Michael Bloomberg 2020 campaign megathread

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

I get ads for him all the time. Oddly enough, one of them used the song "Small Town". Ironic for the former mayor of the largest city in the nation.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I get ads for him all the time. Oddly enough, one of them used the song "Small Town". Ironic for the former mayor of the largest city in the nation.

That's because John Mellencamp endorsed Bloomberg, believe it or not:

https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/481606-john-mellencamp-cuts-ad-for-bloomberg-hell-take-the-fight

[tmthforu94]

His ads are effective, I consider myself to be pretty well-informed and they're even starting to sway me. If Biden/Klobuchar fail badly tomorrow, I think it'll be time for establishment Democrats to start rallying around Bloomberg. The question is...will Biden/Klobuchar and eventually Mayor Pete publicly back him over Sanders??

[GeneralMacArthur]

His ads are effective, I consider myself to be pretty well-informed and they're even starting to sway me. If Biden/Klobuchar fail badly tomorrow, I think it'll be time for establishment Democrats to start rallying around Bloomberg. The question is...will Biden/Klobuchar and eventually Mayor Pete publicly back him over Sanders??

Way to early to start rallying.  We need to see him in action.

He can make a good ad, and he's running a very strong campaign.  He's done well in the few interviews he's done this far.  But for the most part he's been hiding from the fight.  He was a capable fighter when he was mayor, but then so was Biden back then.  If the establishment rallies to Bloomberg and then he gets cut to ribbons on the debate stage it's gonna be rough.

[Pyro]

Good luck winning with this racist POS.

https://twitter.com/Trisha_Tahmasbi/status/1227014773021323270

[Hollywood]

I hear at least 30 Michael Bloomberg ads each day.  In my office everyone listens to the Dan Lebatard sports radio show/podcast, which plays the Michael Douglas for Bloomberg ad at least 8 times during the show.  I hear Michael Bloomberg on sports/talk radio shows in the car.  I hear the man on Youtube. 

[Famous Mortimer]

Good luck winning with this racist POS.

https://twitter.com/Trisha_Tahmasbi/status/1227014773021323270

Everything he says in the speech is objective true and was believed by 90% of people (including Bernie Sanders and most Black people) until about 4 years ago.

[Intell]

Good luck winning with this racist POS.

https://twitter.com/Trisha_Tahmasbi/status/1227014773021323270

Everything he says in the speech is objective true and was believed by 90% of people (including Bernie Sanders and most Black people) until about 4 years ago.

The 95% statistic is clearly wrong, and if you adjust for demographic socio-economic factors crimes by latino-americas is not higher than by the general population and it is only moderately higher amongst black Americans.

[John Dule]

Is Bloomberg going to try to redpill the entire Democratic Party on 13/50 next?

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Good luck winning with this racist POS.

https://twitter.com/Trisha_Tahmasbi/status/1227014773021323270

This sh!t needs to be put on blast.

Put Famous Racist on ignore if you haven't already.

[Forward]

Good luck winning with this racist POS.

https://twitter.com/Trisha_Tahmasbi/status/1227014773021323270

Everything he says in the speech is objective true and was believed by 90% of people (including Bernie Sanders and most Black people) until about 4 years ago.

The 95% statistic is clearly wrong, and if you adjust for demographic socio-economic factors crimes by latino-americas is not higher than by the general population and it is only moderately higher amongst black Americans.

As much as I am opposed to stop-and-frisk, the statistic isn't wrong at all. Bloomberg was just stating a fact. In 2015, 94% of murder victims in NYC were minorities, 94.2% of murder suspects were minorities, and 93% of those arrested for murder were minorities.

I don't think this will have a non-negligible impact on his campaign. This is just an old clip of Bloomberg using an accurate statistic to justify stop-and-frisk. I think Bloomberg's past support of stop-and-frisk is already common knowledge. Yes, stop-and-frisk was a really bad policy that had a negligible effect on crime, but it was a policy Bloomberg inherited from Giuliani, Bloomberg reduced the # of stops by 95% during his last two years in office, and Bloomberg has apologized for it and has released a lot of criminal justice policies. How is this more racist than Bernie assuming that "most drug dealers are black' a little while ago when that is not even close to being true? At least Bloomberg's "most murder victims and suspects in urban areas are young minority males" claim is absolutely true. Don't get me wrong, neither Sanders nor Bloomberg are anywhere even close to being racist. I just wanted to point out the double standard.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Good luck winning with this racist POS.

https://twitter.com/Trisha_Tahmasbi/status/1227014773021323270

Everything he says in the speech is objective true and was believed by 90% of people (including Bernie Sanders and most Black people) until about 4 years ago.

