Bloomberg and what he brings to the mix$

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Here's Markk's tl;dr hot take on the Democrat primary:



- Doc

[_Markk]

Xenophon,

When she was senator, and earmarked the funds to and for the rail systems, her second largest campaign contributor was her old firm...who got a contract to write a billion dollars of RFPs. My guess is probably at around 1-3%, based on my experience with helping to create larger RFP's from a nuts and bolts perspective, and writing small ones myself, do the math. It's can be a lot of work, but very profit heavy, with little burden and overhead.

I understand this is pretty much SOP for these folks, but this is a example of how these folks are, they preach one thing and live and work another way...conservative. She like Bernie, Warren, and all the others, except for maybe Pete (yet), are millionaires, that got to where they are by both "dirty" underground politics, the capitalism system of free enterprise, and govement paychecks, and not a goverment regulated and controlled system they preach they will install...to where they are today. They would never be in the positions they are in, if it was not for their underground politics, gaining power and money to work up the system for the big payoff...which is the book and speaking tour (see the Clinton's as an example, or Carl Rove, Gore, Newt, and others).

X wrote...As to the rest of your post I'll maybe get to it but the bungled quotes makes it really hard to follow, if you go back and clean those up I'll try to respond to your points.

It's pretty basic from my last post to you...I had a few typos I cleaned up

"Well, you can certainly show me otherwise, if you show me a honest one, I will show you either a one term-er or a ineffective no name.

As far as authoritarianism...that is what the left wants, I can't believe you said that...if we voted these folks out every 4 to 6 years...period, then we would {not} have these millionaire "honest politicians" running our country."

I'll frame a question this way...who in your mind is the "benchmark" and "standard" for the honest and upright politician in power today? Give it your best shot...

I googled it for the fun of it, and this was a hit...I understand it is not a written in stone conclusion, but it is interesting how folks think, and congress honesty rating is just one step above a car salesman. Which in my experience with dealing with both buying cars and trucks and dealing with local politicians and agencies, and what I see going on in our country ...I would switch the two around in a heartbeat.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/159035/con ... ating.aspx

[_MeDotOrg]

Bloomberg is another New York billionaire, and I am sick of the idea that only businessmen can run the government. Ross Perot spent a lot of his money to get elected, but he did so as an independent. I don't like the idea of someone with money being able to swoop in and bypass the work of building a ground crew that believes in you and not your money.

But if I have to sell my soul, I will. I will work for Mike Bloomberg if he someone gets the nomination. We can hope that Bloomberg will be somewhat better than Trump. He cannot be any worse.

[_Xenophon]

Markk, you made some very specific claims about Klobuchar and her hand in dishing out monies to her friends in what was implied to be at least a bit shady and have done nothing to corroborate that other than trying to point to a single very tenuous connection and saying "See, see!". I had literally zero expectation that you would back that up and somehow I was still disappointed. You've done nothing to show that she personally interfered to get her old firm the gig, that there were more qualified groups to do the work that got passed up, that her old firm didn't deliver on the expected work, or any number of things that would make the earmark appear anything other than standard procurement and distribution of government dollars. Sure we can argue that earmarks suck and that the super rich game the system for more which also sucks but that doesn't really have much to do with the Senator specifically.

It's pretty basic from my last post to you...I had a few typos I cleaned up

I was more referring to you quoting me and then replying to my post within the quotes without any indication of where my thoughts ended and yours began. Thanks for correcting the typos though... I guess.

As to the other topic I haven't seen enough good faith effort from you (on this thread or elsewhere) to merit investing time in exploring the ideas of honesty in politics with you. Another time perhaps, I give you the last word.

[_Xenophon]

In fairness, Tom Steyer is out there not being Bloomberg. Some of his viability is because he's campaigning as a firebrand against Trump when other Democrats are not and Democrats want, above all else, someone to take on Trump.

