Tuesday 10th of December 2019

"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.


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:




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.


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:



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:


tulsi wants you to see the bill...


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: