Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 hours ago, Pancho said:

 

I posted a stat in the Nevada or General Dem election thread, but if you earned $5000 a day and started in 1492 you still wouldn't have a billion dollars in the year 2020. In order to match Bloomberg's net worth at this rate, it would take you 34,387 years.

Posted
8 hours ago, F250 said:

Wasn't Hoover a mining magnate prior to becoming President? I think Bush Sr. also qualifies as a former successful businessman along with Carter.


I think that Bush Sr. was already doing "reconnaissance" for the navy and national intelligence while a pilot with the navy even before attending Yale. 

Then after Yale, he joined some other Yale people in the oil business in Texas so that he would have a natural cover to travel throughout the Middle East and elsewhere "on business"... then eventually he became head of the CIA. (Head of the CIA isn't just given to "successful business men".) 

I believe that he made money as a businessman, but it was hardly because he was just a savvy businessman. There were other things working in his favor.

  • Like 4
Posted (edited)
On 2/21/2020 at 6:49 PM, Mrs Whiggins said:

SIAP.

 

That’s pretty funny. 

“The next time I sexually harass some woman and then have to pay her off I’m gonna make sure you know about it. Not gonna hide it anymore.”

I’m Mike Bloomberg and I approve this message.

Edited by JimmyJames
  • Like 2
Posted

If you hope to defeat Trump, having a GOP stalwart and movie person defect from his camp is a biggish deal, I think.  And disparage him on the way out.

I don't think Eastwood helps Bloomberg as much as hurts Trump.

Posted
23 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

If you hope to defeat Trump, having a GOP stalwart and movie person defect from his camp is a biggish deal, I think.  And disparage him on the way out.

I don't think Eastwood helps Bloomberg as much as hurts Trump.

I don’t think that he has any effect. 

All of the angry old white people gave up on Eastwood when he had the conversation with the chair in 2012. Those people get their instructions from FOX News & Rush Limbaugh. 

Posted
58 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Kept expecting Trump to go after Eastwood, but maybe he doesn’t want his followers to know.  

Or hell, for all we know, he's scared Eastwood will go all Dirty Harry on him.   

Posted
22 hours ago, Napoleon said:

I don’t think that he has any effect. 

All of the angry old white people gave up on Eastwood when he had the conversation with the chair in 2012. Those people get their instructions from FOX News & Rush Limbaugh. 

Yeah if the democrats had played that skit they'd all be thinking it was brilliant and listing reasons why they thought so.  It was akin to Anne Richards, George was born with a silver spoon in his mouth funny.  

 

Posted
If you hope to defeat Trump, having a GOP stalwart and movie person defect from his camp is a biggish deal, I think.  And disparage him on the way out.
I don't think Eastwood helps Bloomberg as much as hurts Trump.

Republicans love themselves some tough talking actors. John Wayne, Reagan, Trump, Eastwood.

Trump doesn’t want to amplify a “central casting tough guy” ditching him.
Posted
Yeah if the democrats had played that skit they'd all be thinking it was brilliant and listing reasons why they thought so.  It was akin to Anne Richards, George was born with a silver spoon in his mouth funny.  
 

Well, except the Dems didn’t do it. Which says a lot.

And Ann Richards landed that joke well.

So pretty much the opposite of what you said.
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:


Well, except the Dems didn’t do it. Which says a lot.

And Ann Richards landed that joke well.

So pretty much the opposite of what you said.

No, just the fact they didn't think of the schitck.  and Buch Sr. was kind of a bad ass. WWII fighter pilot, already probably already recruited by the OSS, and the soft, rich guy game was probably a good cover for his activities thru the years in the CIA.

 

BTW those pink pussy hats were soooo damned funny....

Edited by Onboard 2.0
Posted

Waiting for the Super Bowl of Lulz when Bern gets the nomination and then Bloomberg runs as a third party Indy and wins.  (Org is already in place.)  He'd prolly win 20-30 states and he'd win all of the big states.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Waiting for the Super Bowl of Lulz when Bern gets the nomination and then Bloomberg runs as a third party Indy and wins.  (Org is already in place.)  He'd prolly win 20-30 states and he'd win all of the big states.

I don't know if any of that would happen. I doubt Bernie is going to win the nomination without a pre-convention majority or extremely close to it. If has 40% or less, I think he loses on subsequent conventions re-votes, which release delegates from being forced to vote for him.

and I would understand Bernie supporters that would be angry but in that scenario, you have 60% that DON'T want him from the get-go. At that point, the delegates are empowered to decide the winner not the voters.

