daily cons the grocers, the bogans and the plumbers with dreams of oodles of cash for their hard work) in Australia would retain power... Due to his "reputation" as a sensible centrist man (I have no idea where this falsity came from — ah yes, from the Murdoch media leading other media to it) he CONNED the electors. We weren't fooled here on this site... Nor were we fooled with Scomo, soon to become Scummo and now parading as a Scumbag called Scumdung — protecting liars like the minister for more emissions, Angus Taylor...

 

So back to Bloomberg... So far, no-one knows his "policies" as he had switched allegiances according the lord of Cash and electoral whim. Amen... Too harsh? Guess who would be supported by Murdoch should Trump bit the dust?... Odds? 90 per cent in favour of bloomberg... Back to JANUARY 27, 2016:

 

--------------------

The only thing missing from the already roiling 2016 presidential race was another billionaire starting drama. As luck had it, media mogul Rupert Murdoch was waiting in the wings.

The political contest got richer over the weekend, when whispers that former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg may be considering a third-party bid for the highest office reverberated across the political world. If he ran, Bloomberg, a man worth between $36 and $50 billion, depending on the estimates, would likely face off against another New York billionaire, current G.O.P. front-runner Donald Trump, who himself is worth somewhere in the area of $4.5 and $10 billion.

Because everyone knows that three billionaires stirring the pot is more fun than two, Murdoch decided to kick things into higher gear Wednesday afternoon.

 

Murdoch has weighed in on Bloomberg’s presidential aspirations before, the first time over the summer, when he urged him to run against Trump.

https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/status/635621842477318144?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Trump did not need Murdoch’s goading to rile him up over a possible face-off with his former golf buddy and longtime friend. To Trump, Bloomberg throwing his hat in the ring would be a betrayal of all the good years the two shared together.

“We have a very nice relationship. We’ve always had a very good relationship,” he told The Hill on Tuesday, though he made it clear they have differences on guns, immigration, and “lots of other things.”

“If he runs, we will not have a good relationship, I promise you.”

not a happy warren...

Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has criticised billionaire rival Michael Bloomberg for launching his nascent White House bid with a $US37 million ($55 million) TV advertising blitz, accusing the former New York City mayor of trying to buy American democracy.

Key points
  • Mr Bloomberg will finance his campaign from his personal fortune
  • Senator Warren has previously proposed a wealth tax on billionaires
  • The Bloomberg campaign will skip early-voting states, including Iowa

 

Mr Bloomberg, 77, a media mogul who will use his personal fortune to spend freely on his campaign and has said he will not take donations, officially jumped into the White House race as a moderate Democrat on Sunday.

Senator Warren, 70, a liberal US senator from Massachusetts and one of the leading Democratic contenders according to polls, has proposed a wealth tax on billionaires and frequently rails against corporate America, a platform Mr Bloomberg has criticised.

At an event with voters in Ankeny, Iowa, Senator Warren opened her remarks by denouncing Mr Bloomberg's tactics.

"Michael Bloomberg is making a bet about democracy in 2020. He doesn't need people, he only needs bags and bags of money. I think Michael Bloomberg is wrong," she said.

"That's exactly what's now in play in 2020 — which vision, which version of our democracy is going to win. If Michael Bloomberg's version of democracy wins, then democracy changes. It's going to be 'which billionaire you can stomach?'"

 

Read more:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-26/elizabeth-warren-accuses-bloomber...

 

Read from top.

 

Pete smells good... NOTE: a moderate Democrat is the same as a moderate Republican...

obama does not want bernie...

A 78-year-old veteran of US policy, Bernie Sanders finished as a runner-up in the Democratic primaries in 2016 and is currently running again for the 2020 election despite a recent heart attack.

Former US President Barack Obama previously pledged to intervene and prevent Senator Bernie Sanders from becoming the Democratic presidential nominee, according to Politico.

“Back when Sanders seemed like more of a threat than he does now, Obama said privately that if Bernie were running away with the nomination, Obama would speak up to stop him,” the media outlet reported on Tuesday.