The 95% statistic is clearly wrong, and if you adjust for demographic socio-economic factors crimes by latino-americas is not higher than by the general population and it is only moderately higher amongst black Americans.

As much as I am opposed to stop-and-frisk, the statistic isn't wrong at all. Bloomberg was just stating a fact. In 2015, 94% of murder victims in NYC were minorities, 94.2% of murder suspects were minorities, and 93% of those arrested for murder were minorities.

I don't think this will have a non-negligible impact on his campaign. This is just an old clip of Bloomberg using an accurate statistic to justify stop-and-frisk. I think Bloomberg's past support of stop-and-frisk is already common knowledge. Yes, stop-and-frisk was a really bad policy that had a negligible effect on crime, but it was a policy Bloomberg inherited from Giuliani, Bloomberg reduced the # of stops by 95% during his last two years in office, and Bloomberg has apologized for it and has released a lot of criminal justice policies. How is this more racist than Bernie assuming that "most drug dealers are black' a little while ago when that is not even close to being true? At least Bloomberg's "most murder victims and suspects in urban areas are young minority males" claim is absolutely true. Don't get me wrong, neither Sanders nor Bloomberg are anywhere even close to being racist. I just wanted to point out the double standard.

Only white privileged libs think that is racist, because they don't get murdered and so they don't give a damn. As Bloomberg rightfully says, the murder victims are also 95% minorities.

So what does minorities think about Mike?

https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1227074347434680323

but it was a policy Bloomberg inherited from Giuliani, Bloomberg reduced the # of stops by 95% during his last two years in office,

You're wrong/misleading claiming that Bloomberg just "inherited" and reduced #.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/17/nyregion/bloomberg-stop-and-frisk-new-york.html

After taking office in 2002, Mr. Bloomberg oversaw a dramatic expansion in the use of stop-and-frisk. The number of stops multiplied sevenfold, peaking with 685,724 in 2011 and then tumbling to 191,851 in 2013. During Mr. Bloomberg’s three terms, the police recorded 5,081,689 stops.

[Rookie Yinzer]

This isn’t going to move the Black voters that are converting from Biden to Bloomberg. 71 percent of Black voters identify as moderate or conservative. Look at them backing Crime Bill Joe.

It’s also one of the reasons Kamala doubled down on being a prosecutor. Older Black people are law and order voters.

Bloomberg really has a chance at this nomination I see.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Just like the crime bill attacks on Clinton and the bussing attacks on Biden, this won't move any actual black voters, except for young black voters who have little-to-no context on actual inner city crime.

It will, however, move white voters who want to think of themselves as representing the interests of black voters.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://twitter.com/joshrogin/status/1227268340076437505
https://twitter.com/joshrogin/status/1227269872150884353


Whoa! Bloomberg has in fact similar (sane) view on Putin and stop-and-frisk policy as Trump 

[Crumpets]

That's a problem because it doesn't just show that Bloomberg is ill-informed on foreign policy, (I think pretty much the whole field is with the possible exception of Buttigieg and to a lesser extent Biden) but because it shows he is actively interested in foreign policy but gets his info from Gabbard-tier sources.

[Forward]

That's a problem because it doesn't just show that Bloomberg is ill-informed on foreign policy, (I think pretty much the whole field is with the possible exception of Buttigieg and to a lesser extent Biden) but because it shows he is actively interested in foreign policy but gets his info from Gabbard-tier sources.

Those comments are from 2015.

Here are answers to foreign policy questions he gave this January to the CFR. He comes out hard against Putin:

1. How, if at all, should China’s treatment of the Uighurs and the situation in Hong Kong affect broader U.S. policy toward China?

The U.S. can and must continue to work with China on global problems where cooperation between the world’s two most powerful nations is crucial – the most urgent being climate change. But the way in which protesters in Hong Kong have looked to the U.S. for support as they demand greater accountability from their leaders is a reminder that our values matter. While we shouldn’t seek out a new Cold War with China, we should always defend those values at home and abroad, instead of trading them for a photo op.

