DNC modifies debate requirements for Bloomberg

[toastedbread]

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...equirements-opening-door-for-bloomberg-110017

Can't make this up. This is the defintion of rigged. Changing the rules in the middle of the game. Sickening. This is wrong.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

This is a dumb complaint. Say what you will about Bloomberg - he's not my guy, for sure - but he's being excluded specifically because he's the only guy not accepting money from anyone.

For the party that complains about Citizens United, that seems like a good reason to tweak the rules.

 

[IUgradman]

This will help Bernie and Warren. Bloomberg will actually have to answer non-softball questions and have his record challenged by the other candidates.

 

[toastedbread]

This is a dumb complaint. Say what you will about Bloomberg - he's not my guy, for sure - but he's being excluded specifically because he's the only guy not accepting money from anyone.

For the party that complains about Citizens United, that seems like a good reason to tweak the rules.

That's because he's a billionaire who is using his billions to buy his seat. His inclusion is solely due to his wealth. His rise in the polls mirrors the millions he spends on TV. They have amended the rules wrt percentages in certain states to accommodate his candidacy. He was able to bypass the onerous requirements that other candidates had to endure. People rightly have an issue with the rules of the road being modified mid game.

 

[toastedbread]

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/michael-bloomberg-fec-spending-spree-110144

This is what's going on. And the party has bent over. My gosh. If he manages to steal the nomination, the entire party should be left to rot. This is everything wrong with politics.

 

[Standard Issue]

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/31/michael-bloomberg-fec-spending-spree-110144

This is what's going on. And the party has bent over. My gosh. If he manages to steal the nomination, the entire party should be left to rot. This is everything wrong with politics.

Steal it?
You mean somehow he'll end being the nominee without people voting for him?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

That's because he's a billionaire who is using his billions to buy his seat. His inclusion is solely due to his wealth. His rise in the polls mirrors the millions he spends on TV. They have amended the rules wrt percentages in certain states to accommodate his candidacy. He was able to bypass the onerous requirements that other candidates had to endure. People rightly have an issue with the rules of the road being modified mid game.

LOL

 

[zeke4ahs]

Agree with IUgradman. He’s gaining some traction just from his ads. He absolutely should have to be in debates and answer questions, just like everyone else. I imagine BErnie and Warren will attack him for buying his way in, which is certainly a fair argument.

 

[toastedbread]

Agree with IUgradman. He’s gaining some traction just from his ads. He absolutely should have to be in debates and answer questions, just like everyone else. I imagine BErnie and Warren will attack him for buying his way in, which is certainly a fair argument.

Something rather interesting is that Biden was actually one of the lowest ad spenders. We keep hearing on this board how he is the moneyed candidate. That's a bunch of hooey. Further, I'd argue his low spends coupled with consistent support signals committed voters. If this contest was starting with diverse races, biden would run away with it.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Something rather interesting is that Biden was actually one of the lowest ad spenders. We keep hearing on this board how he is the moneyed candidate. That's a bunch of hooey. Further, I'd argue his low spends coupled with consistent support signals committed voters. If this contest was starting with diverse races, biden would run away with it.

He doesn’t have much money to spend, as he’s consistently been on the low end of fundraising. Which is interesting since some claim he’s the Wall Street, moneyed interest pawn.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

That's because he's a billionaire who is using his billions to buy his seat. His inclusion is solely due to his wealth. His rise in the polls mirrors the millions he spends on TV. They have amended the rules wrt percentages in certain states to accommodate his candidacy. He was able to bypass the onerous requirements that other candidates had to endure. People rightly have an issue with the rules of the road being modified mid game.

Lol. Yeah why would the Democratic Party want a self made man who knows economics like the back of his hand to go against a dipshit guy who made his money from daddy and endless rubes?

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Lol. Yeah why would the Democratic Party want a self made man who knows economics like the back of his hand to go against a dipshit guy who made his money from daddy and endless rubes?

they don’t because it’s become a party that despises success

 

[Marvin the Martian]

they don’t because it’s become a party that despises success

We need to define success, for too many of us success = wealth and there are no other measures.

 

[Digressions]

they don’t because it’s become a party that despises success

As Aloha would say, you have a very cartoonish view of Democrats. Remind me, which party turned "elite" into a derogatory adjective?

