Bloomberg Trying to Buy The Nomination

1. 86

   RJ Schwartzposted 3 years ago

   Billionaire Mike Bloomberg’s presidential campaign has spent more on digital advertising campaigns with Google and YouTube in the last month than President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign has spent in the last year.  On Facebook and Google he has spent $18 million on ads over the last month, according to Acronym, a digital messaging firm that works with Democrats.  That is on top of the $128 million the Bloomberg campaign has spent on television ads, according to Advertising Analytics, an independent firm, which projects that Mr. Bloomberg is likely to spend a combined $300 million to $400 million on advertising across all media before the Super Tuesday primaries in early March.
   
   Most folks believe it won't even get him past Super Tuesday...thoughts?

   replyreport
2. 59

   Live to Learnposted 3 years ago

   From what I've heard he funneled a pile of cash into Virginia to help democrats win power. The guy's a creep but the democrats appear to be easily bamboozled so it will be a curiosity to see if he can buy the nomination.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Politics is a tricky game, LTL.  Democrats & Republicans are of the same cloth.   Bloomberg is a billionaire & was our mayor after Giuliani.  Bloomberg must likely will be a Democratic candidate but I doubt that New Yorkers will vote for him as President.   When Bloomberg was mayor, he was a liberal Republican.   Money talks nowadays.  It not only talks but SHOUTS.  To succeed today, it is MONEY + WHO YOU KNOW.  If one has NO MONEY+ KNOW NO SIGNIFICANT PEOPLE, h/she will get...….NOWHERE!

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Live to Learnposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         GM worships money.
         
         Yeh. We know.

         replyreport
         1. 84

            gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            It isn't worship of money. It is RESPECT for money. Money is important in life; in fact, it is THE MOST IMPORTANT thing in life.  Without money, one would be in abject poverty, not to mention being homeless. Don't you KNOW this?
            
            You have a Pollyanna attitude towards life.  Money rules the world.  The sooner you know this, the better.  You can't change this no matter how hard you try.  GROW UP- the world runs on money, power, & connections.  These are FACTS that can't be changed.  I knew this at 12.  MONEY TALKS.....LIKE IT OR NOT!  Money rules politics.  Always have- always WILL.  Money+power- that is the name of the game.  Sorry to relay this to you, dearie but such is......LIFE!   Either you EAT or BE EATEN...……….
            
            Don't cry about politicians.  They are doing what they have to do to be in the game.  Politics is a game w/high stakes.  One has to either learn how to play the game or perish.  There is no way around it.  Let's face reality- everything is run on money.  Not only money but power + connections.  The powerful rule the world.  If one isn't powerful, there is nothing one can do to change the political game.  One has to learn to play the game.  I have accepted this.  Oh yes, money = power!  Can't escape this people.  Life is the survival of the smartest + most cunning.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               People have had revolutions over a perception that those with money wanted to reduce them to serfs in a feudalistic model. Should we bring out the guillotines?
               
               
               When I spent time living in the Caribbean, I noted that the wealthy had themselves walled off with shards of glass formed into the cement to discourage climbing. How secure did you think they were? The money works only when the rest of us agree to live by "the rules", when too many are dissatisfied, the rules can  and do change. The French Revolution, the Rise of the Bolsheviks in Russia in 1917. The world is coated in blood, so these people had better step lightly. They are already afraid of Warren and Sanders. The "rabble" may prove restless and prone to make everybody uncomfortable on account of it.
               
               I

               replyreport
               1. 84

                  gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, elites have ruled the world & will always do so.  Although there will be revolutions to topple the so-called old order when new governments take over, there will be elites in that new government.  Elites were, are, & always will be.  There is no escaping this.  One can either become part of the elite or be ruled by the elite.  The game is always the game even in its new form.

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Perhaps,
                     
                     But in between revolutions, new elites that take over may have to consider how to behave to avoid the fate of the previous elites. So, they cannot afford to rest easy....

                     replyreport
                     1. 84

                        gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        Credence2, there will always be demarcated socioeconomic classes.  There will be always the elite, the middle, & the bottom.  Those who are smart, aggressive & sometimes cunning are the ones who get to the top of socioeconomic ladder.  The middles work but don't exert the necessary time & expenditure to get to the top & the bottom-well have the victim mentality.  They view success & wealth negatively which explains why they are.....AT THE BOTTOM.  That is my opinion based upon years of observation.  Each socioeconomic class has its own culture.
                        
