Mike Bloomberg spent 500 million dollars for this?


Guest MormonGator
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mike-bloomberg-wins-american-samoa

Made it Ma! Top of the world! 

Seriously, what a joke.  I think if he entered earlier he might have had a chance. 

I agree. While money can get you far in politics, you've got to get in the trenches too. "It's all about the mighty Mo!!" As Bush Sr. said (meaning momentum).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
12 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

I agree. While money can get you far in politics, you've got to get in the trenches too. "It's all about the mighty Mo!!" As Bush Sr. said (meaning momentum).

@mirkwood spent all night crying over this. Mike Bloomberg is his idol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Heh.  All I need to know about Bloomberg:

 

Typical political non-answer:

Question: X
Non-answer: Let me tell you about Y. Blah blah blah blah Y blah blah blah, and Y blah blah blah, so we see that Y blah blah blah blah.
Question: But what about X?
Non-answer: We have already addressed that. Let's move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought he answered 1 of 2 questions very well.

Q1: “How do you justify pushing for more gun control when you have an armed security detail that’s likely equipped with the same firearms and magazines that you seek to ban the common citizen from owning?”

A: “Look. I probably get 40 or 50 threats every week, okay, and some of them are real. That just happens when you are the mayor of New York City or you are very wealthy, and if you are campaigning for the president of the United States, you get a lot of threats. So I have a security detail and I pay for it all myself. They are all retired police officers who are very well trained in firearms.”

Translation: Rich people who get threats, and can afford to pay for retired police officers to protect them, should be able to use the banned guns/magazines.  For you common fools, no dice.

 

Q2: Does your life matter more than mine or my families or these peoples?”

That's the one he did not explicitly answer.  He only implicitly answered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/5/2020 at 3:50 AM, NeuroTypical said:

I thought he answered 1 of 2 questions very well.

Q1: “How do you justify pushing for more gun control when you have an armed security detail that’s likely equipped with the same firearms and magazines that you seek to ban the common citizen from owning?”

A: “Look. I probably get 40 or 50 threats every week, okay, and some of them are real. That just happens when you are the mayor of New York City or you are very wealthy, and if you are campaigning for the president of the United States, you get a lot of threats. So I have a security detail and I pay for it all myself. They are all retired police officers who are very well trained in firearms.”

Translation: Rich people who get threats, and can afford to pay for retired police officers to protect them, should be able to use the banned guns/magazines.  For you common fools, no dice.

 

Perhaps he was trying to suggest that the response to a threat should be proportional to the threat and the risk - high threat and high risk leads to a higher level of preparation, and low threat, low risk only needs a lesser level of preparation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Perhaps he was trying to suggest that the response to a threat should be proportional to the threat and the risk - high threat and high risk leads to a higher level of preparation, and low threat, low risk only needs a lesser level of preparation. 

You are probably right. But if so, that's on Bloomberg to make that distinction. Because it sure as heck sounded like he was saying that he's important, privileged, and rich, so therefore he can afford something that the hoi polloi should not be trusted to use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

Perhaps he was trying to suggest that the response to a threat should be proportional to the threat and the risk - high threat and high risk leads to a higher level of preparation, and low threat, low risk only needs a lesser level of preparation. 

Yes indeed, that notion is enshrined in his platform.  Only people who "need" extra protection should be able to have it (assuming they can afford private credentialed security.  Poor women with restraining orders against violent predators are out of luck.)

It's not a right, it's based on need and ability to afford.  The "need" part is implicit in his statements/platform/actions.  The "afford" part is the big evil glaring hole in his stupid opinion, and he should be metaphorically clubbed over the head with that hole every chance people get, until he abandons it.

(I'm not passionate about this topic or anything, why do you ask? :))

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, with 332 million people in the US, having given every man, woman, and child each a million dollars would have probably gotten him a lot further in the race. 
 

Mini Mike - “Here’s a million dollars if you vote for me.” 
 

Me - “We can weather 4 years... right guys?” 

Edited by Colirio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share