What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Bloomberg 2020 (1 Viewer)

I'd really underestimated the extent to which Bloomberg could just straightup buy the election.  Someone brought up the conflict of interest of Bloomberg saturating the airwaves with money far beyond that of any other candidate.  Usually it's offset by equivalent spending by other candidates but if Bloomberg is bankrolling a significant % of all television advertising, how can television outlets that take his cash possibly cover him honestly?  When it gets to $1B, $2B we'll have one candidate underwriting the whole TV news industry.  

Bloomberg needs to be opposed full stop.  He bought his way into the DNC primaries with $350K in donations before entering the race, he's buying his way into the 2020 election, and the Democratic leadership is ok with it.  It's the end of popular democracy as we know it.  

 
I'm a deficit hawk Bernie Bros, go ahead and tell me how Bernie helps that. Wild sarcasm in case it isn't coming through clear enough. As awful as Trump is for the few remaining hawks like me, Bernie is prob 10x worse.

To be direct, if I want a Bernie lecture, there are plenty of places for me to receive it, this thread just isn't the location for it, imo. 

I see the Bloomberg fear mongering is on the rise basically everywhere, so I am of the opinion that those in the Bernie camp are scared of him (just like Trump and his Bloomberg mongering too). 

ETA: Just to note, I know Mike isn't running a campaign on deficit spending, but I am highly inclined to believe he is the best guy to try and get our financial house in somewhat of an order. While it might be a little painful for me, it will benefit my children... I take the lengthy look out into the future, fwiw. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
fantasycurse42 said:
I'm a deficit hawk Bernie Bros, go ahead and tell me how Bernie helps that. Wild sarcasm in case it isn't coming through clear enough. As awful as Trump is for the few remaining hawks like me, Bernie is prob 10x worse.

To be direct, if I want a Bernie lecture, there are plenty of places for me to receive it, this thread just isn't the location for it, imo. 

I see the Bloomberg fear mongering is on the rise basically everywhere, so I am of the opinion that those in the Bernie camp are scared of him (just like Trump and his Bloomberg mongering too). 
Click to expand...
Tell me how ANY of the options help that :shrug:

You are a man without a home at the moment, as am I.  The best you can hope for is the money they are going to spend go towards things you want them to go towards.  That's the reality of today.

 
ren hoek said:
I'd really underestimated the extent to which Bloomberg could just straightup buy the election.  Someone brought up the conflict of interest of Bloomberg saturating the airwaves with money far beyond that of any other candidate.  Usually it's offset by equivalent spending by other candidates but if Bloomberg is bankrolling a significant % of all television advertising, how can television outlets that take his cash possibly cover him honestly?  When it gets to $1B, $2B we'll have one candidate underwriting the whole TV news industry.  

Bloomberg needs to be opposed full stop.  He bought his way into the DNC primaries with $350K in donations before entering the race, he's buying his way into the 2020 election, and the Democratic leadership is ok with it.  It's the end of popular democracy as we know it.  
Click to expand...
Bloomberg is a symptom of a problem created by the "companies are people too" crowd.  Of course those opposing that crowd aren't as vocal as they'd be if it were a GOPer doing it...hypocrisy and all that.

 
jm192 said:
One has a net worth of 1.6 Billion

One has a net worth of 60 billion. 
Click to expand...
Steyer has spent a lot more than Klobuchar but hasn’t gotten support in the polls or voting booths. It seems to me that attracting support takes something more than just buying it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
Tell me how ANY of the options help that :shrug:

You are a man without a home at the moment, as am I.  The best you can hope for is the money they are going to spend go towards things you want them to go towards.  That's the reality of today.
Click to expand...
I edited my post as you wrote this. While I agree somewhat with your assessment, I believe Mike will do the best job in straightening out the mess we've put ourself in. Our fiscal path is unsustainable, one day the chickens will come home to roost. As a population, we're too stupid to understand the financial damage we're doing to ourselves, and by the time someone addresses it (out of need and completely reactionary), it will be too late and the permanent damage will already be done.

 
ren hoek said:
I'd really underestimated the extent to which Bloomberg could just straightup buy the election.  Someone brought up the conflict of interest of Bloomberg saturating the airwaves with money far beyond that of any other candidate.  Usually it's offset by equivalent spending by other candidates but if Bloomberg is bankrolling a significant % of all television advertising, how can television outlets that take his cash possibly cover him honestly?  When it gets to $1B, $2B we'll have one candidate underwriting the whole TV news industry.  

