Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-02-2020, 10:21 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Really blows my mind that people are seriously thinking that the Democratic Party should nominate a Republican. Yet some of these people lose their shit at the thought of nominating an Independent who has been caucusing with Democrats for the last thirty years!
You talking about Warren?
__________________
Oy.
  #52  
Old 02-02-2020, 10:44 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Why in the world would you think he's siphoning Sanders votes?

More sanders "we wuz robbed" conspiracy theories.
  #53  
Old 02-02-2020, 10:59 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
FDR was an advocate of American entrepreneurship. FDR was an advocate of capitalism. FDR was an unabashed patriot, unceasing in his support for America as a world leader on the global stage.

Bernie Sanders and his ilk could not be further different from FDR.
I don't think you understand what Sanders actually stands for then, more what fox news says he stands for.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #54  
Old 02-02-2020, 11:03 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Really blows my mind that people are seriously thinking that the Democratic Party should nominate a Republican. Yet some of these people lose their shit at the thought of nominating an Independent who has been caucusing with Democrats for the last thirty years!
I think you’re referring to that shitbag who runs against the party he’s seeking the nomination of.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #55  
Old 02-02-2020, 11:09 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
I think you’re referring to that shitbag who runs against the party he’s seeking the nomination of.
Gabbard’s a she.
  #56  
Old 02-03-2020, 04:52 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
... Then at the contested convention he offers a wide range of financial incentives for delegates to pick him or pick a more moderate candidate (like Biden or buttigieg) who will not pass a wealth tax. Bloomberg will pay several billions a year in a wealth tax.

... Bloombergs main goal is shutting down a wealth tax and blocking progressive taxes as part of the democratic platform....
I often consider myself cynical but ... Wow! Thank God I'm not that cynical. Do you assume that all politicians are motivated primarily by their own selfish interests? Or just billionaire candidates?

The actual cost to Bloomberg of his campaign is much MUCH greater than his expected loss to a wealth tax ... since the probability of passing such a tax is very low. (And as I explained in another thread, it's under a moderate President that progressive programs are most likely to pass Congress!)

Nitpick: Given Warren's proposal ("two cents"), Bloomberg would pay $1.2 billion. In my dialect that's not "several billions."

@ OP - When Bloomberg tried to ban large soft drinks, is that because he cleverly shorted Coca Cola shares? I suppose he's also shorted Smith & Wesson since he's hoping for gun control.
  #57  
Old 02-03-2020, 07:35 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,564
According to the NYT, Bloomberg spend $11.7M to re-elect Sen. Toomey (R-PA) in 2016. He held off his Dem challenger by 1.5%.

Makes sense if you prioritize gun control over everything else put together, but is completely counterproductive if you support the general run of Democratic goals.

And of course, we're in an environment where every Senate seat counts. If a Democrat held that seat, we'd be at least even money for re-taking the Senate this fall, instead of way less than that.

So he's got a lot of nerve, running for the Democratic Presidential nomination. He's already majorly damaged our prospects for accomplishing anything in 2021.

Let him prove himself by helping some other Dem candidate win in 2020. Then he can run some other time.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 02-03-2020 at 07:36 AM.
  #58  
Old 02-03-2020, 08:51 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,831
Bloomberg isn't going to get the nomination; and he knows it.

It appears he's running as a way to force FoxNews to carry his barrage of anti-Trump ads. He should be applauded for this.
  #59  
Old 02-03-2020, 10:33 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,348
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
According to the NYT, Bloomberg spend $11.7M to re-elect Sen. Toomey (R-PA) in 2016. He held off his Dem challenger by 1.5%.

Makes sense if you prioritize gun control over everything else put together, but is completely counterproductive if you support the general run of Democratic goals.

And of course, we're in an environment where every Senate seat counts. If a Democrat held that seat, we'd be at least even money for re-taking the Senate this fall, instead of way less than that.

So he's got a lot of nerve, running for the Democratic Presidential nomination. He's already majorly damaged our prospects for accomplishing anything in 2021.

Let him prove himself by helping some other Dem candidate win in 2020. Then he can run some other time.
He's the same age as Biden, almost as old as Sanders ... him running another time is not really an option.

But your point otherwise is well made. He is Team His Issues, which overlap well with many Democrats issues but is not unflinchingly partisan Team D for the sake of being Team D. Which given that little can be done regarding those issues with the Rs having the Senate, the entrenched partisan nature of things, is regrettably counter-productive to achieving those goals.