At the same time, Politico cited a close adviser to Obama as saying that he could not confirm whether the ex-US President would stand up against Sanders.

“He hasn’t said that directly to me. The only reason I'm hesitating at all is because, yeah, if Bernie were running away with it, I think maybe we would all have to say something. But I don't think that's likely. It's not happening,” the adviser asserted.Sanders Says He ‘Misspoke’ About His Push for Election Campaign Slowdown

The comments come after Sanders retracted last month his previous statements about his intent to slow down his presidential election campaign after a recent heart attack.

“I misspoke the other day; I said a word I should not have said, and media drives me a little bit nuts to make a big deal about it,” Sanders told NBC Nightly News, adding that his team is going “to get back into the groove of a very vigorous campaign.”

The 78-year-old was hospitalised earlier in October with chest pains which required doctors to insert two stents after discovering a blockage in one of his arteries. This prompted his campaign to announce that they are “cancelling his events and appearances until further notice”, and that they “will continue to provide appropriate updates”

During the 2016 presidential election, Sanders finished as a runner-up in the Democratic primaries, with Hillary Clinton being nominated as the party's candidate.

 

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/us/201911261077410278-bernie-sanders-barack-obam...

tulsi wants you to see the bill...


REALISM & RESTRAINT


Tulsi Gabbard: Wake Up And Smell Our $6.4 Trillion Wars


Meanwhile, her fellow Democrats appear abysmally unconcerned about the human and financial toll.


The Democratic establishment is increasingly irritated. Representative Tulsi Gabbard, long-shot candidate for president, is attacking her own party for promoting the “deeply destructive” policy of “regime change wars.” Gabbard has even called Hillary Clinton “the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party.

Senator Chris Murphy complained: “It’s a little hard to figure out what itch she’s trying to scratch in the Democratic Party right now.” Some conservatives seem equally confused. The Washington Examiner’s Eddie Scarry asked: “where is Tulsi distinguishing herself when it really matters?”

The answer is that foreign policy “really matters.” Gabbard recognizes that George W. Bush is not the only simpleton warmonger who’s plunged the nation into conflict, causing enormous harm. In the last Democratic presidential debate, she explained that the issue was “personal to me” since she’d “served in a medical unit where every single day, I saw the terribly high, human costs of war.” Compare her perspective to that of the ivory tower warriors of Right and Left, ever ready to send others off to fight not so grand crusades.

The best estimate of the costs of the post-9/11 wars comes from the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University. The Institute says that $6.4 trillion will be spent through 2020. They estimate that our wars have killed 801,000 directly and resulted in a multiple of that number dead indirectly. More than 335,000 civilians have died—and that’s an extremely conservative guess. Some 21 million people have been forced from their homes. Yet the terrorism risk has only grown, with the U.S. military involved in counter-terrorism in 80 nations.

Obviously, without American involvement there would still be conflicts. Some counter-terrorism activities would be necessary even if the U.S. was not constantly swatting geopolitical wasps’ nests. Nevertheless, it was Washington that started or joined these unnecessary wars (e.g., Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen) and expanded necessary wars well beyond their legitimate purposes (Afghanistan). As a result, American policymakers bear responsibility for much of the carnage.

The Department of Defense is responsible for close to half of the estimated expenditures. About $1.4 trillion goes to care for veterans. Homeland security and interest on security expenditures take roughly $1 trillion each. And $131 million goes to the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, which have overspent on projects that have delivered little.

 

Read more:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-is-tulsi-the-only-d...


the pitfall of "not knowing"...

US presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg has said that his campaign "unknowingly" used prison workers to call voters on his behalf.

The billionaire Democrat said he had cut ties with a vendor which operates two call centres in state jails.

Mr Bloomberg said he learned about the company's use of prison labour only after receiving a call from a reporter.

He entered the election race in November with one of the largest-ever political ad buys.

His campaign's use of prison labour was first reported by news site The Intercept, and confirmed by Mr Bloomberg in a statement on Tuesday.

"We do not support this practice and we are making sure our vendors more properly vet their subcontractors moving forward," said the former New York mayor....