Bloomberg needs to be opposed full stop.  He bought his way into the DNC primaries with $350K in donations before entering the race, he's buying his way into the 2020 election, and the Democratic leadership is ok with it.  It's the end of popular democracy as we know it.  
Click to expand...
Meh. Better than Trump. 

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Steyer has spent a lot more than Klobuchar but hasn’t gotten support in the polls. It seems to me that attracting support takes something more than just buying it.
Click to expand...
Maybe.  I'll gladly agree that Bloomberg has political office experience that Steyer doesn't.  Steyer just gets up on stage and rants about "We need to beat Trump on the Economy," which seems like a terrible strategy. 

I really like Klobuchar because she seems like one of the most genuine candidates and I can get behind a lot of what she stands for.  I don't even know what Steyer's policies would be...just that he's good at money and can beat Trump on the economy.

I'm not convinced Steyer ever truly thought he would/could win this.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Steyer has spent a lot more than Klobuchar but hasn’t gotten support in the polls or voting booths. It seems to me that attracting support takes something more than just buying it.
Click to expand...
Bloomberg has been paying off a lot more people for a whole lot longer, with a whole lot more money.  Zeff's thread above explains it very well, here is the link again.  He's paid off the politicians, he's paid off the networks, he's paid off the Parties, he's paid off the 'community NGOs' with his 'philanthropy.'  He's bought everything.  Hard to imagine someone more financially invested in a system that is now paying the piper more than Mike Bloomberg. 

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Steyer has spent a lot more than Klobuchar but hasn’t gotten support in the polls or voting booths. It seems to me that attracting support takes something more than just buying it.
Click to expand...
Steyer had low name recognition and had never held political office, yet he did well enough in polling to make debate stages that candidates like Cory Booker and Julian Castro did not.  I think you're vastly underestimating the amount that Steyer's wealth has helped him here.  We'll see what happens in the next couple weeks, but I believe at one point Steyer was polling in second or third in South Carolina and not terrible in Nevada.  His national numbers aren't high because he hasn't devoted resources to national advertising like Bloomberg has.

 
fantasycurse42 said:
I edited my post as you wrote this. While I agree somewhat with your assessment, I believe Mike will do the best job in straightening out the mess we've put ourself in. Our fiscal path is unsustainable, one day the chickens will come home to roost. As a population, we're too stupid to understand the financial damage we're doing to ourselves, and by the time someone addresses it (out of need and completely reactionary), it will be too late and the permanent damage will already be done.
Click to expand...
Was out on his page earlier today....I don't see an initiative for addressing the deficits or our debt.  I tend to agree with your assessment of current state of the nation.  I just don't share the optimism that he'll do anything about it...even less certain when there isn't a line item specific to this out of the couple dozen he does address.

 
The Commish said:
Was out on his page earlier today....I don't see an initiative for addressing the deficits or our debt.  I tend to agree with your assessment of current state of the nation.  I just don't share the optimism that he'll do anything about it...even less certain when there isn't a line item specific to this out of the couple dozen he does address.
Click to expand...
My gut says he doesn't address it for two reasons:

1) He knows nobody cares.

2) It is prob toxic to run any platform about how out of hand our deficit spending is getting.

With that being said, I think he is the smartest of the candidates, by far the most business savvy, and will address the issue. I feel his track record of handling the NYC budget during some very difficult times speaks to it. It's an opinion I have formed and it will be basically impossible to talk me off of it. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Do “Bloomberg is simply buying the election” people have a good theory for why Tom Steyer is polling nationally at approximately zero percent?
Click to expand...
Aside from other factors mentioned, Bloomberg served three terms as mayor of the country's largest city. In terms of population, that's roughly comparable to being governor or MI, NJ, VA or WA. I think he just passes an unspoken "plausibility test" that most people have for potential presidents that a relatively unknown billionaire like Steyer doesn't. Not to mention, he did a pretty good job as mayor!

Anyway, I'm not a Bloomberg hater, but I do find it worrying that he's spending so much. It's not a binary thing where his wealth is the only thing he has going for him, but if he wasn't worth $60B it's pretty implausible that he'd be in the position he's in today.

 
zftcg said:
Aside from other factors mentioned, Bloomberg served three terms as mayor of the country's largest city. In terms of population, that's roughly comparable to being governor or MI, NJ, VA or WA. I think he just passes an unspoken "plausibility test" that most people have for potential presidents that a relatively unknown billionaire like Steyer doesn't. Not to mention, he did a pretty good job as mayor!