Plus side is those issues. Good SCOTUS picks. And likely the best to have at the helm when the growth cycle ends. This is a person who knows how to be an executive and who understands economics in detail. And he trolls Trump with skill. I see him as better in a debate against Trump than anyone. His track record of approval ratings in New York by Ds and Rs alike is notable. He is unapologetically what he is believing what he believes and people like that.

Downside besides that he really is someone who reaches across the aisle on issues he cares about. Who exactly is his following?

If Obama-Trump voters matter most then how does he, as elite as they come, a Big Gulp tax supporting, Free Trade supporting, Pro-Choice, anti-coal, Climate agreements loving, gun control advocating, former big city mayor appeal best? If turnout of young progressives excited by revolutionary change and class warfare matter most, then how does he, the sigma outlier percenter, appeal best? If Black turnout optimization matters most how does someone whose past support of Stop and Frisk would be weaponized against him, appeal best? If suburban women matter most how does someone with a history of charges of misogynistic statements and work environments appeal best?

But yeah if Biden fails to place in either of the first two, those Ds who do NOT want a progressive champion, who prefer a more center Left, even moderate, less radical, at least trying to be bipartisan and healing approach, will be looking for a new standard bearer. He's ready for that possibility.

And if Biden doesn't fall? He's put out all those anti-Trump ads in key states. From his POV still money well spent. And he's out after Super Tuesday. Maybe even before.

Last edited by DSeid; 02-03-2020 at 10:37 AM.
  #60  
Old 02-03-2020, 11:52 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
I think you’re referring to that shitbag who runs against the party he’s seeking the nomination of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Gabbard’s a she.
Take a deep breath and remember that the Democrats run a big-tent party. There's room for all the shitbags.
  #61  
Old 02-03-2020, 11:59 AM
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I often consider myself cynical but ... Wow! Thank God I'm not that cynical. Do you assume that all politicians are motivated primarily by their own selfish interests? Or just billionaire candidates?

The actual cost to Bloomberg of his campaign is much MUCH greater than his expected loss to a wealth tax ... since the probability of passing such a tax is very low. (And as I explained in another thread, it's under a moderate President that progressive programs are most likely to pass Congress!)

Nitpick: Given Warren's proposal ("two cents"), Bloomberg would pay $1.2 billion. In my dialect that's not "several billions."

@ OP - When Bloomberg tried to ban large soft drinks, is that because he cleverly shorted Coca Cola shares? I suppose he's also shorted Smith & Wesson since he's hoping for gun control.
https://elizabethwarren.com/calculat...illionaire-tax

Quote:
You’d [Michael Bloomberg] pay $3.163 billion next year under Elizabeth’s wealth tax. This amount, which you likely won’t even feel, will help us invest in education from birth through college and help finance health care for everyone.
Keep in mind Sander's tax is even higher, so Bloomberg would pay 3 billion in the first year alone. So him spending a billion dollars on politics is a pretty good investment, it is 1/3 of what he would pay in one year with a wealth tax.

Also taxes are passed via budget reconciliation, which only require 50 senators and a democratic president. Granted, even if it doesn't pass in 2021, the momentum can built to pass it in 2025 or 2027.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #62  
Old 02-03-2020, 12:23 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
You talking about Warren?
Heh. Nice snark, and I'm not saying Warren's Republican past shouldn't be held against her at all, but she switched parties, like, 20-some years ago and never ran for office as a Republican. Bloomberg IIRC ran on a Republican ticket as recently as 2011.
  #63  
Old 02-03-2020, 01:40 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
OK. I think Warren and Wikipedia agree that Bloomberg has $61 billion. I see
Quote:
One of the most frequently cited proposals, Senator Elizabeth Warren’s “Ultra-Millionaire Tax,” calls for a 2% annual tax on households with a net worth between $50 million and $1 billion and a 3% annual tax on households with a net worth over $1 billion.
She shortens this to "two cents" in the debates.

But even at "three cents" for billionaires, Bloomberg's tax should be "only" $1.8 billion. Where does the $3 billion come from? Did she raise her rates recently?