I support legislation that would impose sanctions on Chinese officials for human rights violations in both Hong Kong and Xinjiang. China is not a democracy, does not have democratic institutions and too frequently abuses the rights of its citizens. If the country wants to be accepted as a global leader, it needs to treat all its people, especially those in areas such as Hong Kong and Xinjiang that have been promised a degree of autonomy, with greater dignity and respect.

I also believe that the best way for the U.S. to handle the rise of China is to strengthen our alliances in Asia and make the domestic investments necessary to ensure our businesses and workers have the tools they need to out-innovate and out-compete the Chinese. The stronger we are at home, the stronger and more appealing our message will be abroad.

2. Would you rejoin the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)? What changes to the existing agreement, if any, would you require before agreeing to rejoin the accord?

The United States will not allow Iran to develop or acquire nuclear weapons. I was initially against the Iran deal, but it was a mistake for President Trump to unilaterally walk away from it. While the agreement was not perfect — it did not address Iran’s ballistic-missile program, and it gave the regime political cover to step up its aggression in the region — the U.S. had an obligation to keep its word once the agreement was in place. The U.S. withdrawal has allowed Iran to abandon its own obligations under the deal, and has left the world with few tools to stop it.

The first thing to do is reestablish the coalition that realized the danger of Iran marching toward a nuclear weapon. Collective pressure will be needed to change Iran’s behavior. This should be the starting point for the use of diplomacy. We should also be prepared to employ the leverage that sanctions have provided.

Next, Iran must come back into compliance with the JCPOA requirements. That will require addressing the advances it is likely to make between now and next year—advances that could shrink its breakout time. After rejoining, in order for any new arrangement to be sustainable, we must also be ready to address other inadequacies in the deal, which include the need to extend fast-approaching sunset clauses, curtail Iran’s ballistic missiles, end its destabilizing regional activities and institute more intrusive monitoring.

More on:

Elections and Voting
3. Would you sign an agreement with North Korea that entailed partial sanctions relief in exchange for some dismantling of its nuclear weapons program but not full denuclearization?

Yes. The North may already possess as many as 20 nuclear weapons and could have 100 within five to 10 years. Total denuclearization should remain our ultimate goal. But we must also be realistic. Freezing North Korea’s stockpile and preventing Kim Jong-Un from developing the capacity to target the U.S. with a nuclear weapon must be our top priorities. I would therefore pursue an interim agreement to verifiably halt the North’s production of nuclear weapons and improvements to its missile program, in exchange for some sanctions relief, which will be calibrated carefully against Pyongyang’s actual commitments. The scope of U.S. sanctions on North Korea should be tied to the country’s behavior – on human rights, on cyber-crime and, most importantly, on its expanding nuclear and ballistic missile programs. If that behavior changes, I will adjust U.S. policies accordingly.

Unlike President Trump, I would conduct negotiations in coordination with Japan and South Korea, our Asian allies, as well as China and Russia, and handle them through quiet, sustained and firm diplomacy – not seat-of-the-pants summits designed for the cameras. And I would maintain U.S. military readiness to defend our allies and the U.S. homeland against the North Korean threat until and unless a truly comprehensive peace deal is reached.

4. What, if any, steps would you take to counter Russian aggression against Ukraine?

I favor U.S. efforts to provide defensive military weapons to Ukraine, which sits on the frontline of Russia’s efforts to undermine the post-WWII order in Europe. President Trump’s behavior toward Ukraine’s president has been unacceptable. The United States and its European allies need to bolster Ukraine’s independence through economic and security assistance, while continuing to encourage Kiev to make the necessary reforms to tackle corruption and strengthen the rule of law. A free and stable Ukraine should be a bridge between Europe and Russia.

President Trump has undermined American security by embracing President Vladimir Putin of Russia — a leader whose government meddled in U.S. elections and has been working as a dangerous and destabilizing force around the world. As president, I will work with Congress, our allies and the world community to stand against Russia’s aggression. At the same time, the U.S. should remain open to working with Russia on issues of mutual interest — including arms control and nuclear proliferation. The Russian people are not synonymous with their leader.