 

Read more:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50907687

 

"Call centres" in US jails?... This beats the Christmas cards made in China...

the democrats should have better candidates...

obstruction

It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future,Yogi Berra reminded us.


But on “The McLaughlin Group,” the TV talk show on which this writer has appeared for four decades, predictions are as mandated as was taking Latin in Jesuit high schools in the 1950s.


Looking to 2020, this writer predicted that Donald Trump’s great domestic challenge would be to keep the economy firing on all cylinders. His great foreign policy challenge? Avoiding war.


When one looks at the numbers—unemployment at or below 4 percent for two years, an expansion in its 11th year, the stock market regularly hitting all-time highs—Trump enters his reelection year with a fistful of aces. One has to go back half a century to find numbers like these.


Moreover, the opposition shaping up to bring him down seems, to put it charitably, not up to the task.


Joe Biden, 77, with 45 years in electoral politics, has lost more than a step or two and his most memorable Senate vote was in support of George W. Bush’s decision to take us to war in Iraq, the greatest blunder in U.S. diplomatic history.

Biden’s challengers are a cantankerous 78-year-old democratic socialist who just had a heart attack, and a 37-year-old mayor of a small town in Indiana who claims that his same-sex marriage is blessed by the Bible.

Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg are white male billionaires who are dumping scores of millions into TV ads to buy the nomination of a party that professes to stand on principle against white male privilege, wealth inequality and the noxious effects of big money in politics.

While Trump is facing an impeachment trial, an acquittal by a Mitch McConnell-run Republican Senate seems a pretty good bet.

And the coming report of U.S. Attorney John Durham into the origins of the Russiagate probe is expected to find political bias, if not conspiracy, at its root. Trump could emerge from the Mueller Report, Horowitz Report and Durham Report as what his allies claim him to be — the victim of a “deep state” conspiracy to fix the election of 2016.

If there are IEDs on Trump’s road to reelection, they may be found in the Middle and Near East, land of the forever wars, and North Korea.

Not infrequently, foreign policy has proven decisive in presidential years.

The Korean War contributed to Harry Truman’s defeat in the New Hampshire primary and his 1952 decision not to run again. When General Eisenhower, architect of the Normandy invasion, declared, “I shall go to Korea,” his rival Adlai Stevenson was toast.

Lyndon Johnson saw his party shattered and chances vanish with the Tet Offensive of 1968, Eugene McCarthy’s moral victory in New Hampshire, and antiwar candidate Bobby Kennedy’s entry into the race.

Jimmy Carter’s feckless response to the seizure of U.S. hostages in Iran consumed the last year of his presidency and contributed to his rout by Ronald Reagan.

The critical foreign theaters where Trump could face problems with his presidential re-election include Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea.

As of Dec. 30, Kim Jong Un’s “Christmas gift” to Trump had not been delivered. Yet it is unlikely Kim will let many weeks pass without making good on his warnings and threats. And though difficult to believe he would start a war, it is also difficult to see how he continues to tolerate sanctions for another year without upgrading and rattling his nuclear arsenal.

Trump is eager to make good on his promises and remove many of the 14,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan before Election Day. Yet such a move is not without risks. Given the strength of the Taliban, the casualties they are able to inflict, the inability of the Afghan army to hold territory, and the constant atrocities in the capital city of Kabul, a Saigon ’75 end to the Afghan war is not outside the realm of the possible.

Nor is a shooting war with Iran that rivets the nation’s attention.

Yesterday, U.S. F-15s, in five attacks, hit munitions depots and a command center of the Iran-backed Kataib Hezbollah militia in Syria and Iraq, a retaliatory raid for a rocket attack on a U.S. training camp that killed an American contractor and wounded four U.S. soldiers.

“For those who ask about the response,” warns a Kataib Hezbollah spokesman, “it will be the size of our faith.” One has to expect Iran and its militia in Iraq to respond in kind.