But whether $2 billion or $3, you didn't answer my questions. Do you think all politicians are motivated by personal greeds? Or just billionaires? Do you think Bloomberg has a short interest in Smith & Wesson stock?
  #64  
Old 02-03-2020, 01:53 PM
Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,274
I mean Bloomberg isn’t a political neophyte, I suspect he has very little fear of either Sanders or Warren actually getting a wealth tax passed. For one the odds of a Dem Senate are quite low, the odds of all the moderate Dems disappearing from Congress and being replaced by Democratic Socialists is nil.
  #65  
Old 02-03-2020, 02:22 PM
Saint Cad is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Even if they get it passed after spending a ton of political capital, what’s the chance of it surviving the current SCOTUS?
We had a thread on this and it would be difficult for ANY SCOTUS to rule it Constitutional as it is a direct tax and thus must be apportioned to the states by population.
  #66  
Old 02-03-2020, 02:27 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
The problem is that the Warren camp has fallen for their own bullshit. No, the billionaires aren't running scared of Warren's many plans. If they want to thwart them, there's a million easier ways than running for president.
  #67  
Old 02-03-2020, 03:31 PM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
OK. I think Warren and Wikipedia agree that Bloomberg has $61 billion. I see
Quote:
One of the most frequently cited proposals, Senator Elizabeth Warren’s “Ultra-Millionaire Tax,” calls for a 2% annual tax on households with a net worth between $50 million and $1 billion and a 3% annual tax on households with a net worth over $1 billion.
She shortens this to "two cents" in the debates.
It's now up to 6% on billionaires.FWIW, I am willing to believe that Bloomberg wants to raise his own taxes because he thinks it is a good idea, whether he favors a wealth tax or not.

One of those quizzes about who I should support came up with Bloomberg and Yang as my first two among Democrats. UBI is a non-workable idea, and Bloomberg's record as mayor shows he can work as well as can be expected with diverse interests. He has financial experience, to say the least, and he seems to be the only Democrat - heck, the only candidate - that even mentions the deficit.

If he gets the nom, I would consider voting for him in a way that I would not if it was Bernie Sanders.

Regards,
Shodan
  #68  
Old 02-03-2020, 05:51 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
The problem is that the Warren camp has fallen for their own bullshit. No, the billionaires aren't running scared of Warren's many plans. If they want to thwart them, there's a million easier ways than running for president.
Whether it's Warren or Sanders supporters or others, the idea Bloomberg would run for president because of a tax proposal is being presented as an unfalsiable claim. 'Here's what Bloomberg would owe, it's a lot of money, case closed, that's why he's running'.

I find it highly implausible, but obviously some people are going to stick to calculating how much he'd owe and challenging anyone to prove that isn't why he's running. Other more plausible explanations don't directly prove that personal tax reasons *aren't* why he's running Such as to review,
-personal ambition to be president, genuine belief the 'nation needs him' (these two are intertwined in essentially every presidential run IMO, just make it 'him, her, etc'),
-the relative unlikelihood of such a proposal becoming law under President Sanders or Warren
-or IOW IMO it's mainly symbolic or a marker for the future, latter pointing to how preventing it in 2021-2025 term doesn't mean you've defeated it permanently anyway.
-defeating it for now could involve all kind of easier and more practical efforts than running for president (such as not contributing to Democrats in key Senate races, lobbying after the election, etc). You know, the kind stuff some very wealthy Democrats are probably actually *going* to do.
  #69  
Old 02-03-2020, 06:35 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,121
Its impossible to know Bloomberg's motives, we can only speculate.

However Bloomberg trying to create a brokered convention so he can play a meaningful role in selecting the nominee would give him a lot of influence in the party. Arguably far more than running and dropping out like Booker or Harris have done. If Bloomberg siphons enough delegates to lead to a brokered convention, then offers millions if not billions in financial incentives he will have a gigantic influential role within the democratic party.

And Bloomberg recently spoke out in favor of tax hikes for the rich, but didn't include a wealth tax in his proposals. These seem to be taxes on estates and income, all of which I'm fine with raising the tax rates on.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...ax-plan-110105

Quote:
The former New York City mayor also wants to raise taxes on capital gains, hike the corporate tax rate, stiffen the estate tax and repeal a new break for "pass-through" businesses, whose owners pay individual rather than corporate taxes on their earnings.

The proposals do not go as far as some of the other candidates' plans.

