Words of Advice:

"If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

"Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground
Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It." -- Unknown

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level
and then beat you with experience.” -- Mark Twain

"Stay Strapped or Get Clapped." -- probably not Mr. Rogers

"Let’s eat all of these people!” — Venom

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Tuesday, February 11, 2020

Don't Be Fooled: Bloomberg is Trump on Steroids

Bloomberg is not a Democrat. He's not a Republican, nor is he an Independent. Bloomberg is an autocrat, like Trump.

Like Trump, Bloomberg latches on to the political party that he sees is his best route to power. His history of switching parties is known to everyone who has been paying attention. If Clinton had won in 2016, Bloomberg would be running today as a Republican.

Bloomberg's belief that the rules don't apply to him is also a matter of record. NYC had term limits that were enacted by two referendums. Bloomberg "persuaded" the City Council to remove term limits so that he could run for a third term. It's even more insidious than that; when Bloomberg was on his way out, he "persuaded" the City Council to restore term limits so that nobody succeeding him could be elected to a third term.

I would not be surprised if a President Bloomberg sought to repeal the 22nd Amendment. He is that arrogant, that convinced of his moral superiority to everyone else.

Bloomberg also shares Trump's disregard for the rule of law. Bloomberg persisted with his unconstitutional program of stopping and frisking all men with brown or black skin. When a Federal judge ruled that Bloomberg's pet police state project was indeed unconstitutional, Bloomberg lambasted the judge and cried that blood would run in the streets and that the City's murder rate would skyrocket. (Neither happened.)

Both Bloomberg and Trump regard the legislative and judicial branches of government as appendages whose only function is to rubber-stamp what they want.

Bloomberg shares Trump's hatred of Muslims. He backed religious profiling and monitoring people because of their faith. When this came to light, he lied about it.

Trump is calling for near-summary execution of drug dealers. I have little doubt that Bloomberg would think that is a good idea.

If you vote for Trump because he backs gun rights or for Bloomberg because he'd likely confiscate guns, then you are backing an authoritarian thug because it might benefit you.

Trump and Bloomberg are cut from the same cloth. They are both racist, sexist oligarchs who believe that their money gives them a right to dictate to the nation. Their policies differ, their IQs differ, but make no mistake about it: Bloomberg is Trump.

Here's an argument that Bloomberg is a Republican plutocrat.


B said...

And Bloomberg is attempting to buy his way into the Presidency as well. And even worse, he wants to buy his way to Social Change no matter what the rest of the rubes want.

"Mike Will Get It Done".

Dark Avenger said...

He wanted one of his pregnant employees to “kill it”, which tells you more about his character than a thousand “can’t skip” ads on YouTube.

Pigpen51 said...

I don't like President Trump,but I like some of his policy issues. Not all,of course, nobody can ever have every policy the same as what I would like. But his major ones are pretty close.
The only few policies that I know about Bloomberg, I cannot say that I either like or dislike him as a person. I know what some people say, but I simply don't have enough information yet. But his policies are definitely awful. Looking at the stop and frisk practice, to his antagonistic attitude towards any religion, is completely unacceptable.
For the office of the President, I have changed and now only vote on who is the strongest supporter of firearm rights. And that has to come not from some artificial number from the NRA, who has disappointed me all the time,but from my own fact checking.
We can pretty much say what Bloomberg's platform as it relates to gun rights is. Donald Trump, to me,is much harder. He says he will protect your gun rights, and then supports the bump stock ban,which calls a bump stock a machine gun. He supports the background check bill, which is a thinly veiled attempt to both get all of your guns registered, and make it so that you cannot even give your guns to your kids when you get old,or when you die. Because I don't have any way of running a background check on anyone, and I doubt that FFL dealers will do it without me paying them 25-50$ per gun.
At one time,shortly around the time that Hillary and Donald were having their debates, I first became aware of Tulsi Gabbard. I was impressed by both her background,that of a military person, and her intellect. And another thing that impressed me was her grit or her unwillingness to let her male colleagues to walk all over her. She stood up and made people listen to her opinion, just as much as the males in the committee did.
The only problem with her is that she is just too far left. I am not a republican, but I am not a democrat either. I consider myself a constitutionalist. I lean right, but not as far as some of the nuts who don't even believe that the government plays a role in helping the poor. I think that promoting the general welfare of the people means that the federal government must at a minimum ensure that every person has enough food to sustain them. Perhaps not everyone will get to dine in luxury, but with the amount of food that we export every year,there is no reason that our own people should be food insecure.


bearsense said...

“Mike will get it done,” is surprisingly similar to “Only I can fix it.”

DTWND said...

I applaud you doing your own research on the candidates and then deciding for yourself which one is best. However, I hope you also consider the character of the person more than the stance they take on issues that concern you.

As an example, during the election cycle of 1980, there was a group of government employees that was working with 1950’s equipment, heavy-handed supervisors, and draconian conditions. The leadership of this group sent out a questionnaire to all the candidates for President and recommended the one that gave the most favorable answers to the issues that concerned the group. One of the issues that the group was concerned about (to which the favored candidate responded positively) was the right for these workers to go on strike to improve working conditions; not unlike the Postal Union. The candidate, Mr Reagan, promised the leadership of The Professional Air Traffic Controller Organization (PATCO) that he would support their rights to conduct job actions and strikes to bring about change. Well, we all know how that turned out.

To me, the character of a person, their integrity, and their actions speak more to me than what they say they’ll do once elected. As has been shown by elected representatives since I began to vote, they’ll “stand for _________” if they get elected, then conveniently switch their position depending on which side has more money/influence.

26 year Air Traffic Controller (ret.)
ZHU, D21

dinthebeast said...

