Five (and more) reasons to not support Blomberg

Jack Stocker:

As the 2020 presidential primaries continue trudging on, Michael Bloomberg has entered the fray. Mr. Bloomberg has long been a participant in American society. His history as a software entrepreneur brought him to the forefront of wealth and fame as the Bloomberg name became synonymous with finance and he became the world’s 12th richest man. In 2002, he became a member of the political discourse, becoming Mayor of New York for the next 11 years. Now he’s come back wanting to be president, but the truth is there’s just too much riding against Mike. Although an excellent businessman, he has little going for him in the way of being the Presidential beacon this country will need… and here’s why.

#1: He has no followers, no fans, no support, his base is as tiny as he is.

Let’s face it, who is Michael Bloomberg representing? The man has poll ratings of only 14.2% (at the time of writing for the pedantry practitioners among you), and with the hype around Buttigieg it’s hardly likely to let up as the younger “moderate” appeals to Bloomberg’s more mainstream Democratic base. He also needs to post up against Bernie Sander’s “revolution”, a very serious threat compared to Bloomberg’s meager following, and even President Trump knows it. And his actual reach is abysmal too. The man might have the money but he certainly doesn’t have the movement like Trump or Bernie. The man is hardly representative of America for Republicans or Democrats. To Republicans, he is just another political elite buying off elections just to snuff out their rights. And in the eyes of Democrats the man is an old, prejudiced billionaire white guy, which is even worse than Bernie’s million-dollar conundrum. The former mayor is going to have a hard time appealing to an ever-younger American public, disillusioned by the rich and the powerful like himself.

Non-tall readers may think that cracks at Bloomberg’s height are cheap shots. But history says that the average height of presidents is 5–11, and we haven’t had a president shorter than 6 feet tall since Richard Nixon.

#2: His policies are abysmal, and won’t work for Democrats either.

For starters, the man wants to ban e-cigarettes and vapes, and I don’t know how many college-aged leftists you know that vape near constantly, but I for one know that he has just lost a large percentage of that pie. He’s also historically been an opponent to marijuana legalization, limiting his ability to drive votes home on that civil liberty, given the desire nationally for legalization. On economics, while he may be less egregious than some Democrats, his taxes are too rich for any liberty warrior’s blood, and too little for your typical progressive alphabet warriors. His college education plan is along the same lines of big government opportunity distribution programs that Democrats see as pandering and the rest of America see as “wasted tax dollars”. Furthermore, the man has a history of being tough on crime to many Democrats’ dismay, and you can bet that his policy outline uses his ability to reduce crime through this as a “positive” to behold rather than a shameful part of his past, that being said-

#3: He can’t ever hope to escape stop and frisk, and he knows that.

Michael Bloomberg has worked very hard to try and escape his past decision of stop and frisk, but it seems to never escape him. Although some will argue back and forth on the effectiveness of this policy, ultimately it was a privacy ignorant invasive search policy, one which saw unparalleled use under his years as the Mayor of New York. And it’s probably occurred to him now that this was too big of a mistake to just simply undo, and is likely fearing how it will inevitably compare to Trump’s softer approach to crime. Not only is this something the communities most affected by his decision to engage in predatory policing also happen to be groups that are now essential to securing his victory. This was not a good call back in the day, and he seems to have admitted to that now, but although he may try to say he’s moved on, evidence only 5 years old has come forward on him supporting the method and the actions he took. There is evidence in this that his claims of change and growth could simply be political pandering, after all I’d hardly be one to change my ways at his age.

#4: While you can definitely buy elections, this one’s going to go a little differently.

As much as Bloomberg’s money may win elections, curb civil liberties, and supposedly buy his way into heaven, this time he’s going to have to do a lot more to get ahead in the race. While even presidencies have generally been decided by the largest pocketbooks, Trump has largely been an exception to this rule. As it stands, he was largely outperformed by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party in 2016, with the Clinton campaign raising 1.2 billion dollars, roughly double that of Trump’s. This is quite an atypical outcome, and even though Hillary Clinton may have won by popular vote, the fact remains that Trump was voted by this country’s law as President of the United States. Yes, the political topography may have changed as well, but as Trump has allowed all of us to find out, anything can happen on the presidential race track. Can someone just trying to swing around their pocketbook really make a dent against a case like that, and can that really be the person who unifies America?

#5: Late entry candidates don’t win, he won’t even make it past the primary.

Let’s face it, as it stands the man isn’t going to even make it past the primary. There’s the bevy of aforementioned issued mounting against him, which will prove difficult to overcome given the reliance on Democrats to pull minority voting blocs within their party. There’s Bloomberg’s toxic past (and present) policies towards them and his inability to identify. Most fatal of all, he also decided to join the primaries late, on top of announcing his candidacy late. This decision will ultimately prove to be his gravest error of the entire electoral cycle, as late-entry candidates rarely (if ever) manage to achieve victory in the primaries. As it stands, there’s just too much setting Bloomberg back from breaking Bernie and Buttigieg’s ballot bonanza.

There are more than five reasons, though. M. Dowling:

His background isn’t glorious. He made a lot of his money off Red China, which he praises often, and he thinks it’s okay to throw black kids up against a wall to frisk them. What is getting little attention, however, is his sexist pig past, which he has always denied having.