Bloomberg is eschewing, for example, the idea of a wealth tax embraced by Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, which would dun an array of assets besides income, like artwork and second homes. And he wouldn’t be as zealous as some in raising corporate taxes.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 02-03-2020 at 06:36 PM.
  #70  
Old 02-03-2020, 07:50 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
Lol, you sure are trying hard to be a conspiracy theorist.

People run all the time because their ego tells them they're the best or they've got some issues to push. Both those reasons are easy to attribute to Bloomberg's run. But nope, the rich jew has a plot to take over the party through sneaky bribery. Yes, that's more plausible. Thanks, Wesley.
  #71  
Old 02-03-2020, 11:21 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,121
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ention/605956/

Quote:
Over at Mike Bloomberg’s campaign headquarters, aides are just as excited about the Sanders surge. This was a hope. Now it’s their plan. If the next few weeks lead to the collapse of other leading campaigns—most crucially, Joe Biden’s, which is running short on money but occupying a similar ideological space as Bloomberg—and a Sanders-inspired freak-out, they believe the former New York City mayor will be the party’s nominee. Like many Democrats who aren’t supporting Sanders, they see a primary process that is setting up the party for a likely defeat.

“If Sanders soars through the first four primaries and Biden and [Pete Buttigieg] stumble, Mike may end up as the only thing standing between Bernie and the nomination.” That’s how Bradley Tusk, who managed Bloomberg’s 2009 mayoral campaign and is advising the presidential run, put it to me on Thursday. Sanders might run away with it, but “a large portion of the party believes that Bernie can’t beat Trump—and that beating Trump is all that matters.”

And so the prospect of a contested convention—in which the Democrats don’t have a presumptive nominee by the time they gather in Milwaukee in mid-July—is more likely than ever.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #72  
Old 02-04-2020, 12:37 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
Do you present this as evidence that Bloomberg's aim is a brokered convention where he intends to bribe the delegates?
  #73  
Old 02-04-2020, 07:19 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Its impossible to know Bloomberg's motives, we can only speculate.
True enough. We can speculate with plausibility. Or we can speculate like a conspiracy theorist. Are you one of those who calls billionaires evil?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
If Bloomberg siphons enough delegates to lead to a brokered convention, then offers millions if not billions in financial incentives he will have a gigantic influential role within the democratic party.
"Billions in financial incentives"? Which billions are those? It sounds like he's taking a loss even if the wealth tax that-won't happen ... happens.

(BTW, did we ever figure out why Warren thinks "three cents" of $61 billion is over $3 billion?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
And Bloomberg recently spoke out in favor of tax hikes for the rich, ... taxes on estates and income, all of which I'm fine with raising the tax rates on.
How does this fit your conspiracy theory? He's got a Bloomberg-only loophole up his sleeve?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Lol, you sure are trying hard to be a conspiracy theorist.
... But nope, the rich jew has a plot to take over the party through sneaky bribery. Yes, that's more plausible. Thanks, Wesley.
Thank you. (I'm surprised yours gets no Warning, but I won't report it! )

I may root for a brokered convention. But I may request that my brokers choose ... Amy Klobuchar! (Young, moderate, female, Midwestern. What's not to like?)
  #74  
Old 02-04-2020, 09:03 AM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,451
Yeah, unleash that raw Minnesota energy and charisma!
  #75  
Old 02-04-2020, 10:04 AM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,621
Eh, I'm pretty sure his plan is just to be the moderate backup plan for when Biden falls flat on his face.
  #76  
Old 02-04-2020, 05:58 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Thank you. (I'm surprised yours gets no Warning, but I won't report it! )
If you guys have to resort to name calling and accusing people of being anti-semites then you aren't winning the argument.

Bloomberg has a track record of using personal funds to build coalitions in his political agenda.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...paigns/604390/

Quote:
Bloomberg spent extensively as mayor of New York. He gave massive sums to nonprofit organizations and arts groups. He contributed enormous amounts in political donations out of his personal bank account. (Most politicians make political donations out of their campaign accounts or PACs.) He funded nonprofit organizations that boosted his policy agenda. When church groups or community organizations threatened to get noisy in opposition to him or his programs, he wrote checks that tended to quiet them down. (Top Democrats were known to tease black ministers who got only $25,000 for their churches, when peers who’d held out longer received $50,000—the deal was that these ministers didn’t have to support him, but if they wanted the checks to keep coming, they needed to stay neutral.) His company, Bloomberg LP, made many corporate contributions that lined up with his political interests. The money kept coming and coming and coming and coming. It broke logjams, and overcame institutional resistance. His money allowed him to drown out the opposition—and often made potential rivals hold their tongue. The timely and balanced budgets Bloomberg touted each year in PowerPoint presentations were enabled in part by spending cuts to groups that were then made whole again by the most transparent of anonymous donations. The money he spent led to fewer protests, and deals that were easier to make.
But yes, I'm an anti-semite conspiracy theorist and you are all rational actors who resort to name calling to win debates.