5. Would you commit to the full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan by the end of your first term, or would you require certain conditions be met before doing so?

This war must come to an end. But it is crucial that we end it in a wise, thoughtful and deliberative way. As mayor of New York, I led the city’s recovery from the 9/11 attacks, which originated in Afghanistan, and I am determined to prevent terrorists from striking America again. As president, I will encourage negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan government, in coordination with other nations in the region whose support will be critical if any peace deal is to survive. Following a responsible drawdown of the U.S. troop presence, we should leave a residual force in the country for intelligence-gathering and counterterrorism purposes, to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for Al Qaeda and ISIS. America also has a moral obligation to stand by those who fought alongside U.S. forces and to continue to provide crucial development and security assistance to the Afghan government. After expending so many lives there, we should not broker a peace only to lose it from neglect.

6. Given the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi and Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the civil war in Yemen, what changes, if any, would you make to U.S. policy toward Saudi Arabia?

The U.S.-Saudi relationship remains critical both to stability in the Middle East and to global energy markets. The U.S. should work with the Saudis to counter Iran’s hegemonic behavior in the region, manage reasonable oil prices and reinvigorate the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. But we should not give Riyadh a blank check as President Trump has done. I would make it clear in public and private that the Saudi government must work to end the human rights crisis in Yemen and improve its own human rights record, including the way it treats women. The extra-judicial killing of any journalist, let alone a permanent U.S. resident employed by a major American news organization, is abhorrent and runs counter to core American values. The assault on Khashoggi was an assault on our democratic principles and we have to stand up so the rest of the world sees that no financial or strategic relationship justifies such an action.

7. Do you support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and, if so, how would you go about trying to achieve it?

Israel is the closest and most reliable U.S. ally in the Middle East, as it has been for more than half a century. Our diplomatic, military and intelligence agencies work closely with their Israeli counterparts to promote the security of both countries. I believe that America’s ability to defend its interests in the Middle East depends on Israel. Guaranteeing the survival of a democratic, Jewish state in the Holy Land has been a solemn obligation of the United States for 70 years. Our commitment to Israel’s security, prosperity and democracy is based on shared values, not just common interests — and I will ensure that commitment remains unshakeable.

At the same time, any enduring peace must have as its foundation two states for two peoples — one Jewish and one Palestinian. Reaching such a resolution to the conflict with the Palestinians is the best way for Israel to remain a prosperous, secure and stable Jewish democracy. The issue of Israeli settlements on the West Bank will have to be part of any eventual peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Until they reach that agreement, both sides should avoid unilateral preemptive actions that make peace less likely. But my bedrock commitment would be that any two-state solution ensures Israel’s security.

I believe that the U.S. must continue to stand for a durable resolution to the conflict that provides justice, democracy and opportunity to the Palestinians. But the U.S. cannot want peace more than the parties themselves. The Palestinian people deserve leadership that prioritizes basic services, sanitation and economic opportunity. Terrorist attacks against Israel emanating from Gaza are appalling and not in the interests of the majority of Gazans, who are enduring a humanitarian crisis. In the meantime, I support continued international assistance to help the Palestinian Authority improve technology, infrastructure, education and entrepreneurship for law-abiding citizens.

8. What, if any, additional steps should the United States take to remove Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela?

Once the most prosperous and developed democracy in Latin America, with the world’s largest proven oil reserves, Venezuela is a case study in how despotism can lead a country to ruin — and destabilize an entire region in the process. Venezuelans have experienced a 56% loss in GDP and a greater than 1 million percent rise in annual inflation. They face extreme shortages of food and medicine and have been deprived of basic human rights. More than 4 million people have fled the country, creating Latin America’s largest humanitarian crisis.

I believe that the U.S. must remain steadfast in supporting the restoration of Venezuela’s democracy under interim president and opposition leader Juan Guaido. This is the consensus of a majority of our North American, Latin American and European allies. I also believe that we should put forward a vision of what a free and democratic Venezuela would look like and what kind of support it can expect from the U.S. once the government of Nicolas Maduro falls. In the meantime, the U.S. should expand assistance to the Latin American countries that are doing their best to cope with the flow of Venezuelan refugees.

9. By 2050, Africa will account for 25 percent of the world’s population according to projections by the United Nations. What are the implications of this demographic change for the United States, and how should we adjust our policies to anticipate them?