The work environment he has set up over the years is described as deeply sexist, even as he claims to be Progressive fighting for minorities and women.

Mike Bloomberg’s stories of misogyny and sexism appear in lawsuits and journalistic accounts. He doesn’t physically abuse women; he’s more insidious than that, concentrating on disparaging comments and demeaning jokes.

“In December 2015, employees at Everytown for Gun Safety, the gun-control organization funded by Bloomberg, arrived at work to find a holiday gift on their desks from their employer: the former mayor’s 1997 autobiography, Bloomberg by Bloomberg. Flipping through the book, staffers found themselves uncomfortably reading their billionaire founder’s boasts about keeping “a girlfriend in every city” and other womanizing exploits as a Wall Street up-and-comer,” far-left GQ reported.

There are some 40 sex discrimination and sexual harassment lawsuits brought against him and his organizations by 64 women over the past several decades.

Sekiko Garrison didn’t meet his criteria for respectful treatment.

Sekiko Sakai Garrison, a former sales representative at Bloomberg LP, alleged in a 1997 lawsuit that when then-CEO Mike Bloomberg found out she was pregnant, he told her, “Kill it!” He also said, “Great! Number 16!” There were 16 women on maternity leave at the time.

When Bloomberg saw her engagement ring, he commented, “What is the guy dumb and blind? What the hell is he marrying you for?”

He once pointed to another female employee and told Garrison, “If you looked like that, I’d do you in a second.” Bloomberg denied having said most of those things, but reportedly left Garrison a voicemail saying that if he did make the comments, he “didn’t mean it.”

Bloomberg reportedly did concede that he had said of Garrison and other women, “I’d do her.” In making the concession, however, he insisted that he had believed that to “do” someone meant merely “to have a personal relationship” with them.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Nice try.

In a 1998 filing, Mary Ann Olszewski reported that “male employees from Mr. Bloomberg on down” routinely belittled women at the company. It culminated in her being raped in a Chicago hotel room by a Bloomberg executive who was also her direct superior. The case was dismissed because Olszewski’s attorney had missed the deadlines to respond to a motion to end the case.

Before the dismissal, in a deposition relating to the suit, Bloomberg testified that he wouldn’t consider Olszewski’s rape allegation to be genuine unless there was “an unimpeachable third-party witness” to corroborate her claims.

Once, he told a journalist and her friend, “Look at the ass on her,” while gazing at a party.

The rising presidential candidate, according to a top aide, seeing attractive women. reflexively remarked, “Nice tits.”

Bloomberg, mocked Christine Quinn, the then-speaker of New York’s City Council, for waiting too long between hair colorings.

The billionaire businessman, quoted by colleagues as saying, “If women wanted to be appreciated for their brains, they’d go to the library instead of to Bloomingdale’s.”

Bloomberg was asked in a deposition, “Have you ever made a comment to the effect that you would like to ‘do that piece of meat,’ or I’d ‘do her in a second’?” Bloomberg replied, “I don’t recall ever using the term meat at all.”

“Mini Mike” Bloomberg once described his life as a single billionaire bachelor in New York City to a reporter as being a “wet dream.” “I like theater, dining, and chasing women,” he said.

On a radio show in 2003, he said that he would “really want to have” Jennifer Lopez. He later explained it away as wanting to “have dinner” with her.

Employees of his in 1990 put together an entire booklet of some of his more egregious comments. One of the comments included the computer terminal that made him a billionaire. He said, “It will do everything, including give you [oral sex]. I guess that puts a lot of you girls out of business.”

He’s so arrogant that he can make these comments while pretending he is something else. However, he does deny it all, every last bit of it.

Democrats have been criticizing Donald Trump for his bad behavior with women. There are more examples of Bloomberg’s bad behavior toward women. Of course, Democrats have for a long time excused bad behavior toward women as long as said bad actor has the correct attitude about abortion rights. (See Clinton, Bill.)

Then there’s this, which started flying around the Internet Sunday, here from William Addison:

A resurfaced discussion is coming back to haunt billionaire Mike Bloomberg in his bid for the White House.

In the video, which took place at the Said Business School summit in November 2016, Bloomberg chalked up farmers and tradesmen as individuals with brainless careers that “anybody” can do.

He argued that the new “information economy” actually requires skillsets of “how to think and analyze.”

“Anybody, even those in this room — no offense intended — can be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put the seed in, you put dirt on it, add water, and up comes the corn,” Bloomberg said. “You could learn that.”

He made a similar comment about tradesmen in the industrial age before jumping to the real kicker: “Now comes the information economy … it’s built around replacing people with technology, and the skillsets you have to learn are how to think and analyze. And that is a whole degree level different.”

He concluded by saying that you have to have “a lot more grey matter.” …

Ironically, these comments come from a billionaire businessman who’s probably never sweat it out in the fields and is clueless about the grueling logistical aspect of farming/tradesman-ship.

Nobody is impressed with pompous remarks made at a leadership summit. Everyone is grateful to God that hard-working Americans work day and night to feed an entire nation.

That will go over well in flyover country.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s