Or maybe they changed the rules because, many months ago, they said they'd change the rules after voting started because they'd have new data to work with. Or maybe they changed the rules because Bernie, Warren, and others wanted him on stage so they could debate him? Maybe the DNC is favoring Warren and Klobuchar? Though it may destroy your whole worldview, not everything is a conspiracy against your chosen candidate. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ing-on-dnc-to-allow-bloomberg-to-join-debates Democrats concerned that presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg is avoiding scrutiny by not participating in televised debates with other candidates are pushing the party to allow the billionaire on stage. ...
doubtful https://theweek.com/articles/894120/american-democracy-dying excerpt: That brings me to Mike Bloomberg. The Wall Street billionaire (who made his money by assembling a quasi-monopoly on financial communication technology), has funded his campaign with $200 million of his personal fortune as of a week ago — a gigantic sum for a presidential primary but only a tiny fraction of his estimated $58 billion fortune. After the Iowa debacle, Bloomberg doubled his already-gargantuan ad spending and brought his staff up to over 2,000. It is absolutely inconceivable that Bloomberg could be a Democratic presidential contender without his money. This is a guy who was a Republican until 2007 (well into his 60s), who endorsed George W. Bush in 2004 and thanked him at the Republican National Convention for starting the Iraq war, who has numerous sealed sexual harassment lawsuit settlements, and who reportedly plagiarized huge chunks of his 2020 campaign platform. This isn't even the first time Bloomberg has bought an election. In 2008, he spent big to overturn New York City's term limits law so he could get a third term as mayor (and bought off the billionaire who had originally pushed for the limits by promising him a seat on a powerful city board), and spent a further $102 million to win the ensuing election. As my colleague Damon Linker argues, Bloomberg is without question a Russia-style oligarch whose campaign is "an expression of highly developed rot at the core of the American political system."
Trump. Of course, you may claim that you don't support him, but it's a distinction without a difference since you post like a Trump supporter and your posts serve to serve interests identical to his.
If personal insults are what you have left, then so be it. You are free to point out the differences between what you post and how that would differ from a Trump supporter. I promise that I will read with an open mind.
The insult inherent with labeling someone with Dunning-Kruger effect. I'm not sure why you have a problem owning up to the things you post here.
I don't care whether you are or aren't a Trump supporter. The things you post here are identical to what a Trump supporter would post, so it doesn't matter whether or not you are. I'm not insulting you when I say that. If you disagree and see a difference in what you post and what a Trump supporter would post. They echo messages that Trump puts out, defend his actions and criticize any disagreement with Trump and his actions. If you disagree with that, then feel free to point some of the differences between what you post and what a Trump supporter would post. I always accept that internet communication being what it is, I might have a misunderstanding.
Maybe. I'm not even sure what demographic that was pandering to. It was so surreal that I loved it. Almost Dada.
Come on, come up with a new line that anyone more progressive is only about conspiracies. More and more you resort to this. It is not a conspiracy to think that hundreds of millions of dollars of advertising and contributing money influenced. BTW did you ever consider bloomberg.com/news to not be the final word on Bloomberg's motivations. lol
Stop posting easily disprovable conspiracy theories, and I'll stop commenting about how you keep peddling stupid conspiracy theories.
This is an interesting article listing out the sheer amounts of spending by Bloomberg. Truly eye-popping stuff. It's interesting in that, on one hand, the whole thing is ridiculous and reeks of buying the election. But on the other, think of the amount of time all the other candidates and their campaigns spend on fundraising (I donated a small amount to Pete and started getting 3 emails a day until I opted out of everything) and how much time/effort/resources he can save there and use for actual campaigning. https://www.axios.com/bloomberg-spending-2020-election-2ceac839-1efc-4914-afe2-66016ac20faf.html Some highlights or lowlights: He’s blowing through cash to create a parallel (or bigger) unofficial, uncoordinated party infrastructure in case the DNC can’t help the eventual Democratic nominee enough in states that should be competitive with Trump. His campaign announced Tuesday that they will double their ad spending, which is expected to put it around $600 million for TV and digital ads alone. That spending alone is over 9x all of the money the DNC raised in 2019. Between the lines: The Republican National Committee can't match Bloomberg's spending either, but they've out-raised the DNC by more than two to one for eight months in a row. With 2,100 paid staff, Bloomberg has three times as many as Trump, five times as many as Joe Biden and more than twice as many as Elizabeth Warren, according to data the campaigns provided to Axios. He pays his staff more than any other 2020 Democrat's campaign and offers housing if they have to move to New York City, according to a campaign official. But he doesn't get nearly the online attention that Biden, Sanders and Warren have long enjoyed — a metric that is often correlated to enthusiasm for a candidate. The bottom line: The American people are getting a lesson in how campaigns could be run if money were literally no object — and whether that’s enough to beat Trump.
lol that is all you got? I suggest you not consider bloomberg news to be the true story on Bloomburg.
I understand why Yang would be upset that the DNC changed the rules to allow Bloomberg on stage. At the same time, it's unfair for the guy to spam ads and rise in the polls without forcing him to defend his positions against competitors' criticisms on a debate stage.
