Michael Bloomberg 2020 campaign megathread

[Forward]

Another rich democratic liberal elitist running

  He was the Republican Mayor of NY running as a continuation of Rudy Giuliani, then he was an Independent, now he's throwing money at Democrats.

 This should show you he's not anything but an opportunist for himself.

 Trump was also a rich Democratic liberal elitist...

Bloomberg was also a lifelong Democrat before running for mayor. Your phrasing makes it sound like Bloomberg started out as a Republican (which is false).

[Forward]

https://twitter.com/CANCEL_SAM/status/1192594228775456769

[Forward]

Can OP please change title from "Micheal" to "Michael"? It's really bothering me for some reason.

[Forward]

https://twitter.com/santucci/status/1206370247600738305

To be fair, all of these allegations are from the 1980's and 1990's. This was at a time when most Wall Street firms had a "frat house culture" where this type of behavior was rampant. The culture at most Wall Street firms have changed drastically since then, including Bloomberg LP.

FWIW, Bloomberg completely changed and stopped engaging in this sort of behavior after entering City Hall in 2002. He appointed several women to top positions in his cabinet and a lot of them have said that he treated them with the utmost respect and that they couldn't even imagine him engaging in the sort of behavior these women claim he did.

I believe these women 100%, but besides the "kill it" comment and maybe a few others, none of these are bad at all. What guy hasn't said things like "I'd do her" or "Look at the ass on her" to their male friends? The "kill it" comment was bad, but Bloomberg privately apologized to the woman and said he didn't mean it. The fact that some are even comparing this to Trump is absolutely absurd. Trump's sexist behavior is 10 trillion x worse. Additionally, Bloomberg has completely changed and doesn't behave like this anymore, while Trump still engages in sexist behavior. These allegations might marginally hurt Bloomberg, but they will not even come close to ending his campaign.

[Forward]

Why don’t people ever watch the videos attached to tweets? How hard is it to watch a short clip? He uses “man in a dress” to describe how people in the Midwest feel about the issue, not how he feels about it. However, he absolutely does say that he’s a part of the “intelligentsia” that is accepting of trans rights. He says “we the intelligentsia, people who could make it to this room.”

[Forward]

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.

[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.

[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

[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/

[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).

[Forward]

AP

Meanwhile, Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg wasn’t truthful about why he recently apologized for supporting the controversial “stop and frisk” policy, falsely claiming no one had ever asked him about it before.

A look at recent remarks by political figures, including Trump from the NATO summit in London and back home as House Democrats sped toward impeaching him:

STOP AND FRISK

BLOOMBERG, asked about the timing of his recent apology for supporting the “stop and frisk” policy: “Well, nobody asked me about it until I started running for president, so, c’mon.” — interview Friday with “CBS This Morning.”

THE FACTS: That’s not true. Bloomberg has been repeatedly asked about his position on the policing strategy that he embraced as New York City mayor from 2002 to 2013. He defended it each time — most recently in January.

Stop-and-frisk gave police wide authority to detain people they suspected of committing a crime, and Bloomberg aggressively pursued the tactic. Under the program, New York City police officers made it a routine practice to stop and search multitudes of mostly black and Hispanic men to see if they were carrying weapons.

“We focused on keeping kids from going through the correctional system,” Bloomberg said while taking questions at the United States Naval Academy’s 2019 Leadership Conference. “The result of that was, over the years, the murder rate in New York City went from 650 a year to 300 a year when I left.” He added that most police departments do the same thing, “they just don’t report it or use the terminology.”

Bloomberg also defended the policy after a federal judge in 2013 struck down the policy as violating the civil rights of blacks and Latinos who were disproportionately affected. He called it a “dangerous decision made by a judge who I think does not understand how policing works and what is compliant with the U.S. Constitution.”

Bloomberg then wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post in 2013 entitled “’Stop and frisk’ keeps New York safe.”

3 compares Putin's attack on Ukraine to US annexing California and believes NATO expansion gave Putin justification for aggression (2015)

Dude, Bloomberg was just acknowledging why Putin did what he did. In that same interview, he explicitly says that what Putin did was wrong and that it shouldn't have been allowed. He has since strongly condemned Putin many, many times, even before running. Please don't support Bloomberg.

