Bloomberg 2020

Elections have consequences...Charlottesville for one has me very alert. Originally Posted by Agent220

Now, try studying it.

There it is folks. In a nutsell. +1

Like it or not Bloomberg is the alternative the Clinton wing of the party is counting on. They are the neo-liberal/neo-conservative wing which wants open borders, un-regulated trade, and give aways to the Chinese as along as GM and Apple can make money off of them. They want to repeal the 2nd Amendment, make eating sugary drinks a crime, and restore the ban on incandescent light bulbs!

Most Democratic voters want Sanders. The billionaire class of Dems which the Clintons lead are scared to death of this. These people make their fortunes doing business with the Chinese, the Mexicans, want more wars like in Iran or even Russia to prop up the stock values of the defense contractors.

Bloomberg can easily be the nominee. All they have to do is rig some super delegates the way they've rigged the debate qualifications which they've already done.

He's their billionaire, and they are relying on him to open up free trade and open borders again, not to mention the additional little wars they would love to have. Originally Posted by pussycat

Seeing whereas you are such a copy-pasta pony soldier, feel free to post the link - to that exact quote. Because, and it could just be me (but it ain't), the AA insertion would tend to appear as if it may have come from your own racist-like thought patterns. Pony up. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

What is copy-pasta?
And what quote exactly are you referring to since there was not one in the posting of mine that you have linked?
Because if that is it (quote) than it is just you.

BUT before I can respond, you must clarify what you think/assume the specific connotation "AA" is.

AND address the prior question on the table, ellen: when is Mexico paying for the Wall? Need a link showing the legislation that is enacting it.

I'm saying it absolutely does. The person that would say or write that down seems clearly racist. ... Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

GREAT! Glad you agree with me. I had to put it specifically in print so as people know exactly what point I was saying about trump. And if you google trump shithole countries you have everything you need that shows what i'm referencing and you *absolutely* agree to. The rest is trival.

EXCEPT when is Mexico paying for the Wall?

I swear you love hearing that to be reminded trump is a liar since you won't answer it. I don't mind typing it ad naseum.

I got it now. You are saying that GEPOTUS reached across party lines to pass and then sign prison reform. Nice! What a deal maker and inclusive steward he is for our country. Thanks for the insight. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Let's review the FACTS. I'm assuming that only a simple majority in the Senate was needed in order to pass the bill.

When the Senate approved the bill there were 51 Republicans and 49 Democrats in office. All 49 Democrats were solidly behind the bill and Trump DID NOTHING to reach across the aisle since support was already there from Democrats. Of the 51 Republican Senators, 12 voted against it, meaning Trump only had to convince 2 others out of 39 to support the bill in order to get it passed.

There was no reaching across party lines by Trump. GOT IT????

There it is folks. In a nutsell. +1 Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

IF you believe his ridiulous rhetoric you are not as smart as I give you credit for being.

IF you believe his ridiulous rhetoric you are not as smart as I give you credit for being. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

*pb keeps mouth shut*

...I had to put it specifically in print .. Originally Posted by Precious_b

That is what I surmised back at square one. [You] inserted the "AA's" into a generalized statement, which was never really technically verified, BTW, to create an agenda that exists in [your] mind. Then, somewhat ironically, you claim I didn't quote where it came from, in spite of embedding your and yours alone, exact quote. Then you go on to claim that "AA's" was never defined, by you, in your own screed no less. As to anything else in your above referenced post: who gives a flip what you want??

...Trump only had to convince 2 others out of 39 to support the bill in order to get it passed.

There was no reaching across party lines by Trump. GOT IT???? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Reaching across party lines, even a little bit, would be considered bipartisan by most. Recall that the prefix 'bi' would mean two. Or is there some new or imaginary number that constitutes bipartisan?
Anyway, your saying "...Trump only had to convince 2 others..." seems to leave a couple questions on the table: So it was bipartisan you say? Was the impeachment hoax bipartisan in House and then Senate? Because my ol' fuzzy memory vaguely recalls that: In May 2018 and March 2019, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opposed impeachment, warning it must be bipartisan or it would be horribly divisive. Seeing whereas one is less than two, was ol' Mittens casting a vote in the Senate for one of the articals of the impeachment hoxx making the vote bipartisan?


Today's program brought to you by the number 2. GOT IT????

What does Bloomberg say now about 'stop and frisk'?