They have a track record. During 2019, with its economy choked by U.S. sanctions, Iran and its allies sabotaged oil tankers in the Gulf, shot down a $130 million U.S. Predator drone, and shut down with missiles and drones half of Saudi Arabia’s oil production.

In former times, a confrontation or shooting war often benefited the incumbent, as there was almost always a rallying to the flag. Those days are gone. This generation has had its fill of wars.

 

 

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.

 

 

Read more:

 

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/will-war-wipe-out-trump...

 

 

 

Read from top.

call me mike...

Billionaire presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg may be eligible to join the debate stage after the New Hampshire primary under new rules adopted by the Democratic National Committee.

The dramatically revamped DNC criteria eliminate the individual donor threshold used for the first eight debates and double the polling threshold to qualify for future debates.

Bloomberg, the former three-term mayor of New York City — who is estimated to be worth $50 billion — is self-financing his campaign and not accepting contributions. The donor rule barred him from participating in the earlier debates.

After spending $270 million on TV and other media ads since launching his campaign in late November, Bloomberg is now topping 10 percent in recent national surveys — poll-vaulting ahead of other candidates who’ve been campaigning for a year or more.

Candidates have to earn at least 10 percent in four national polls released between Jan. 15 and Feb. 18, or 12 percent in two polls conducted in Nevada or South Carolina, in order to participate in the Feb. 19 debate in Las Vegas.

Bloomberg could meet the national polling criteria, if not the Nevada or South Carolina threshold.

Any candidate who earns at least one delegate to the national convention in either the Iowa caucuses or New Hampshire primary will also qualify for the Nevada debate.

Bernie Sanders’ campaign quickly slammed the new rules as unfairly elevating Bloomberg.

“To now change the rules in the middle of the game to accommodate Mike Bloomberg, who is trying to buy his way into the Democratic nomination, is wrong. That’s the definition of a rigged system,” said Sanders senior campaign adviser Jeff Weaver.

Bloomberg, meanwhile, is ready to make his case on the debate stage, said his campaign manager Kevin Sheekey.

 

 

Read more:

https://nypost.com/2020/01/31/bloomberg-could-qualify-for-presidential-d...

 

 

Read from top.

mike's achilles heel...

 

From the Real News Network

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors. It will be updated.

Mike Bloomberg: … 95% of your murders, and murderers and murder victims, fit one of them. You can just take the description, Xerox it and pass it on to all the cops. They are male, minorities, 16 to 25. That’s true in New York, that’s true in virtually every city [inaudible 00:00:17]. And cops in minority neighborhoods, yes, that’s true. Why do we do it? Because that’s where all the crime is. And the way to get the guns out of the kids hands is to throw them against the wall and frisk them.

Kim Brown: Thanks for joining us here at The Real News Network. I’m Kim Brown in Baltimore. That’s former mayor of New York City and current democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg during a 2015 Aspen Institute speech giving a perfectly reasonable and racist explanation as to why the policies of stop and frisk were acceptable during his tenure as mayor. And that’s just one of a handful of clips hidden in plain sight unearthed by independent journalist Benjamin P. Dixon that could very well kneecap the presidential aspirations of the billionaire oligarch.

Ben is a co-founder of TheNorthstar.com. He’s also founder of The Progressive Army and he’s host of The Benjamin Dixon Show. You can find him on YouTube, subscribe to his channel. He joins us here today from Atlanta. Welcome, Ben.

Ben Dixon: Thanks so much for having me. It’s a pleasure.

Kim Brown: And we’re also joined in studio today by our own Real News correspondent Jaisal Noor who has followed the policing practices of Michael Bloomberg during his time as New York’s mayor. Jaisal, I know you’ve been at that for a number of years. Thank you for being here.

Jaisal Noor: Absolutely.

Kim Brown: All right. Well Ben, we’re going to get started with you because the clips that you have found has received millions of plays, thousands of retweets since you first posted them February 10th and we’re going to get to those momentarily, but Ben, I wanted to ask you about the reaction that you’ve received from mainstream outlets, including this clip that aired on CNN.