Warren is really the only other candidate campaigning directly against Trump's corruption, but she is hurt by being perceived as a weaker general election candidate.

Point taken, I'm still unsure how much of his support stems from the anti-Trump postering and how much comes from the obscene amount of money he is throwing at the issue. My personal experience tends to have me leaning towards the latter but that is nothing but anecdotal.

Kinda sucks to watch Elizabeth Warren straight murder people and realize that what Bernie Bros imagine happens to Sanders actually happened to her.

Ain't that the truth.

What he brought tonight was a wallet to a knife fight.

[_Markk]

Markk, you made some very specific claims about Klobuchar and her hand in dishing out monies to her friends in what was implied to be at least a bit shady and have done nothing to corroborate that other than trying to point to a single very tenuous connection and saying "See, see!". I had literally zero expectation that you would back that up and somehow I was still disappointed. You've done nothing to show that she personally interfered to get her old firm the gig, that there were more qualified groups to do the work that got passed up, that her old firm didn't deliver on the expected work, or any number of things that would make the earmark appear anything other than standard procurement and distribution of government dollars. Sure we can argue that earmarks suck and that the super rich game the system for more which also sucks but that doesn't really have much to do with the Senator specifically.



As to the other topic I haven't seen enough good faith effort from you (on this thread or elsewhere) to merit investing time in exploring the ideas of honesty in politics with you. Another time perhaps, I give you the last word.

LOL..Okay, I am sorry I did not earn a response from you.

In regards to Amy, she was dished money from her friends...in her rise to power, it is public record, and the earmark money that she sponsored, went to these people that supported her campaign via contracts. That to is public record. Republicans do the same things. To me it is dirty, wrong, and unfortanuntly the way it is.

How do you think life long politicians like a Biden or Sanders become millionaires, really?

If you really want to dig in a little...google Eric Garcetti and "behest"....it is crazy, I have no idea how many cities have similar "rules"...but I think if we only knew what really happens in Washington and these majors cities it would be far worse than we can even imagine.

here is a link...I noticed that Harris also gets behest payments https://www.scpr.org/news/2017/08/23/74 ... -payments/

[_MissTish]

How do you think life long politicians like a Biden or Sanders become millionaires?

Sanders did it through book sales and royalties. It's all in his tax returns. He's still one of the least wealthy senators.

[Guest]

How do you think life long politicians like a Biden or Sanders become millionaires?

Sanders did it through book sales and royalties. It's all in his tax returns. He's still one of the least wealthy senators.

Markkk is such a simpleton that he can't imagine these people earning their money in normal, non criminal ways. "they are all dirty!!!!" - because, of course, his cheeto crush is dirty therefore all politicians are dirty in his tiny little brain.

Even biden wasn't all that well off until after becoming vp:

"When Biden ended his term as vice president in January 2017, he filed another financial disclosure form, listing assets and liabilities worth somewhere between negative $897,000 and positive $489,000. But over the next 23 months, the Bidens earned more than $15 million, according to tax filings. Joe Biden got $1.8 million from book tour events and $2.4 million in speaking fees, according to his most recent financial disclosure. He also earned $775,000 from the University of Pennsylvania to lead the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement as the Benjamin Franklin presidential professor of practice. Jill added $700,000 in speaking fees. "

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2019/08/28/joe-bidens-net-worth-how-the-2020-presidential-candidate-built-a-9-million-fortune/#670045dc104d

Like I have said before, if markkk believes it, that is all that matters to him. Evidence, logic, facts, critical thinking are not really part of his brain genius arsenal.

[_Markk]

Sanders did it through book sales and royalties. It's all in his tax returns. He's still one of the least wealthy senators.

Through capitalism, and spending campaign money buying his own books? What about "ad buying" do a search on that, it is a good one.

[_Some Schmo]

Bloomberg is pretty much Trump with an IQ bump.

This so undersells what a douche bag and a fake Trump is.

I usually like your quips, Steuss, but usually they're more accurate.