A stable and prosperous world depends on a stable and prosperous Africa. I believe that the U.S. must do much more to secure the future of a continent that is home to 1.3 billion people and some of the world’s fastest-growing economies, and with which Americans share deep and complex bonds of history, culture, and common ancestry. Through my foundation, I’ve championed the promise and development of Africa. I have supported job training, public health, women’s empowerment, and development across the continent. I have also fought to protect Africa’s future by highlighting the profoundly disruptive impact of climate change. As president, I would be a true partner with African nations on the most pressing challenges: climate, security, migration, and economic growth.

10. Under what circumstances, if any, would you support the United States joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), formerly the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

The Obama administration was right to pursue the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and President Trump was wrong to walk away from the deal. The pact as negotiated certainly had flaws, but under U.S. leadership these problems could have been fixed. By withdrawing from an agreement with 11 countries – nations that account for more than 40% of U.S. exports – the current administration has undermined America’s competitiveness, diminished its broader influence in the region and squandered an opportunity to lead the world toward a new global standard for trade rules.

As president, I will commit to bring the U.S. into a new and improved TPP that, among other things, would do more to protect American intellectual property, enforce tougher labor and environmental standards in the other member countries, and provide clear benefits for American workers. The ultimate goal of any trade deal is to improve the U.S. economy and the incomes of Americans. President Trump’s tariff war with China has instead cost American farmers and workers billions, without altering unfair Chinese trade practices. As a condition of joining, I’d insist on strong new measures to protect workers from the costs of economic disruption, whether caused by trade, automation or other kinds of innovation. These would include not just a bigger and more effective Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program, but a range of new development initiatives to support affected workers and their communities, encompassing investment incentives, place-based wage subsidies, help with training and retraining, and more.

A U.S.-led TPP would force China to raise its own standards to avoid being left out and put at a disadvantage. This shift would do more to protect American workers and farmers than bluster and tariffs.

11. How would you discourage the proliferation of coal-fired power plants in developing countries?

As my first act as president, I will rejoin the Paris Agreement. Then I will lead talks with the top 20 carbon-polluting countries to converge on a goal of cutting emissions in half by 2030 – a goal we can only reach by halting construction of all new coal plants worldwide.

At home, I have already committed $500 million to the Beyond Carbon effort, which has helped close half of U.S. coal-fired power plants and aims to see the rest shut down by 2030. I will bring the same determination to this global effort. I will restrict U.S. financing for coal projects abroad and will work closely with China, the OECD and multilateral development banks to eliminate fossil fuel projects from their overseas financing portfolios as well. My administration will use trade and security agreements to promote the spread of clean energy technologies, and will encourage the G-20 and the Financial Stability Board to develop a task force that would bring financial institutions together with multilateral and national development banks to finance clean energy projects in developing countries. It will also provide technical assistance to countries participating in China’s Belt and Road initiative to ensure that they have clean alternatives to coal-fired power. And I will end fossil fuel subsidies in the U.S. and work to ensure other countries reduce and eventually eliminate theirs as well.

12. What has been the greatest foreign policy accomplishment of the United States since World War II? What has been the biggest mistake?

Several presidents could lay claim to the greatest U.S. foreign policy accomplishment since World War II – John F. Kennedy resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis and providing the impetus for the Non-Proliferation Treaty; Richard Nixon launching his opening to China and détente with the Soviet Union; Jimmy Carter brokering the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty; and George H.W. Bush managing the end of the Cold War and the peaceful reunification of Germany.

But my choice would be Harry Truman. The 33rd president oversaw the democratic rebirth of Germany and Japan; the establishment of the United Nations; the Marshall Plan; the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) treaty; and the policy of containment of the Soviet Union. Together, these formed the pillars of an international system led by the United States that for 70 years helped maintain peace and build prosperity for much of the world, and avoided war between the major powers.