Cristina Alesci: Here’s the thing, important context here. We don’t have the full tape. So this is obviously snippets that have been released. The podcaster and the writer that released the sound is clearly a Bernie supporter. If you look at his Twitter feed, he’s very anti Bloomberg. He is promoting a hashtag, #BloombergisaRacist. We don’t know how he got the sound to begin with. So lots of questions are being asked, especially on the timing of this, as you noted in your introduction. A poll yesterday shows Bloomberg rising in the polls and particularly strong support in the African American community. He polled at 22% just behind Joe Biden at 27%. So the timing here and the mission here all calling into question-

Speaker 6: But we also know …

Kim Brown: All right. That was Cristina Alesci. She is a former Bloomberg Media employee who worked for Bloomberg media prior to coming to CNN. And then the lack of self awareness is just laughable at this point. But let’s answer some of her questions, though, Ben. What was your motive? Where did you find this clip? And what of the timing of this release?

Ben Dixon: Okay. I mean, it’s hilarious because it was … If you want to blame anybody, blame the universe. I decided Friday that I wanted to turn the attention of my podcast to Michael Bloomberg because I felt some kind of way about a billionaire oligarch being able to buy his way into this election without any examination by the public. And so Monday morning when I do my normal research every morning, I get up, I get some coffee, get the kids out to school, I do my research. And I started looking for content on Mike Bloomberg. I stumbled onto one video that discussed this, what they considered to be a racist speech against the second amendment right of African Americans. So obviously there was a conservative spin there. And I followed the words.

They didn’t have video. They didn’t have audio. All the had was a couple of excerpts. And so I typed the excerpts into Google. I mean, this is really basic stuff, right? So if she wants to know how we did it, it’s Research 101. It’s like high school level research that I did to find this. I just took the due diligence of editing the quality of the audio. If you hear the original, it’s very difficult to hear. So I took my time, transcribed it. I put the video together, I cleaned up the audio, and then I spent hours just pushing it to everyone in my network. So as to the reason when, it fell in my lap Monday. The why, because everyone needed to hear it.

Kim Brown: Jaisal, it’s shocking that the so called motives of a black man, an independent journalist are being scrutinized more so than the actual words that came out of Mike Bloomberg’s mouth.

Jaisal Noor: Absolutely. And you just see the differential that an oligarch gets in the media. When we’re talking about the harmful policies he is inflicting on black and brown working people in New York City, hundreds of thousands a year, people whose lives were affected who lived under terror under Bloomberg. And then they’re so easily dismissed by someone, as you mentioned, who worked for Bloomberg. It just gives you more reason to be skeptical of how the corporate media, these big outlets [inaudible 00:05:12] mention that Bloomberg’s already spent $350 million on advertising. He’s bankrolling these networks with advertising. He’s bought his way onto the debate stage. And it just makes you need to be really skeptical of how the media’s portraying this, how the democratic party is dealing with Bloomberg, and just keep a really razor focused lens on his behavior and his record.

Kim Brown: And what’s interesting is as Jaisal said, you have to keep an eye on these corporate media outlets that obviously have interest in supporting someone like a Mike Bloomberg. I mean, we saw this retrospectively from Donald Trump where every cable news outlet would cut to Trump’s rallies live with no sense of critique or no sense of in depth analysis, but then you clip even got Donald Trump’s attention in a since deleted tweet in reaction to your video. Trump said, and I’m paraphrasing here, that Bloomberg, wow, what a total racist. This is almost like the Spider-Man meme. Are these guys pointing directly at each other like, “No, I see you. No, it’s you. I see myself”? So how has that been since Trump got ahold of it, and I’m sure it’s taken off tremendously.

Ben Dixon: Yeah. So I mean, at the point that Trump retweeted it, it was already at 3.4 million, I believe. And now it’s at roughly 8 point … I don’t know. And then if you combined Facebook and Twitter, I’m sorry, Facebook and YouTube, it’s probably over 10, 11, 12 million. And so the president tweeting it out certainly brought more attention to it, but I think the important part is is that … Well, two things. One, he deleted it because he had a lack of self awareness, right? If there’s anybody racist in the conversation, it would be both of them together, because they both agreed on stop and frisk, right? And he promoted it before and I think that that’s why he deleted it, in addition to the fact that if you read down in my thread, I circled around and came around to criticizing Donald Trump as well. So there’s simple reasons why he would’ve deleted that. But then second of all, the President of the United States has no ground to stand on.