                        The wealthy teach their children the importance of education & ownership regarding careers.  They teach their children that the world is their oyster.  They imbue their children with the mindset of being proactive.   The middle class-well there are three levels of middle class.  The lower middle class is near the lower class in mentality.  They don't believe in aspiring too high as far as jobs go.  The main emphasis of the lower middle class is a secure job, not a career.  The lower middle class teach their children that careers are out of their socioeconomic reach.  They also inculcate their children that a college education is a waste of time.  They teach their children that a job is to be practical, no more no less.  The mentality of the lower middle class is to settle for any job.
                        
                        The solidly middle class teach their children that a good i.e. college education is necessary to obtain a good i.e. professional job.  They teach their children that while it is good to aspire to goals, the goals should not be too high.  They teach their children to confirm & not to rock the proverbial boat.  They imbue their children to be "in the middle" so to speak.  The upper middle class teach their children ownership like the wealthy class.  They teach their children to aspire to high goals & not to settle for just any job or any career.  They want their children to be specialists, doctors, lawyers, & other advanced careers.  They push their children to obtain advanced degrees in order to have the aforementioned jobs. They teach their children to be proactive & to be the masters of their domain.
                        
                        The poor teach their children that life is against them.  They believe that they are life victims & impart that negative philosophy to their children.  Poor children are taught that just to have a job is an accomplishment.  They are dissuaded from having high goals as such isn't in their socioeconomic purview.  They are told by their parents "to stay in their place" & that any form of achievement & success is evil.  The poor in America are that way(exceptions are those who are physically, mentally, & emotionally challenged+ those who are temporarily on hard times) because of their IRRESPONSIBLE lifestyle choices & their hatred of socioeconomic improvement.   In other words, poor people want to be where they are.  I have come to realize this.  Poor people don't want to improve themselves educationally & socioeconomically one iota- they PREFER to be poor, even impoverished.

                        replyreport
                        1. 87

                           MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           Grace, unless you know something that I don't, I must disagree with you. My parents and their peers were victims of the Great Depression (GD). My dad's grandfather had been a successful Ozark farmer. My grandparents' and my father's generation went through the GD, which left that small rural community devastated economically. You are right that the wealthy merchants kept the wealth, but the middle class fell to the bottom with the poor class. My generation comprised WWII babies and the early Baby Boomers, and many of my peers were poor just like most of us not born into the upper crust of the community. My mother still turned up her nose at some of the poor. Her family had been upper middle class farmers until the GD.
                           
                           I saw some of the poorest of the poor rise to the top during my lifetime. Kids from Skid Row became respectable business owners and city officials who ran the town and the county during their working lives. Today they are successful retirees, just like I have been able to become. Our little county in the Ozarks was a microcosm of the macrocosm. I know this because I see and hear so many successful people on TV brag about their humble beginnings.
                           
                           I believe that you are talking about a mental class of people, not a realistic representation of the U.S.A. At least I hope I'm right. I think humans have always had these mental failures among us. But I also think that the welfare state is responsible for cultivating it. I believe it has given more people the opportunity to develop that attitude.
                           
                           That's why I don't think we should support the Socialist candidates for president. Especially not the ones who want to give an automatic income to every member of society or to ruin our already overspent Medicare system by making it a welfare system.
                           
                           Once upon a time I was a member of the Republican Party because I bought in to its "every man for himself attitude." When it became so cold and uncaring about our fellow humans, especially women, I left and didn't look back. BTW, apparently so did Hillary. She and I have one thing in common (besides having lived in Little Rock), we were both "Goldwater Girls" until we woke up and saw the light. While I didn't like some of her policies, I can say that about every Democrat candidate running for president.
                           