Twenty called progressives dubious. You Reaganomics guys have ran the country so well, you don't have a party anymore. Maybe that's what Trump meant by MAGA? He was going to relegate your favorite talking heads to MSNBC, to bash Trumpism. But don't fret, you guys still have your tax cuts, deficits, and 2% growth.

Note: This was written TIC, with a zinger mentality, and a SEG.

 

[toastedbread]

Lol. Yeah why would the Democratic Party want a self made man who knows economics like the back of his hand to go against a dipshit guy who made his money from daddy and endless rubes?

Wrong. I don't begrudge him or his wealth. I take issie with the fact that he is using his wealth to box other candidates. Steyer is a billionaire, but Steyer has been competing under the same rules as everyone else. I'm suprised that someone of your character would not take issue with the rules being changed midgame?

 

[toastedbread]

We need to define success, for too many of us success = wealth and there are no other measures.

When you are 10 feet underground, does money buy you a better afterlife? Asking for those who believe in an afterlife.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Wrong. I don't begrudge him or his wealth. I take issie with the fact that he is using his wealth to box other candidates. Steyer is a billionaire, but Steyer has been competing under the same rules as everyone else. I'm suprised that someone of your character would not take issue with the rules being changed midgame?

These are artificial rules set up by a failing party. My character has no interest in failing party procedural politics.

 

[UncleMark]

We need to define success, for too many of us success = wealth and there are no other measures.

It's also relative. For me it would be a doublewide and a self propelled lawn mower.

 

[meridian]

He doesn’t have much money to spend, as he’s consistently been on the low end of fundraising. Which is interesting since some claim he’s the Wall Street, moneyed interest pawn.

Are you saying that all the money his son gouged from Ukraine is not enough to buy ads? If that is the case he is not even half the politician that Trump is, who could even capitalize screwing a porn star! And he gets overwhelming support from the Christians too!

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

We need to define success, for too many of us success = wealth and there are no other measures.

What measures would you like to throw into the mix?

 

[UncleMark]

What measures would you like to throw into the mix?

That's the question, isn't it. Is someone with a big McMansion in Hyde Park mortgaged to the hilt more successful than someone with a modest paid for slab home in Highland Village? Is someone with a high income and big monthly nut more successful than someone with a modest income who lives below that?

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

That's the question, isn't it. Is someone with a big McMansion in Hyde Park mortgaged to the hilt more successful than someone with a modest paid for slab home in Highland Village? Is someone with a high income and big monthly nut more successful than someone with a modest income who lives below that?

Net value of the primary residence is almost always excluded in determining net worth.

https://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/secg/accredited-investor-net-worth-standard-secg.htm

 

[UncleMark]

Net value of the primary residence is almost always excluded in determining net worth.

https://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/secg/accredited-investor-net-worth-standard-secg.htm

Yeah, but the question is about success. Not net worth. Unless you equate the two.

 

[Lucy01]

I wonder how many here would vote for Bernie if he won the nomination?

 

[Cream&Crimson]

I wonder how many here would vote for Bernie if he won the nomination?

I would, and will, vote for damn near anyone if they win the nomination, over that incompetent blathering fool you guys elected.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Yeah, but the question is about success. Not net worth. Unless you equate the two.

That's why I'm suggesting it's a better, objective measure than you are giving it credit for. I don't disagree that there are plenty of other factors that should be included and potentially more heavily-weighted. I'm just pointing out that someone with a massive primary residence isn't necessarily someone with a high net worth.

Nobody has provided any alternatives yet and there are plenty of other qualitative and quantitative successes that Bloomberg achieved (number of people employed, etc.)

 

[UncleMark]

they don’t because it’s become a party that despises success

We need to define success, for too many of us success = wealth and there are no other measures.

To JDB: When you said the Dems were the party that despises success, what measure of success were you referring to?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

What measures would you like to throw into the mix?

I am not sure, one can make a ton of money and be a total scoundrel. Like a mafia don or a trump don. One can make very little and be an outstanding human being that gives to the needy and cares greatly for their family. Yet in any profit only ranking, the mafia don or trump don appears more "successful".