Kim Brown: Absolutely. And Michael Bloomberg has since responded via Twitter and a statement posted on his website where he said, “President Trump’s deleted tweet is the latest example of his endless efforts to divide Americans. I inherited the policy practice of stop and frisk and as part of our effort to stop gun violence, it was overused. By the time I left office, I cut it back by 95%, but I should’ve done it faster and sooner. I regret that and I have apologized, and I have taken responsibility for taking too long to understand the impact it had on black and Latino communities.”

So Jaisal, can we count the lies in that statement? Where do we even begin there?

Jaisal Noor: Yeah. Bloomberg is trying to rewrite history. While he did inherit stop and frisk from Giuliani, he greatly accelerated it. He massively expanded several times over. There was about 90,000 stops in Giuliani’s last term. At its peak, it was close to a million people a year under Bloomberg’s term. The reason that stop and frisk was pared down, and he is right that it had to end, it was because of massive protest, massive civil disobedience, and court decisions which found that stop and frisk was unconstitutional, it was racist, and the other thing was it was ineffective. It didn’t work. And once the public was presented with this information, the public opinion turned. The city council stepped in. And so by the end of Bloomberg’s turn, those numbers did go down. But to rewrite history in this way is completely disingenuous.

Kim Brown: And Ben, I’m sure you have been literally bombarded on social media and other places about people who had firsthand experience with these police practice, these policies to stop and frisk, virtually during most of the Bloomberg administration in New York City. Can you tell us about some of the stories that people have told you about how stop and frisk and Michael Bloomberg specifically impacted their lives?

Ben Dixon: Yeah. That’s the thing about this that makes this, this is so much bigger than even his presidential candidacy is the lives that were affected by his decisions, his worldview. The audio really conveys to us that this is something that Michael Bloomberg deeply believes, he’s thought about it, he’s rationalized it, and then when you hear the stories of all the individuals who were hurt by it, you see the magnitude of his thought, of his belief, of his worldview. People have sent me stories about just being a rite of passage as a teenager, they knew that at some point, multiple points, they would be stopped and frisked. It didn’t matter whether they were walking down the street or whether they were in a restaurant. I’ve heard stories of kids being pulled out of bodegas and thrown up against a wall.

And literally the language that Michael Bloomberg used here is the precise language of their procedures of throwing them up against the wall, and those are the stories that I recognize the most, that touch the most, are the kids who remember being thrown up against the wall by these police. And for Michael Bloomberg to say exactly that, that shows you the depth of how much he thought this through. He thought this through from his logical justification for it all the way through the implementation of throwing kids up against a wall. And so his apology does not match up to the depth and consideration that he gave this racist policy.

Kim Brown: And that’s a point that I also wanted to raise with you, because he did say he apologized. He said he has taken responsibility. Has he? And what does that look like? What does Michael Bloomberg taking responsibility for stop and frisk even begin to do some sort of restoration to the communities that were impacted by this? That sounds like shenanigans.

Ben Dixon: Right. The apology, like you stated out, he started the statement. It’s not an apology, it’s a statement. He started it off by pointing to Donald Trump. And I know Donald Trump is a white supremacist in chief. We need to get rid of him in November, absolutely. But he had nothing to do with Michael Bloomberg’s words. Michael Bloomberg has to own this and he did not own it. Yesterday in a press conference, he said that this was five years ago as if that was enough time between then and now to justify or to show that it was so long ago that it’s not as relevant. But more importantly, he said that he did not govern based on this. And I’m like, [inaudible 00:11:47], that’s literally exactly how you govern. What you said in Aspen in 2015 is precisely how you governed down to the tee.