Posted
40 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Waiting for the Super Bowl of Lulz when Bern gets the nomination and then Bloomberg runs as a third party Indy and wins.  (Org is already in place.)  He'd prolly win 20-30 states and he'd win all of the big states.

This+meme+is+called+brainlet+wojak+_73c0

 

Posted
48 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Waiting for the Super Bowl of Lulz when Bern gets the nomination and then Bloomberg runs as a third party Indy and wins.  (Org is already in place.)  He'd prolly win 20-30 states and he'd win all of the big states.

This might be the dumbest post ever made in the politics board.

  • Like 4
Posted
1 hour ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Waiting for the Super Bowl of Lulz when Bern gets the nomination and then Bloomberg runs as a third party Indy and wins.  (Org is already in place.)  He'd prolly win 20-30 states and he'd win all of the big states.

Old-Mans-Talking.gif

  • Like 3
Posted
1 hour ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Waiting for the Super Bowl of Lulz when Bern gets the nomination and then Bloomberg runs as a third party Indy and wins.  (Org is already in place.)  He'd prolly win 20-30 states and he'd win all of the big states.

He and Bernie would split the vote, thus making him the Ross Perot of 2020. 

Posted
4 hours ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Waiting for the Super Bowl of Lulz when Bern gets the nomination and then Bloomberg runs as a third party Indy and wins.  (Org is already in place.)  He'd prolly win 20-30 states and he'd win all of the big states.

I thought you were smart. Was I wrong? I’m so confused.

  • Like 2
Posted

He's going to come out swinging at Warren after last week. I am going to work on the mojo for everyone not named Bloomberg as he was probably smart enough to practice this week and had his helpers come up with one liners. Unlike the President, he might actually take advice.

 

Posted

He’s got to swing at everything and everyone tomorrow if he’s to have a chance. If he gets hammered again he’s out. I expect Bernie and Liz to tag team him and Pete to finish him off

Posted

lulz...

Quote

...
 Billionaire Democratic hopeful Michael Bloomberg vowed to “defend the banks” and jokingly suggested that he may hunt down his political rivals with Predator drones if elected, a leaked 2016 audio clip has revealed.

The Bloomberg campaign has confirmed the authenticity of the recording, which captured a speech he gave at a closed-door Goldman Sachs event at Yankee Stadium in June 2016. The clip was posted online by a self-styled disgruntled former Goldman executive several days ago and has since made the rounds.
...

https://www.rt.com/usa/481597-bloomberg-audio-drones-banks/

  • Like 1
Posted

There is a reason he and Warren look daggers at each other. They both know what's at stake here.

I was chatting with a friend, a small business owner, yesterday. She was discussing both Bloomberg and Warren changing from R to D. I commented that there was a difference between them. Liz Warren changed after she gained knowledge about what was happening to Americans w/respect to the powerful and the laws that protect the powerful financially but expose and exploit everyday citizens. Bloomberg changed because it was expedient to himself and his empire to change. There is a difference.

  • Like 3
Posted (edited)
Quote

When asked about his decision not to run for president in 2016, Bloomberg told the Goldman employees, “Well, to start, my first campaign platform would be to defend the banks, and you know how well that's gonna sell in this country.”

Later in the interview, Bloomberg answered a question about the rise of the far-right by instead interjecting his concerns about the progressive left, as emblematized by Warren. “The left is arising. The progressive movement is just as scary,” Bloomberg said, equating it with the far-right. “Elizabeth Warren on one side. And whoever you want to pick on the Republicans on the right side.”

Yeah, this guy is definitely the antidote to four years of Trump and absolutely the best candidate to run against him.

 

Quote

The campaign spokesman (Stu Loeser) did, however, concede that one of Bloomberg's comments, in which the now-candidate said that if he were president he could use Predator drones on people who have “annoyed me or screwed me,” was in poor taste. (“You have Predators, and the Predators have missiles, and I have a list of everybody that's annoyed me or screwed me for the last 74 years, and bang-bang-bang-bang,” Bloomberg said, explaining why the presidency would be a “great job.”) 

Well, I'm convinced – Bloomberg would be a breath of fresh centrist air and I would gladly vote for him in the general because he'd be so much more competent and a return to normalcy!

MIKE WILL GET IT DONE.

(Link to an article from Vanity Fair, for those of us who don't click on RT.com)

Edited by 406W30th
  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...