Bloomberg for President

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

1990?

Yes. Is there a statute of limitations?

I think there should be a recognition of male chauvinism that was rampant, particularly in NY financial culture during that time, and not weigh on it too much.  I'm sure you said some things in the 80's and 90's that if published, might not reflect well on you today.  I know that's true for me. 

At work? To female employees? This isn't one of his poker buddies reporting what was said at a card game.

It was New York.  I don't think it's right, but I also don't think what someone said in 1988 is reflective of who they are as a person today.  I weigh what someone says today much more heavily than what they said 30 years ago.  

The Access Hollywood tape was 2005. How much time goes by before we give New York guys a break?

15 years isn't 30 years and there's plenty of indication that Trump acted in a way that matched his words.  

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

Bear in mind, we're not even at the binary choice portion of the program. People are getting behind this guy in the primary. Choosing this over Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Sanders, Warren, etc.

Bloomberg isn't even close to being on my radar and is behind just about all of the candidates for me.  But I'm also not a fan of digging through things from 30 years ago.  That WashPo editorial that was posted as, evidently reflective of his feelings about SS is a great example of out of context and intellectually dishonest smearing.  No one has, in particular Spiritual Chaos who posted it, challenged anything he wrote in the op ed.  It's fundamentally correct.  But now it's being used as Bloom is an enemy of SS. How do we know that this 'anecdote' isn't just as intellectually dishonest?

I haven't read whatever SC posted so you can argue with him about that.

There were multiple lawsuits against Bloomberg for this stuff. It's not like everyone was having a good time and now we're shining a light on it. The link is below in case anyone would like to decide for themselves how intellectually dishonest the Washington Post's reporting is or isn't. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/politics/michael-bloomberg-women/

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

1990?

Yes. Is there a statute of limitations?

I think there should be a recognition of male chauvinism that was rampant, particularly in NY financial culture during that time, and not weigh on it too much.  I'm sure you said some things in the 80's and 90's that if published, might not reflect well on you today.  I know that's true for me. 

Doubt Bernie was a "male chauvinist" telling women things like the quoted in 1990.

Right, he just tells them in 2018 that they can't be elected president.  

I knew that was going to be your very expected response.

But sure, keep going out of your way to defend Bloomberg.

https://twitter.com/pblest/status/1229464003149225984?s=20

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

Bear in mind, we're not even at the binary choice portion of the program. People are getting behind this guy in the primary. Choosing this over Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Sanders, Warren, etc.

Bloomberg isn't even close to being on my radar and is behind just about all of the candidates for me.  But I'm also not a fan of digging through things from 30 years ago.  That WashPo editorial that was posted as, evidently reflective of his feelings about SS is a great example of out of context and intellectually dishonest smearing.  No one has, in particular Spiritual Chaos who posted it, challenged anything he wrote in the op ed.  It's fundamentally correct.  But now it's being used as Bloom is an enemy of SS. How do we know that this 'anecdote' isn't just as intellectually dishonest?

I haven't read whatever SC posted so you can argue with him about that.

There were multiple lawsuits against Bloomberg for this stuff. It's not like everyone was having a good time and now we're shining a light on it. The link is below in case anyone would like to decide for themselves how intellectually dishonest the Washington Post's reporting is or isn't. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/politics/michael-bloomberg-women/

I didn't say the Post was intellectually dishonest.  I'm saying the tweet that seeks to pull out that one line (which I agree with) is intellectually dishonest.  It was an op-ed written by Bloomberg.  

And if the accusations in the lawsuits you linked are accurate, then yes that's very close if not disqualifying because that is further than just a crude comment that was allegedly made.  Same with the racist stuff.  I was speaking of the very specific comment from the 80's.  But I still always try to evaluate a person's behavior compared to what was deemed socially acceptable at the time, not today.  And the 'cohort' comment from 2011 was not socially acceptable in 2011, nor was Trump's 2005 comment/behavior.  

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

Bear in mind, we're not even at the binary choice portion of the program. People are getting behind this guy in the primary. Choosing this over Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Sanders, Warren, etc.

Bloomberg isn't even close to being on my radar and is behind just about all of the candidates for me.  But I'm also not a fan of digging through things from 30 years ago.  That WashPo editorial that was posted as, evidently reflective of his feelings about SS is a great example of out of context and intellectually dishonest smearing.  No one has, in particular Spiritual Chaos who posted it, challenged anything he wrote in the op ed.  It's fundamentally correct.  But now it's being used as Bloom is an enemy of SS. How do we know that this 'anecdote' isn't just as intellectually dishonest?

I haven't read whatever SC posted so you can argue with him about that.

There were multiple lawsuits against Bloomberg for this stuff. It's not like everyone was having a good time and now we're shining a light on it. The link is below in case anyone would like to decide for themselves how intellectually dishonest the Washington Post's reporting is or isn't. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/politics/michael-bloomberg-women/

I didn't say the Post was intellectually dishonest.  I'm saying the tweet that seeks to pull out that one line (which I agree with) is intellectually dishonest.  It was an op-ed written by Bloomberg.  