And so yesterday, he showed not only is he not giving, he’s not sincere in his apology, he’s being downright deceitful, right? He’s trying to deflect and be deceitful and say, “Listen, I’ve changed, I’ve grown. That wasn’t …” At the same time, he’s trying to say, “That wasn’t me.” But yes, that was you and what you’re saying now is that you don’t want to take accountability for it. What does it look like? What does he need to do? He has to show us that he has given thought and consideration to how wrong he was to the same extent that he gave consideration in that speech. If you listen to that speech, he thought this thing through, methodically. Logically. Reason. His reasoning there, he took his time and just made a coherent case, a bigoted coherent case in his own mind. And yet he simply says, “I’m sorry, that was a long time ago.”

If what he did and what he said in 2015 were the Atlantic Ocean, his apology is analogous to a cup of water and it’s insufficient.

Kim Brown: Come through, Ben Dixon. So Jaisal, we were talking about how first of all, you can’t turn on television, you can’t cut on the radio, you can’t cut on your social media feed without seeing an ad for Michael Bloomberg. He is spending so much money on this campaign.

Jaisal Noor: A million bucks a day.

Kim Brown: How much?

Jaisal Noor: A million bucks a day on advertisement. On Facebook.

Kim Brown: Just on Facebook alone, right? So had this happened or this particular type of nugget been unearthed of a non billionaire democratic presidential nominees, it would affect them more greater because perhaps their fundraising would take a hit, they would take a hit in the polls. But Michael Bloomberg has the resources to power through-

Jaisal Noor: He’s not doing any fundraising. He’s not accepting money.

Kim Brown: Exactly. But that’s what I mean. He has the resources to power through any type of scandal and keep his political and advertising machine operating as much as it ever was. So what do we think the impact could be here, especially as we head towards South Carolina and ever more so towards Super Tuesday with primary states that are more diverse than Iowa and New Hampshire where this could affect him at the polls?

Jaisal Noor: We know that a lot of people, working people in this country don’t have the time or energy to necessarily keep up with the election, all the candidates. We all know that, we all do what we can. But in Bloomberg’s case, he’s able to flood the airwaves, flood the Internet, flood the radio so much in places where there is no other media presence, there’s no other candidates hitting these states, especially the major Super Tuesday states outside of Texas and California, that he’s up already, he’s gained something like 15 percentage points in the polls among black voters in places like South Carolina. So he’s making a huge impact, just spending all this money, putting out ads saying that he was … making it seem like him and Obama were allies when that’s not the case. He didn’t endorse Obama in 2008 and he attacked him 2012 when he gave him sort of a half endorsement. But this is why it’s important that we have independent journalists like Ben Dixon that are putting this out there, using social media to get the word out, because we know that the corporate media isn’t going to hold him accountable in the ways that are necessary.

Kim Brown: Absolutely. Ben, I wanted to ask you, what impact do you think this will have amongst black democratic primary voters who are not quite in lockstep with any candidate at this point? I don’t think any candidate can claim that they have the black vote in their pocket. Nobody does. Even in 2016, Hillary Clinton could lay claim to a good chunk of the black electorate. That is not the case in 2020. So what does this do for Bloomberg is anything and does this give anybody else a bump?

Ben Dixon: It really depends on the level of saturation of this clip. So yesterday I heard on The Breakfast Club with Charlamagne tha God that they played the clip and they gave him Donkey of the Day. So at that point, when it hit that threshold, I’m like, “Okay, this is saturating down into the culture. This is saturating down into everyone’s everyday life, people who aren’t paying attention to politics.” Now because of that, I would venture to say that he’s going to take a little hit here in the African American vote. Can it compete with the number of ads that he’s running in the Super Tuesday states? I don’t know. We’ll have to see the polling. But the level of saturation of this clip is getting to the point where it can actually have an impact. Who does it benefit? That’s anyone’s guess at this point. There’s been such a good job done against Bernie Sanders with regard to the African American vote even though he’s doing good with the young Millennials. Joe Biden is on his way out. Elizabeth Warren never really scored significantly with the black vote. There’s still room for someone.