Anyway, I'm not a Bloomberg hater, but I do find it worrying that he's spending so much. It's not a binary thing where his wealth is the only thing he has going for him, but if he wasn't worth $60B it's pretty implausible that he'd be in the position he's in today.
Click to expand...
He has a special interest of one. If he didn't have $60B and ran for president he'd be railed for getting money from somewhere; wine cave fundraisers, Saudi princes, Russian Oligarchs, Oil and gas CEOs, NRA, Big Pharma, book deals, speaking engagements, Google, unions, PACs, etc.

 
fantasycurse42 said:
My gut says he doesn't address it for two reasons:

1) He knows nobody cares.

2) It is prob toxic to run any platform about how out of hand our deficit spending is getting.

With that being said, I think he is the smartest of the candidates, by far the most business savvy, and will address the issue. I feel his track record of handling the NYC budget during some very difficult times speaks to it. It's an opinion I have formed and it will be basically impossible to talk me off of it. 
Click to expand...
I'm not interested in talking you off of it.  I'm just trying to understand how you come to it.  If it's just a hope, then cool.  I don't see how the dynamics of a mayor have anything to do with the way the budget works at a federal level.  HE doesn't control that portion of the government's function....Congress does.  That's why I was trying to understand what you were saying.

 
ericttspikes said:
He has a special interest of one. If he didn't have $60B and ran for president he'd be railed for getting money from somewhere; wine cave fundraisers, Saudi princes, Russian Oligarchs, Oil and gas CEOs, NRA, Big Pharma, book deals, speaking engagements, Google, unions, PACs, etc.
Click to expand...
No doubt. The problem of billionaires buying elections and the problem of non-billionaire candidates spending all their time begging for money and selling access stem from the same underlying issue: too much damn money in our political system. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I don't think that either one is the solution to the other. (The public, by the way, disagrees with me. The whole "rich guy who can't be bought" trope has proven surprisingly effective for Trump, Bloomberg, and lots of other rich guys. I think it's mostly bunk.)

 
If Bloomberg wasn’t wealthy he never would have been mayor of New York.  He never would have started Everytown for Gun Safety.  Every credential Bloomberg has that arguably qualifies him to be the nominee is due to money. I’m not sure it’s possible to discuss Bloomberg’s chances without his wealth.  Bloomberg’s wealth is by far his most defining feature.

 
ericttspikes said:
He has a special interest of one. If he didn't have $60B and ran for president he'd be railed for getting money from somewhere; wine cave fundraisers, Saudi princes, Russian Oligarchs, Oil and gas CEOs, NRA, Big Pharma, book deals, speaking engagements, Google, unions, PACs, etc.
Click to expand...
This is true, but the harm of allowing Billionaires to self-fund is that it forces other candidates into having to go into wine caves and take PAC money Ion order to compete. Maybe Bernie will prove that irrelevant. 

 
zftcg said:
No doubt. The problem of billionaires buying elections and the problem of non-billionaire candidates spending all their time begging for money and selling access stem from the same underlying issue: too much damn money in our political system. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I don't think that either one is the solution to the other. (The public, by the way, disagrees with me. The whole "rich guy who can't be bought" trope has proven surprisingly effective for Trump, Bloomberg, and lots of other rich guys. I think it's mostly bunk.)
Click to expand...
I agree. We are a well on the road to being a corporate Republic. Not sure there is any putting the genie back in the bottle without incurring a lot of collateral damage. 

I will say the demonization of wealthy people in a capitalistic society has never made sense to me. There are bad people and there are good people; rich or poor. Is Bill Gates evil because he has billions? I don't know the guy but how he uses his money speaks volumes on the kind of person he is and aspires to be.