If you honestly think that making deals behind the scenes to build coalitions in politics is a conspiracy theory, then I don't know what to tell you.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 02-04-2020 at 06:01 PM.
  #77  
Old 02-04-2020, 07:52 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
If you guys have to resort to name calling and accusing people of being anti-semites then you aren't winning the argument.

Bloomberg has a track record of using personal funds to build coalitions in his political agenda.

...
But yes, I'm an anti-semite conspiracy theorist and you are all rational actors who resort to name calling to win debates.

If you honestly think that making deals behind the scenes to build coalitions in politics is a conspiracy theory, then I don't know what to tell you.

What?!? I never thought you were anti-Semitic.

You present examples of Bloomberg altruism — who called this "conspiracy theory"? I do NOT support rule by the wealthy, but still find it almost magnificent that Bloomberg used his wealth single-handedly to improve such a great city. I am NOT saying that's the way politics should trend BUT your own examples imply Bloomberg is unselfish. Did he spend money and power to further his political goals? Sure! The greatest American politicians spent their power this way ... and didn't have sufficient wealth to make a dent as Bloomberg can.

Yet after all this evidence of Bloomberg spending his own personal wealth in causes he thought or thinks further the interests of New York and the country, you want us to believe that he's suddenly reversed course 180 degrees, and is now running for the main purpose of avoiding the wealth tax. This from a billionaire who supports higher taxes on the rich.

To quote a Star Trek character: "This does not compute."
  #78  
Old 02-04-2020, 08:07 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
If you guys have to resort to name calling and accusing people of being anti-semites then you aren't winning the argument.
You are accusing him of planning to bribe people once he throws a monkey wrench into the primaries. Do you have any theories about any other Dem candidates' secret criminal plans?
  #79  
Old 02-04-2020, 08:26 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
You are accusing him of planning to bribe people once he throws a monkey wrench into the primaries. Do you have any theories about any other Dem candidates' secret criminal plans?
I posted an article about his campaign advisers saying his plan is a contested primary and an article showing he has a history of offering financial incentives to create allies and quiet dissidents.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #80  
Old 02-04-2020, 09:29 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
I posted an article about his campaign advisers saying his plan is a contested primary [...]
Not really.
  #81  
Old 02-06-2020, 02:09 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,831
@ Wesley Clark -
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
What?!? I never thought you were anti-Semitic. ...
... Yet you accuse me of a Warnable offense.
I deserve an explanation and an apology. And go ahead and tell us why Bloomberg made the sudden 180-degree turn.
  #82  
Old 02-06-2020, 10:35 AM
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
@ Wesley Clark -

... Yet you accuse me of a Warnable offense.
I deserve an explanation and an apology. And go ahead and tell us why Bloomberg made the sudden 180-degree turn.
Keep hoping for that apology, CarnalK said

Quote:
But nope, the rich jew has a plot to take over the party through sneaky bribery. Yes, that's more plausible. Thanks, Wesley.
Then you responded to that quote by saying

Quote:
Thank you. (I'm surprised yours gets no Warning, but I won't report it! )
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #83  
Old 02-06-2020, 11:32 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 20,831
Here's the post (slightly modified) I endorsed and thanked:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Lol, you sure are trying hard to be a conspiracy theorist.

People run all the time because their ego tells them they're the best or they've got some issues to push. Both those reasons are easy to attribute to Bloomberg's run. But nope, [Bloomberg] has a plot to take over the party through sneaky bribery. Yes, that's more plausible. Thanks, Wesley.
Sheeeesh. To agree with a poster, one must agree with every single adjective in the post?

And, a propos of the "confused" icon, I'm still waiting for you to explain his bizarre 180-degree shift? Regardless of Bloomberg's religion, the motives you seem to ascribe to him "Do Not Compute."
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017