In hindsight, the biggest U.S. foreign policy mistake since World War II was the 2003 invasion of Iraq. That catastrophe led to the deaths of 4,400 Americans and the wounding and continued suffering of 32,000 more; caused the deaths of roughly 200,000 Iraqi civilians; destabilized much of the Middle East; contributed to the rise of a hegemonic Iran; produced Al Qaeda in Iraq and then ISIS; cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $2.4 trillion; and made us lose sight of our mission in Afghanistan. Perhaps most damaging of all, the war distracted Washington from the vital work of modernizing our economy, rebuilding our infrastructure, investing in clean energy, upgrading our education system and equipping American workers to compete with the rest of the world. America’s ability to maintain leadership abroad depends on our strength at home—a lesson we ignore at our peril

[GeneralMacArthur]

Ugh, this all feels like Biden all over again.  A man can give extensive evidence that he's well-informed, intelligent and rational -- far more so than his rivals -- and it gets undermined by one casual quote taken out-of-context.

Meanwhile the populist candidates can say ignorant, ridiculous sh*t all day long and nobody cares.  I mean Sanders' answer to every foreign policy question is "I voted against the Iraq War" and Warren wants to have zero U.S. presence in the middle east.

[GeneralMacArthur]

By the way, was that CFR interview live?  If so, Bloomberg is far better informed than any of the other candidates including Biden.

I'm assuming it was a questionnaire and he had a bunch of aides fill it out and he rubber-stamped it, which is typically how these things go.

[Forward]

By the way, was that CFR interview live?  If so, Bloomberg is far better informed than any of the other candidates including Biden.

I'm assuming it was a questionnaire and he had a bunch of aides fill it out and he rubber-stamped it, which is typically how these things go.

I'm not sure, but he has actually condemned Putin several times in the past.

For example:
https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/06/16/michael-bloomberg-foreign/

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

He certainly feels like a frontrunner with all the threads he's been getting in the last 24 hours. Reaching Bernie levels of random threads.

Why hasn't this been stickied/pinned yet?

[Sorenroy]

All I had to go off of was the Tweet (from the detestable Walker Bragman) which makes it sound like he's talking about the intellegentsia in third person.

Yeah same here, the tweet made it sound like he was positioning "real America" against "the intelligentsia and trans activists" and I'm so used to hearing Republicans say that I didn't question it.

That being said Bloomberg still isn't getting a pass from me. He's right you need to be a salesman, but I don't trust someone who instinctively refers to trans women as "men in dresses" to either sell it or even care about selling it.

And let's be clear: he was not quoting anyone. The full quote from Bloomberg: "if you want to know if somebody's a good salesman, give them the job of going to the Midwest, and picking a town, and selling to that town the concept that some man wearing a dress should be in the locker room with their daughter. If you can sell that you can sell anything."

He did not say "the concept that someone can identify as a gender other than their birth-assigned gender, and that's okay!" and then go on to say that Midwesterners will respond that they "don't want some man wearing a dress in the locker room with their daughter." That was *his wording.*

Dude, why did you leave out the part he says right after that? He says “they [Midwesterners] say ‘what on Earth are you talking about?’ and you say ‘Well, this person identifies his or her gender as different than what’s on their birth certificate’ and they say ‘What do you mean? You’re either born this or you’re born that.’”

He literally says exactly what you just said he didn’t say.

 Bragman’s description of the clip is extremely disingenuous. He makes it sound like Bloomberg is pitting himself against the Intelligentsia, when in fact he makes it very clear that he is part of the intelligentsia that supports trans rights.

As someone who has grown up/become politically engaged in the same state as Peebs, I'm probably more sensitive to the specific language people use around certain issues, especially that of Trans rights, than someone who isn't from the state made temporarily famous for using Trans people as a political punching bag to drive up conservative turnout. With that caveat out of the way, I fully agree with Leinad that having your go to phrase be "some man wearing a dress" is problematic. I know Bloomberg clarifies in the next part of his speech, but it's not like it would have undermined the point he was making at all if he had led with "if you want to know if somebody's a good salesman, give them the job of going to the Midwest, and picking a town, and selling to that town the concept that a trans woman should be in the locker room with their daughter." Even that is a bit crass, but it still gets to the point he's trying to make without needlessly creating some idea of Trans people acting in some malicious way.