There really was never a mystery about Trump; he is a stingy guy who cheated, stole and ripped off people in his private business and continues to be that same person in his public service. Bloomberg has a track record on how he has used his money and do think it speaks to values he'd bring to his public service as well. Unlike Trump, Bloomberg has donated $8 billion to causes that effect climate change, combating opioids, education, and gun control issues. Bloomberg, Gates and Buffett are guys who have signed the Giving Pledge, vowing to donate at least half of his wealth the charity. Plenty of other rich guys like Trump aren't willing to do that. 

 
zftcg said:
No doubt. The problem of billionaires buying elections and the problem of non-billionaire candidates spending all their time begging for money and selling access stem from the same underlying issue: too much damn money in our political system. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I don't think that either one is the solution to the other. (The public, by the way, disagrees with me. The whole "rich guy who can't be bought" trope has proven surprisingly effective for Trump, Bloomberg, and lots of other rich guys. I think it's mostly bunk.)
Click to expand...
Well Bloomberg was a mayor of a not so small place for a long time... Please provide instances when he was bought to back up your statement. 

 
ericttspikes said:
I agree. We are a well on the road to being a corporate Republic. Not sure there is any putting the genie back in the bottle without incurring a lot of collateral damage. 

I will say the demonization of wealthy people in a capitalistic society has never made sense to me. There are bad people and there are good people; rich or poor. Is Bill Gates evil because he has billions? I don't know the guy but how he uses his money speaks volumes on the kind of person he is and aspires to be.

There really was never a mystery about Trump; he is a stingy guy who cheated, stole and ripped off people in his private business and continues to be that same person in his public service. Bloomberg has a track record on how he has used his money and do think it speaks to values he'd bring to his public service as well. Unlike Trump, Bloomberg has donated $8 billion to causes that effect climate change, combating opioids, education, and gun control issues. Bloomberg, Gates and Buffett are guys who have signed the Giving Pledge, vowing to donate at least half of his wealth the charity. Plenty of other rich guys like Trump aren't willing to do that. 
Click to expand...
No doubt Bloomberg would be way better than Trump and I'll be voting for him if he's the Democratic nominee.  But it isn't "demonizing" wealthy people to note that they have too much power over our system of government.  That's not what I want my country to be like.  I would prefer Warren or Sanders or Buttigieg or Klobuchar to be the nominee.  

 
The Commish said:
I'm not interested in talking you off of it.  I'm just trying to understand how you come to it.  If it's just a hope, then cool.  I don't see how the dynamics of a mayor have anything to do with the way the budget works at a federal level.  HE doesn't control that portion of the government's function....Congress does.  That's why I was trying to understand what you were saying.
Click to expand...
It's a theory, no concrete evidence behind it except for his handling of a running a more efficient NYC during very difficult times. 

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
This is true, but the harm of allowing Billionaires to self-fund is that it forces other candidates into having to go into wine caves and take PAC money Ion order to compete. Maybe Bernie will prove that irrelevant. 
Click to expand...
Seems like a pretty huge leap to assume if a billionaire weren't running all the other guys would just say no thanks to special interest donations and run a campaign with no money.

There have been plenty of campaigns without anyone going up against a billionaire and those guys still always took money.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
If Bloomberg wasn’t wealthy he never would have been mayor of New York.  He never would have started Everytown for Gun Safety.  Every credential Bloomberg has that arguably qualifies him to be the nominee is due to money. I’m not sure it’s possible to discuss Bloomberg’s chances without his wealth.  Bloomberg’s wealth is by far his most defining feature.
Click to expand...
Bloomberg 2020 seems to be like Trump 2016 in that regard: he’s polling well not because he’s buying votes, but because the media love talking about him. But most of the reasons that the media love talking about him are traceable, at least indirectly, to his wealth.

 
FreeBaGeL said:
Seems like a pretty huge leap to assume if a billionaire weren't running all the other guys would just say no thanks to special interest donations and run a campaign with no money.

There have been plenty of campaigns without anyone going up against a billionaire and those guys still always took money.
Click to expand...
Nobody is saying it’s the sole cause.  What I’m saying, and what others have mentioned, is that’s it’s symptomatic of the bigger problem. And it makes it more problematic to regulate all those other potential conflicts of interest. 
 

Pretend we had more powerful campaign finance laws that prevented a lot of PAC and industry money. In that instance, self-financing candidates have an even bigger advantage. 

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
No doubt Bloomberg would be way better than Trump and I'll be voting for him if he's the Democratic nominee.  But it isn't "demonizing" wealthy people to note that they have too much power over our system of government.  That's not what I want my country to be like.  I would prefer Warren or Sanders or Buttigieg or Klobuchar to be the nominee.  
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Based on our current system, none of them can be president without money either. Sanders and Warren are incredibly wealthy people who seem to have their heart in the right place. I will also vote for them if they are the choice. But I have my doubts their vision can hold up to attack leaving us back to square 1; having an amoral, lawless conman running the show.