And if the accusations in the lawsuits you linked are accurate, then yes that's very close if not disqualifying because that is further than just a crude comment that was allegedly made.  Same with the racist stuff.  I was speaking of the very specific comment from the 80's.  But I still always try to evaluate a person's behavior compared to what was deemed socially acceptable at the time, not today.  And the 'cohort' comment from 2011 was not socially acceptable in 2011, nor was Trump's 2005 comment/behavior.  

I don't think you think the Post is intellectually dishonest. Sorry it's worded weird...we're going kinda rapid fire. My intent was to say that other op ed might be in bad faith, but this particular story seems tight.

To be clear, I've pulled out individual quotes of some of the most egregious examples. My beef with him on this particular topic is the volume of it and the lawsuits that followed. If it was just one or two remarks over time, I'd be more in your camp on things. 

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

1990?

Yes. Is there a statute of limitations?

I think there should be a recognition of male chauvinism that was rampant, particularly in NY financial culture during that time, and not weigh on it too much.  I'm sure you said some things in the 80's and 90's that if published, might not reflect well on you today.  I know that's true for me. 

Doubt Bernie was a "male chauvinist" telling women things like the quoted in 1990.

No... he was just professing his love for the Soviet Union on countless hours of video that the republicans will play on an endless loop from the moment he wins the nomination all the way up to the moment he ensures Trump gets another four years in office, thus ensuring the end of this democracy.

Vote for Mike or Die. 

The Juggler said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

1990?

Yes. Is there a statute of limitations?

I think there should be a recognition of male chauvinism that was rampant, particularly in NY financial culture during that time, and not weigh on it too much.  I'm sure you said some things in the 80's and 90's that if published, might not reflect well on you today.  I know that's true for me. 

Doubt Bernie was a "male chauvinist" telling women things like the quoted in 1990.

No... he was just professing his love for the Soviet Union on countless hours of video that the republicans will play on an endless loop from the moment he wins the nomination all the way up to the moment he ensures Trump gets another four years in office, thus ensuring the end of this democracy.

Vote for Mike or Die. 

Well, Trump being able to attack Bloomberg from the left in the race and standing up for workers rights and minorities rights against Bloomberg will really help you.

Do you have any receipts of this claim of the countless hours of video of Bernie professing his love for the soviet union? Or did the Fox News morning show tell you that will happen?

Spiritual_Chaos said:

The Juggler said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

1990?

Yes. Is there a statute of limitations?

I think there should be a recognition of male chauvinism that was rampant, particularly in NY financial culture during that time, and not weigh on it too much.  I'm sure you said some things in the 80's and 90's that if published, might not reflect well on you today.  I know that's true for me. 

Doubt Bernie was a "male chauvinist" telling women things like the quoted in 1990.

No... he was just professing his love for the Soviet Union on countless hours of video that the republicans will play on an endless loop from the moment he wins the nomination all the way up to the moment he ensures Trump gets another four years in office, thus ensuring the end of this democracy.

Vote for Mike or Die. 

Well, Trump being able to attack Bloomberg from the left in the race and standing up for workers rights and minorities rights against Bloomberg will really help you.

Do you have any receipts of this claim of the countless hours of video of Bernie professing his love for the soviet union? Or did the Fox News morning show tell you that will happen?

haha...oh, my little Swedish chef. The videos are out there. They are plentiful. Google them...or not, as they will be played ad nauseam in the summer/fall, should the democrats nominate that guy. 

The fact that you don't know about them speaks to how poorly Bernie has been vetted .

The Juggler said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

The Juggler said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

mrussel1 said:

pjl44 said:

1990?

Yes. Is there a statute of limitations?

I think there should be a recognition of male chauvinism that was rampant, particularly in NY financial culture during that time, and not weigh on it too much.  I'm sure you said some things in the 80's and 90's that if published, might not reflect well on you today.  I know that's true for me. 

Doubt Bernie was a "male chauvinist" telling women things like the quoted in 1990.

No... he was just professing his love for the Soviet Union on countless hours of video that the republicans will play on an endless loop from the moment he wins the nomination all the way up to the moment he ensures Trump gets another four years in office, thus ensuring the end of this democracy.

Vote for Mike or Die. 

Well, Trump being able to attack Bloomberg from the left in the race and standing up for workers rights and minorities rights against Bloomberg will really help you.

Do you have any receipts of this claim of the countless hours of video of Bernie professing his love for the soviet union? Or did the Fox News morning show tell you that will happen?

haha...oh, my little Swedish chef. The videos are out there. They are plentiful. Google them...or not, as they will be played ad nauseam in the summer/fall, should the democrats nominate that guy. 

The fact that you don't know about them speaks to how poorly Bernie has been vetted .

Those videos will be really tough on him.  There are certainly some complimentary comments of the soviet system both in the USSR and Russia that will hit hard.  I'm surprised no dark money commercials from the center-left have hit in either campaign.  I'd like to see some just to see what they do to his numbers.  Let's have our eyes wide open.