In a statement on Tuesday, Mr Bloomberg said stop and frisk was a policy he inherited and he cut it back by 95% by the time he left office, but he should have done that faster and sooner.
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Interesting if you freeze time. But time marches on, or so they say. So what about Bloomberg preaching from the mountain tops about the effectiveness of that policy and waving the crime stats showing murders dropping from around 600 to a mere 300 over a long period of time? Or what about that time in 1779 where the Bill of Rights placed into the top five, the notion of persons being secure in their person and papers? Seems someone running for President would have thought of that during their time as Mayor of said policy and certainly before extolling the wondrous results of such an egregious violation of civil liberties.

Reaching across party lines, even a little bit, would be considered bipartisan by most. Recall that the prefix 'bi' would mean two. Or is there some new or imaginary number that constitutes bipartisan?
Anyway, your saying "...Trump only had to convince 2 others..." seems to leave a couple questions on the table: So it was bipartisan you say? Was the impeachment hoax bipartisan in House and then Senate? Because my ol' fuzzy memory vaguely recalls that: In May 2018 and March 2019, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opposed impeachment, warning it must be bipartisan or it would be horribly divisive. Seeing whereas one is less than two, was ol' Mittens casting a vote in the Senate for one of the articals of the impeachment hoxx making the vote bipartisan?


Today's program brought to you by the number 2. GOT IT???? Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Again, there was absolutely no need for Trump to reach across party lines for Democratic support since that support was already there 100%.

As expected, the impeachment in the House and the "trial" in the Senate were along party lines almost 100%. I don't recall Pelosi saying she would want bipartisan support for impeachment prior to moving forward with it but I won't say you are wrong. If she did say it, she lied, just like Trump.

Interesting if you freeze time. But time marches on, or so they say. So what about Bloomberg preaching from the mountain tops about the effectiveness of that policy and waving the crime stats showing murders dropping from around 600 to a mere 300 over a long period of time? Or what about that time in 1779 where the Bill of Rights placed into the top five, the notion of persons being secure in their person and papers? Seems someone running for President would have thought of that during their time as Mayor of said policy and certainly before extolling the wondrous results of such an egregious violation of civil liberties. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Bloomberg's statement, and Trump agreed, was correct in that "Stop and Frisk" kept guns off the street and lowered crime rates. I remember reading an article about one person who said he would not leave his house with his illegal handgun at the time.

However, there was a great deal of controversy over the program with possible violation of civil rights and the police eventually refused to follow the policy citing the possibility of litigation against them.

That is what I surmised back at square one. [You] inserted the "AA's" into a generalized statement, which was never really technically verified, BTW, to create an agenda that exists in [your] mind. Then, somewhat ironically, you claim I didn't quote where it came from, in spite of embedding your and yours alone, exact quote. Then you go on to claim that "AA's" was never defined, by you, in your own screed no less. As to anything else in your above referenced post: who gives a flip what you want?? Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

This what you mean by "copy-pasta" when you did this?

...I had to put it specifically in print .. Originally Posted by Precious_b

Stick to Grammar Nazi. Just like a repub to quote out of context. At least others that you say copy and paste know how to get the complete sentence. You help edit those Planned Parenthood videos that were screened in Congress?


And since you don't give a "flip" (aptly demonstrated by your deflection,) Ima sure to hear something else

Now, try studying it. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Study this... Jasper, Tx is not far from my birthplace. The KKK ran through the city where I went to college at.

What do Kamala Harris, Pete, Bloomberg, Biden, Amy and President Chump have in common? All have been involved in actions or policies that have negatively impacted people of color in this country.

Then add on Bloomberg who is virtually identical to this President and reports are coming in with sexual harassment lawsuits settled out of court with NDA's with a history of working with GOP Super Pac's and now he's switched to being a Dem...

No thanks. I know who I'm voting for and, it's the old guy who marched with MLK during the height of the civil rights era.

...there was a great deal of controversy over the program with possible violation of civil rights and the police eventually refused to follow the policy citing the possibility of litigation against them. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Possible violations?!? Can you think of a more probable violation than profiling and throwing random people against the wall and shaking them down and demanding them to "show their papers" and get searched??


But the other question at hand is whether profiling can be appropriate. That's a toughie as that is what Bloomingburger was likely up against. Well... at least from what his statements were. I recall when that happened and recall how egregious it was, even though it had positive results, the negatives where worse.