I think they are smart capable people who will try. Those two candidates in particular do demonize wealthier people than themselves in debates on on the trail, often painting wealth as the root cause of problems instead of pointing to the fact it's really how wealth is amassed and used that matters. They are gobbling up and spending billions too.

Bernie in particular has cultivated an images of mom and pop funding him while he flys coach and rails against the 1%, yet he takes money from Unions, Colleges, Google, Boeing, etc. Nothing wrong with that, but he isn't exactly upfront about it. One can argue being funded by Postal Workers and Colleges is benign, but they aren't paying for the fun of it. The Colleges in particular will have a huge stake, and potential windfall, in a Sanders presidency. Again, I don't see anything wrong with that except that Sanders and his supporters sometimes act like capitalism itself is the problem.

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
Nobody is saying it’s the sole cause.  What I’m saying, and what others have mentioned, is that’s it’s symptomatic of the bigger problem. And it makes it more problematic to regulate all those other potential conflicts of interest. 
 

Pretend we had more powerful campaign finance laws that prevented a lot of PAC and industry money. In that instance, self-financing candidates have an even bigger advantage. 
Click to expand...
If we had those laws, then they would/should probably come lock-step with laws about how much the candidates can spend.

My wife's idea has always been that whatever money comes in should get split between the candidates equally and that's all the money they get to spend on advertising.  Makes sense to me. :shrug:

 
ericttspikes said:
Fair enough. Based on our current system, none of them can be president without money either. Sanders and Warren are incredibly wealthy people who seem to have their heart in the right place. I will also vote for them if they are the choice. But I have my doubts their vision can hold up to attack leaving us back to square 1; having an amoral, lawless conman running the show.

I think they are smart capable people who will try. Those two candidates in particular do demonize wealthier people than themselves in debates on on the trail, often painting wealth as the root cause of problems instead of pointing to the fact it's really how wealth is amassed and used that matters. They are gobbling up and spending billions too.

Bernie in particular has cultivated an images of mom and pop funding him while he flys coach and rails against the 1%, yet he takes money from Unions, Colleges, Google, Boeing, etc. Nothing wrong with that, but he isn't exactly upfront about it. One can argue being funded by Postal Workers and Colleges is benign, but they aren't paying for the fun of it. The Colleges in particular will have a huge stake, and potential windfall, in a Sanders presidency. Again, I don't see anything wrong with that except that Sanders and his supporters sometimes act like capitalism itself is the problem.
Click to expand...
When you say Sanders takes money from Boeing or Google, what exactly do you mean?  Corporations can't make political contributions.

My perception is that Sanders and Warren are demonizing greed.  And that's one of the main things I like about them.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
When you say Sanders takes money from Boeing or Google, what exactly do you mean?  Corporations can't make political contributions.

My perception is that Sanders and Warren are demonizing greed.  And that's one of the main things I like about them.
Click to expand...
Google NETPAC is a way Google employees to make political contributions. They support free and open Internet, cybersecurity issues, employment policies, etc. 

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors?cid=N00000528&cycle=2020

I assume it's something similar from Boeing, but not sure. What is true is that Bernie has received the most donations from Boeing, 2x as much as Trump.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000100&cycle=2020

I'm all about demonizing greed, but IMO, Bernie and Warren in particular blur that distinction. When Warren attacks Bloomberg by saying ""Now some people have figured out it'd be a lot cheaper to spend a few hundred mil just trying to buy the presidency than paying that wealth tax," and sells mugs saying "billionaire tears", I don't know. That just isn't really a fair assessment of Bloomberg in particular when you see his tax policy proposals.

Or when Bernie, who has raised somewhere north of $25B says, "We do not believe that billionaires have the right to buy elections". Come on. Do multi-millionaires who have amassed a $25 billion dollar campaign war chest have the right to buy elections? 