Best case scenario, he spends two billion dollars to defeat Fergus and loses the primary. Worst case scenario he discombobulates the primary so badly that a badly wounded Sanders gets nominated and loses to Fergus. Various other lesser catastrophes (and a few favorable situations) also are possible.

Perhaps if we do manage to win the election this time we could make campaign finance reform a top priority.

-Doug in Oakland

Ten Bears said...

Should note in the Possum Hollar Dixie Gulch yippie-dippy (yuppie-duppy?) first-in-the-nation midnight vote last night 'Mike' beat out drumpf uck as a write-in to the Retard (look it up
) primary.

Comrade Misfit said...

Doug, I don't believe that Bloomberg will spend a dime to defeat Trump if Mikey doesn't get the nomination.

Borepatch said...

Well, he likes gun control more. Of course, there's been more gun control under Trump than there was under Obama.

But the interesting play is that Bloomberg isn't going for the Oval Office, he's trying to use his money and organization to get Democratic control of Congress. If enough pols owe their seats to him he may have as much (or more) power than he would as POTUS. And a billion dollars spread across 10 Senate and 100 House races could maybe swing a lot of districts.

What he'd do with that power is a mystery, at least to me. But Bloomberg seems much more covert than Trump will ever be.

Donas said...

Dale: Where can I read about this questionnaire where Reagan supported PATCO's right to strike? I know a bit about this and I'm curious.

LRod said...

Dale (DTWND)

I remember it well. I was one in '81. Won my case (as did about 40 folks at ZAU), was fully restored.

ZJX, ORD, ZAU 30 years retired

Pigpen51 said...

I was born in 1960, so that tells you how old I was in 81. And I remember well Reagan breaking the ATC union. My dad and one older brother were both UAW workers. And they were not impressed. Of course, Reagan had a tv persona that would defeat just about anyone on the Democrat side, probably even JFK, had he been alive during that time.
While Reagan gets many of the Republicans to have wet dreams just thinking about him, and what great miracles he wrought, if you look at some of the actual things he did,you have to weigh carefully if what he did that was harmful with the things he did that were good.
Let's say that it was due in large part to his doing that the USSR was dissolved. If we look at the financial cost of it, and then consider if it was worth the huge increase in our national debt, when looking back, the USSR was likely to dissolve of it's own accord within a number of years anyway, the question becomes sort of murky.
The Iran/Contra affair was not shown to have been known about by Reagan but if not, then he was either extremely naive, or extremely far into what we now know was Alzheimer's disease.
I was involved in a union drive in the factory that I worked at for over 37 years. We tried to get the UAW in, and we had as an advisor, the son of Owen Bieber. He told us exactly what the company would do, and it was exactly right. The company came in and gave us big raises, telling us that they didn't know how bad things were, and made a bunch of promises. Then after a bunch of the guys took their 2-3$ an hour raises, and said that they were happy, and voted the union down, the company slowly but surely got their money back, by stopping all raises that we had traditionally got every 6 months, and by continually raising the cost of our premium that we had to pay for health insurance, which until then, we had paid nothing. So the company got it back, and then some. Plus, they installed around 100 cameras throughout the plant, to watch over the shop workers, to make sure that they never stood around, but that they kept working. Sadly, I see unions having little power, and few of them getting any more places to join. Perhaps in a generation, when the workers get tired of being screwed, they will organize again. Remember that the increased production that companies are all hopped up about, comes at the expense of pushing the workers,sometimes to the breaking point.


Tod Germanica said...

Another plutocrat, this one using his own money to buy an election, though big a 'war chest' didn't work for the deeply unlikable Ms Clinton.
Cheetolinni didn't need to spend his own money because Putin's hackers used Facebook so skillfully to divide us. And still are doing it for the next election.
If, like last time, 48% of American voters are just fine with enemy foreign powers rigging elections as the treasonous GOP is, then it's four more years.
It sure is nice down here in Todos Santos, BCS, Mexico. The weather is nice and so are the tacos and beer.

DTWND said...

Since I’ve been retired for a while now, I don’t have a lot of reference material from my days working days. Other than my FEGLI insurance and OPM information that is. The way you have referenced your question, it would appear as Reagan endorsed the PATCO strike. That he did not, as we have seen. IIRC, the questionnaire asked, and I’m paraphrasing now, would you agree that government workers can take actions that would improve the conditions in the workplace? Again, I have to repeat, I cannot reference nor recall exactly the verbiage used in the questions submitted to the candidates 40 years ago. But I do recall in this tiny brain of mine that PATCO endorsed Reagan for president based upon his responses to the questions put to him.

The pendulum swings back and forth. I would hope soon that the working class would regain some leverage to improve their situations. The middle class is not as prosperous as we knew it in the 50’s and 60’s. All the corporate/business tax cuts over the years have kept the the working class fairly stagnant in its ability to prosper.

I recall the screening for those considering transferring to O’Hare during the severe staffing shortage during the early 80’s. I didn’t think anyone got out of there alive.


Pigpen51 said...


I remember talking with my dad about the same thing, that eventually unions would come back once the corporations became too harsh towards workers. Yet, I have not seen it happening. And the people who work where I used to work, have told me it just keeps getting worse and worse. It is now owned by Berkshire Hathaway, and they apparently are just as unconcerned with the workers as the last owners.


Donas said...


I merely referenced the question to your comment that, in response to the the questionnaire, Reagan supported the controllers right to strike. Perhaps my research skills are lacking but I can't find anything that shows that he did.

dinthebeast said...

Firing 11,000 of them would indeed be a strange way of showing support. That act was the beginning of the end for unions in the US, and a major salvo in the hollowing out of the middle class.

-Doug in Oakland