[Forward]

Anyone want to take a stab at explaining how endorsing Bush in '00 and '04 is consistent with the talking point that 'he's totally always been a liberal democrat guiz'

Bloomberg didn’t endorse Bush in 2000. He actually voted for Gore. But he did endorse Bush, but Bloomberg has supported the Democratic candidate every election after that.

[Forward]

https://mobile.twitter.com/CANCEL_SAM/status/1229127380402393088

It’s important to note that this is from a long time ago and Bloomberg has been in favor of a public option since 2009.

[Forward]

You can’t support Bloomberg and be a Democrat. Period. He’s literally worse than Trump in my opinion, if mostly because he’d be far more competent a Republican.

Well, let's see:

- Mike supports immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship, plus statehood for Puerto Rico [doubtful, given he thinks Latinos "don't know how to behave" - though if he does, I imagine because he wants to hire them for less than the minimum wage]

That tweet gives no context and is extremely misleading. That’s not what Bloomberg was trying to say. Please watch the full video:

https://youtu.be/4KX6swK-JoU

Bloomberg has always been one of the most pro-immigration politicians in America:

[Forward]

You can’t support Bloomberg and be a Democrat. Period. He’s literally worse than Trump in my opinion, if mostly because he’d be far more competent a Republican.

Well, let's see:

- Mike supports higher taxes for the wealthy [Taxing the rich is 'about as dumb a policy as I can think of"
- Mike supports expanding health care [If you get cancer at 95, we should say "you’ve lived a long life, we can’t do anything"]
- Mike has a long history as an advocate for gun control [says a city mayor with guns all around his neighborhood]

These are also very deceptive. Say what you want about Bloomberg, but he's always been to the left of the average Democrat on healthcare issues. In 2009, Bloomberg thought that Obamacare was not left-wing enough and called for a public option. In 2017, Bloomberg praised single payer. As it has been pointed out, that healthcare clip you posted is very deceptive.

Bloomberg voiced opposition once to raising taxes on the rich, but he has on several more occasions expressed support for raising taxes on the rich. He raised taxes on the rich several times as mayor. I think actions speak louder than words.

[Forward]

https://mobile.twitter.com/benpershing/status/1229886958777884674

Ugh, this is moderately worse than the other one, but it’s still not bad at all. Please actually watch the video instead of just reading the headline. He was arguing that trans rights shouldn’t central message of one’s campaign and that it would be better politics to focus on things like the economy instead. Again, he uses “man in a dress” to describe how Midwesterners feel about the issue, not how he feels about it. He says “he, she, it,” not “it.” As the article points out, Bloomberg’s record on trans-rights is phenomenal. He signed one of the most extensive trans-rights bills in 2002, way before trans acceptance became mainstream. His current platform on trans rights is one of the best. He even wants taxpayer funded gender reassignment surgeries!

[Forward]

That video about African American & Latino youth was horrible but no-one cares about Bloomberg being an outright racist only because he is a Democrat.

That clip is so dishonest since it leaves out the context. Bloomberg was talking about his Young Men’s Initiative, an initiative to help aid minority youth. From that clip, it sounds like Bloomberg was talking about all young minorities, but that’s not the case. He said that his initiative was meant to help young minorities who “  "don't have jobs, don't have any prospects, don't know how to find jobs, don't know what their skillsets are, don't know how to behave in the workplace where they have to work collaboratively and collectively.”

Again, I don’t know why far-left Twitter keeps on having to lie in order to attack Bloomberg. There are many, many lines of attack against Bloomberg that are factually accurate.

[Forward]

https://twitter.com/MikeBloomberg/status/1230959194825797632?s=20

[Forward]

This man is easily the most malicious presence within the Democratic primary. Openly seeking a contested convention, even though it dramatically undermines party unity, for the sake of stroking a delusion that Democrats would be eager to rally behind a billionaire oligarch who possesses all of Trump's flaws and has spent most of his life as a Republican. Good thing the establishment seems to be rallying behind Biden now that the other "moderate" lane alternatives have dropped out. Say what you will about him, but at least Biden isn't an out-of-touch, vainglorious billionaire who thinks he can buy his way to the presidency off of his immense fortune, on top of actually being a Democrat.

F**k Bloomberg, he is absolutely cancerous.

Bloomberg has actually been a registered Democrat for most of his life. He was only a Republican from 2001-2007.