And, again, I do understand that Trans issues are a little newer to the scene then other equality issues, so I give Bloomberg the tiniest amount of slack on what he said. The whole clip makes me think that 2016 Bloomberg was in the situation of a lot of older liberals, where they are still evolving (in the best sense of the term) on the issue. I'd obviously rather someone who came to the right views on this earlier as the nominee, but it's not a dealbreaker to me that Bloomberg is an old guy that hasn't really been in touch with me on all the issues I find important. Much more of an issue is his views on race which, as I pointed out in the "Bloomberg Is a Big Ol' Racist" thread, are clearly problematic and would have been even when he originally made those statements.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

That's a problem because it doesn't just show that Bloomberg is ill-informed on foreign policy, (I think pretty much the whole field is with the possible exception of Buttigieg and to a lesser extent Biden) but because it shows he is actively interested in foreign policy but gets his info from Gabbard-tier sources.

Those comments are from 2015.

Here are answers to foreign policy questions he gave this January to the CFR. He comes out hard against Putin:

Stop it. Putin annexed Crimea in 2014, and fueled a war in Ukraine the same year. Comments were made 2015. And nothing significant has change since then.

The same with stop-and-frisk. Bloomberg has defended it just a couple of years ago. Nothing has chance ever since.

You rightfully said that Bloomberg is lifelong Democrat who changed to R just to win election. It is true. That's also why he "changed" his mind on Putin and stop-and-frisk.

Putin became extremely toxic since he ordered to hack DNC. Mike is smart enough to STFU.
Stop-and-frisk is big NO-NO to become D nominee. Mike is smart enough to STFU.

If you will keep saying he "out of the blue" changed his mind and became a True Lib Hero hating stop-and-frisk you either are very naive, to put it mildly, or arguing in bad faith.

[Forward]

That's a problem because it doesn't just show that Bloomberg is ill-informed on foreign policy, (I think pretty much the whole field is with the possible exception of Buttigieg and to a lesser extent Biden) but because it shows he is actively interested in foreign policy but gets his info from Gabbard-tier sources.

Those comments are from 2015.

Here are answers to foreign policy questions he gave this January to the CFR. He comes out hard against Putin:

Stop it. Putin annexed Crimea in 2014, and fueled a war in Ukraine the same year. Comments were made 2015. And nothing significant has change since then.

The same with stop-and-frisk. Bloomberg has defended it just a couple of years ago. Nothing has chance ever since.

You rightfully said that Bloomberg is lifelong Democrat who changed to R just to win election. It is true. That's also why he "changed" his mind on Putin and stop-and-frisk.

Putin became extremely toxic since he ordered to hack DNC. Mike is smart enough to STFU.
Stop-and-frisk is big NO-NO to become D nominee. Mike is smart enough to STFU.

If you will keep saying he "out of the blue" changed his mind and became a True Lib Hero hating stop-and-frisk you either are very naive, to put it mildly, or arguing in bad faith.

Bloomberg actually condemned Putin in 2016 too, way before he ever considered a Democratic bid for the presidency (he was actually considering an Independent bid around that time).

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

That's a problem because it doesn't just show that Bloomberg is ill-informed on foreign policy, (I think pretty much the whole field is with the possible exception of Buttigieg and to a lesser extent Biden) but because it shows he is actively interested in foreign policy but gets his info from Gabbard-tier sources.

Those comments are from 2015.

Here are answers to foreign policy questions he gave this January to the CFR. He comes out hard against Putin:

Stop it. Putin annexed Crimea in 2014, and fueled a war in Ukraine the same year. Comments were made 2015. And nothing significant has change since then.

The same with stop-and-frisk. Bloomberg has defended it just a couple of years ago. Nothing has chance ever since.

You rightfully said that Bloomberg is lifelong Democrat who changed to R just to win election. It is true. That's also why he "changed" his mind on Putin and stop-and-frisk.

Putin became extremely toxic since he ordered to hack DNC. Mike is smart enough to STFU.
Stop-and-frisk is big NO-NO to become D nominee. Mike is smart enough to STFU.

If you will keep saying he "out of the blue" changed his mind and became a True Lib Hero hating stop-and-frisk you either are very naive, to put it mildly, or arguing in bad faith.

Bloomberg actually condemned Putin in 2016 too, way before he ever considered a Democratic bid for the presidency (he was actually considering an Independent bid around that time).

Yeah, so after Putin became toxic...
Putin become toxic right after Trump started talking kind of positively about Putin/Russia (so about late 2015/early 2016) and became super-toxic after DNC/Wikileaks.