                           But back to your subject we were discussing, I think that for every  n'er-do-well in the lower middle class, I think there is another just waiting for an opportunity to make it. While I don't believe in "giving them the store," I would like to see them have the opportunity to better themselves, just like my peers and I were able to do.

                           replyreport
                        2. 77

                           Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           Grace, i don't disagree with the substance of your comment.
                           
                           My point is I don't care that wealthy have access to a Rolls Royce compared to my Chevy. They can buy that big box of corn flakes when I cannot.
                           
                           I do care when they use their wealth to buy legislators, have legislation written to their liking and in effect nullify the votes of the people who are the ones that are supposed to have the attention of our representives. In effect, giving themselves every advantage at my expense. Why should I sit still for it?
                           
                           This is undermining the Democratic ideal of one man-one vote.
                           
                           In reality, everybody can't be rich. This idea of hard working billionaires is not as true as one thinks, most of the wealth here is dynastic in nature. As dumb as Trump is, don't you think that without his daddy's money he would not be any more than a common bum?
                           
                           The Constitution was written for the protection of everybody not to solely promote the interests of the privileged few.

                           replyreport
               2. 59

                  Live to Learnposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  That's a rather violent opinion. Almost sounds as if you are threatening violence and blood shed.
                  
                  I thought only the Tea Party was that radical.

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     I am just one man, I am just saying that it is naive to think that circumstances won't and can't change if there is sufficient imputus to do so.
                     
                     History is proving my point. In America, we were at such a crossroad in 1932, for example. Thanks to the innovation and leadership of FDR, the crisis was averted. So, no threat, just history.

                     replyreport
3. 77

   Credence2posted 3 years ago

   Nobody is being bambozzled. I did not like the arrogance associated with Bloomberg throwing his hat in the ring in the first place. The last thing I need is another arrogant and pompous billionaire type taking the reins.
   
   I intrinsically distrust "big money" and its influence in politics from the beginning.
   
   He is trying to buttress Biden on the moderate centrist flank fearing that Warren or Sanders could get the nomination. The party belongs to the people and not the privileged few to manipulate circumstances as they will.
   
   It won't work for Bloomberg, as this is quite transparent.
   
   But, Republicans have their wealthy benefactors that support their candidates, are not Democrats allowed to do the same? But Bloomberg thinks that he can just run over the entire  process so that he can buy it all, and that stinks.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Credence2, the name of the political game is money.  If one has money, h/she is in.  If one doesn't have money, oh well.  Money buys influence.  Can't change that.  The only way to get into the game is to have money & influence.  The other way is to know a powerful someone.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Do you want an Oligarchy, Grace, or a Democracy?
         
         We know that what you say sometimes is unavoidable, but is that any reason to encourage or to look the other way?
         
         
         I give the majority of my fellow citizens the authority to elect and assign our leaders, not one or two billionaires that believe that their money nullifies the voices of everyone else.
         
         I won't have it, Grace, from neither Trump nor Bloomberg. I will vote for our populist left, one reason for that  is to send a message to those that think our democracy is for sale. You can bet this will be a fight to the finish.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            RJ Schwartzposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            How many behind the scenes people like Tom Steyer and George Soros are pulling the strings Credence (I agree that big money is killing us as a nation) - the selling of influence will become a bigger issue now that Biden's son, Kerry's son, Romney's son, and Pelosi's son were all outed as getting sweet jobs with foreign company boards because of the parents

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               We cannot forget the Kochs, well the one that is left anyway and other money grubbers from the Right.
               
               We agree on this problem and when you think about it regardless of professed political affiliations, they are all on the same side. The one that allows them to keep a system in place that continues to work to their advantage.
               
               But only a couple of candidates have even thought of addressing this issue, I wonder why?

               replyreport
            2. 87

               MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               And speaking of influence, George H.W. Bush's son became president, the biggest prize of all despite his opponent winning the popular vote. It seems to be a two-party issue, not just a Democrat monoply.

               replyreport
   2. 87

      MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      You made the motion, I second it, Credence. I don't trust billionaires nor do I trust party flippers, and that's two strikes against Bloomberg in my book. His entering the race may assure Bernie or Elizabeth the nomination, and that's scary, too.

      replyreport