I mean, obviously Pete Buttigieg is at zero percent in primary voters, black primary voters. And Amy Klobuchar has a big issue that’s lingering out there in Minneapolis. So I’m not sure who’s going to come in and actually pick up the slack here, but we’ll see.

Kim Brown: Well, I can tell you, Ben, that many close observers of this race are grateful for you bringing this to light. You made the mainstream outlooks look extremely silly, sir. You have possibly done a dent into Michael Bloomberg’s campaign by tweeting it out to your followers. So I mean, on behalf of us as a member of the progressive independent media family, we want to thank you for doing what you did. And we want you to know that it is greatly appreciated and you’ve done a service to this country. So thank you.

Ben Dixon: Oh, wow. Thank you. I appreciate those kind words. Thank you so much.

Kim Brown: You’re welcome. We’ve been speaking with Benjamin P. Dixon. He has a podcast. He has a show that you need to subscribe to. It’s on YouTube. He’s also co-founder of TheNorthstar.com and the co-founder of The Progressive Army. We’ve also been joined in studio with our own correspondent, Jaisal Noor. Jaisal has been reporting extensively on the policies of stop and frisk over the past decade while he was in New York City. So thank you, Ben, and thank you, Jaisal.

Jaisal Noor: And Kim, I would just add that one of Bernie Sanders’ top surrogates is Cornell West, who was an outspoken critic of stop and frisk. He got arrested protesting stop and frisk, and so I would … If the debate moderators don’t ask Bloomberg about stop and frisk, you can be pretty sure that Bernie Sanders is going to bring it up in that next debate, in which Bloomberg was able to buy his way onto, which is right before the Nevada caucus. So this story is not over. I don’t think Bloomberg’s going to be able to put it behind him.

Kim Brown: Okay, guys. We’re going to have to end the conversation there. We’ve been speaking with Ben Dixon and Jaisal Noor and I’m Kim Brown from The Real News Network.

 

 

Read more/see more:

https://therealnews.com/stories/bloomberg-stop-frisk-mayor-benjamin-dixo...

 

 

Read from top.

mike's company sexism...





Mike Bloomberg for years has battled women’s allegations of profane, sexist comments

 


A review by The Post of thousands of pages of court documents, depositions obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and interviews with witnesses underscores how Bloomberg and his company, Bloomberg LP, have fought the claims.




pumping platform manipulation...

Twitter is reportedly suspending 70 accounts, some of which are backed by Michael Bloomberg’s campaign, that have posted identical messages in support of the Democrat’s presidential bid, calling the content “platform manipulation.”

The Los Angeles Times examined the accounts and alerted Twitter, who on Friday determined the posts violated company policy and said they would begin suspending the profiles.

A portion of accounts are operated by Bloomberg campaign workers — called “deputy field organizers” — who pump out pro-Bloomberg content across social media networks, including Twitter, for $2,500 a month, the report said.

One identical post shared by at least four different accounts directs users to a recent pro-Bloomberg tweet by singer Barbra Streisand.

“A President Is Born: Barbra Streisand sings Mike’s praises. Check out her tweet,” the post reads.

Twitter told The Times: “We have taken enforcement action on a group of accounts for violating our rules against platform manipulation and spam.”

The platform manipulation and spam policy that was violated was implemented by Twitter last September.

The pro-Bloomberg posts violated the policy by “creating multiple accounts to post duplicative content” and “coordinating with or compensating others to engage in artificial engagement or amplification, even if the people involved use only one account.” the company told the paper.

Bloomberg’s campaign didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

Read more:

https://nypost.com/2020/02/21/twitter-suspends-70-bloomberg-boosting-acc...

all he has to show for half a billion is a lousy biden...

Super Tuesday was not very successful for New York-based billionaire and former Mayor Mike Bloomberg, as he managed to win only one primary, in American Samoa, despite pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into his campaign.

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has dropped out of the Democratic presidential race and endorsed ex-Vice President Joe Biden.

 

Read more:

https://sputniknews.com/us/202003041078474995-mike-bloomberg-drops-out-o...

 

 

Read from top.