I get that it's better to beat the guy up because he's wealthy, but maybe it would be better to actually compare policies and not pretend to be above it all? They are all playing the game and using real money to do it. Sure, Bloomberg would pay less than what Warren and Sanders are proposing because they aim above their bracket and put the bullseye directly on the uber wealthy (or the "Ultra Millionaire Tax" as Liz calls it), but Bloomberg would pay $1.2 billion more under his tax policy than under the current system and has a broader wealth tax (over $5 million a year) than Warren and Sanders. His policy would still account for $5 trillion in new government revenue over a decade. Seems reasonable.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ericttspikes said:
Google NETPAC is a way Google employees to make political contributions. They support free and open Internet, cybersecurity issues, employment policies, etc. 

https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/contributors?cid=N00000528&cycle=2020

I assume it's from something similar from Boeing, but not sure. What is true is that Bernie has received the most donations from Boeing, 2x as much as Trump.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips.php?id=D000000100&cycle=2020
Click to expand...
Donations from employees of Google and Boeing are very different from donations from the corporation itself.

 
ericttspikes said:
How is it very different? 
Click to expand...
The interests of the corporations and the interests of employees are rarely completely aligned.  Boeing, for example, has taken some actions in the last few years that are very anti-union.  The corporation would not support a pro-labor candidate like Sanders.  But Boeing employees that are unionized or that want to be unionized would support someone like Bernie.  

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
The interests of the corporations and the interests of employees are rarely completely aligned.  Boeing, for example, has taken some actions in the last few years that are very anti-union.  The corporation would not support a pro-labor candidate like Sanders.  But Boeing employees that are unionized or that want to be unionized would support someone like Bernie.  
Click to expand...
Couldn't that individual Boeing employee who digs his policy simply go to Bernies web page and donate up to $2800? I honestly don't know since I've not only never contributed anywhere close to the legal individual donation limit to any candidate ever, but I also don't work for a corporation.

I guess still don't really see the distinction since I believe an individual can only donate up to $5K to each PAC, which doesn't seem like that much more than the individual limit. I always thought PACs were simply end runs around the ban on union and corporate donations. 

 
ericttspikes said:
Couldn't that individual Boeing employee who digs his policy simply go to Bernies web page and donate up to $2800? I honestly don't know since I've not only never contributed anywhere close to the legal individual donation limit to any candidate ever, but I also don't work for a corporation.

I guess still don't really see the distinction since I believe an individual can only donate up to $5K to each PAC, which doesn't seem like that much more than the individual limit. I always thought PACs were simply end runs around the ban on union and corporate donations. 
Click to expand...
Yes, individuals can contribute individually.  Contributors that want influence, however, tend to bundle lots of contributions together to be more noticeable.  If Boeing employees want to send the message that "Boeing employees love Bernie," the best way to do so is through the Boeing PAC.  The PAC is administered not by the corporation, but by a group of employees.  The corporation itself (in theory) should not be influencing where contributions are made.

 
Bloomberg thinks there is much we could learn from countries where drug dealers are executed.  From 2012: U.S. Could Learn From Singapore's Harsh Drug Laws, Bloomberg Says

BROOKLYN — Fresh off a trip to East Asia, Mayor Michael Bloomberg suggested Monday that American lawmakers might have a thing or two to learn from nations like Singapore, where drug dealers can be executed for their crimes.

Bloomberg, who just returned from a trip to Singapore and Vietnam, suggested that rather than legalization of marijuana, another approach might be better in the war on drugs: tougher enforcement.

"In lots of places in the Far East, they have signs up, 'Death to drug dealers,'" he said, at an unrelated press conference.

"Think about the number of people who die from drug use here in this country. And yet we don’t take it seriously enough to dissuade people."

In Singapore, he said, “Executing a handful of people saves thousands and thousands of lives."

Bloomberg stopped short of advocating a similar policy in the U.S., saying the tactics "don't fit our definition of democracy," but the mayor said that American lawmakers might have something to learn from about protecting citizens' well-being.

"I’m not suggesting we go kill ‘em. But when you talk to people overseas, they can’t understand why we allow people to deal in drugs [that] are killing people," he said.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Turkey's per-capita GDP is less than half of the United States.
Click to expand...
Yeah, my office roommate is opposed to single payer because of his experiences with single payer in his native country of Slovakia. I don't think fc is making that mistake here because it would be really dumb to evaluate the list in that manner.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Steyer has spent a lot more than Klobuchar but hasn’t gotten support in the polls or voting booths. It seems to me that attracting support takes something more than just buying it.
Click to expand...
Has Steyer ever held elected office?  Bloomberg and Klo have, this would seem a substantive difference in garnering initial support 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Republican National Committee: "Over 150 Examples Of Democrats Denying Election Results" (10/22/22 11:14 PST)
Replies
15
Views
874
JIslander
J
Joe Bryant
Election Deniers Are Bad, Right?
20 21 22
Replies
1K
Views
29K
knowledge dropper
knowledge dropper
dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top