An unusual post for me

[christie1111]

It is actually political.

During the last election season, I did one of those "answer the questions and I will tell you who you should vote for" things.

It was early on and they had some possibilities that hadn't actually declared yet.

It came up with Bloomberg for me.

And now that he is actually running, he took a recent up tick in his numbers. And has now made it to a debate. I will record it and review to see how I feel.

He is not on the ballot until Super Tuesday but the debate get more to see him.

I think it will be interesting.

[flockofseagulls104]

He is actually being vetted, and many things he has said and done over the years are coming out. I don't think he will get the farm vote.

But, for me, anyone who thinks it is the government's, any level of government's, job, role or duty to decide how much soda an individual can purchase is NOT someone who should be given any power. That is enough right there to fear the guy.
Besides that, even if you hate trump, I think it would be incredibly dangerous to elect a billionaire who controls a vast media empire. The amount of propaganda that could be created and disseminated would be incredible.

Don't listen to what the media is telling you about the guy, or any of the ads he is purchasing. Look into the guy yourself. He has a record.

[silverscreenselect]

During the last election season, I did one of those "answer the questions and I will tell you who you should vote for" things.

It was early on and they had some possibilities that hadn't actually declared yet.

It came up with Bloomberg for me.

There's a problem with some of those surveys in that they are often run as disinformation campaigns by people supporting or opposing one particular candidate. I don't know if that's the case here, but a lot of what goes around on social media is a scam of one sort or another. It might be that no matter what you answered, Bloomberg was going to come up. The reason being that if people think their views are aligned with Bloomberg's they will be more inclined to consider supporting him as a possible candidate.

[silverscreenselect]

Besides that, even if you hate trump, I think it would be incredibly dangerous to elect a billionaire who controls a vast media empire. The amount of propaganda that could be created and disseminated would be incredible.

As opposed to a billionaire who's in bed with another billionaire who controls a vast media empire.

[Bob Juch]

I don't trust him at all, but I do appreciate his anti-trump ads.

[flockofseagulls104]

Besides that, even if you hate trump, I think it would be incredibly dangerous to elect a billionaire who controls a vast media empire. The amount of propaganda that could be created and disseminated would be incredible.

As opposed to a billionaire who's in bed with another billionaire who controls a vast media empire.

What other billionaire is that?
And since you are apparently uncomfortable with a "billionaire who's in bed with another billionaire who controls a vast media empire.", why would you be in favor of a billionaire who controls one directly?

Your hypocrisy is showing.

(See, this is how it starts. I was commenting about Bloomberg in general, not directing any comment at him, and SSS has to get out his pointy stick. His first comment was fine. He just had to add the second one, directed at me.)

[Ritterskoop]

We voted early today for the NC primary, with 12 races on the ballot!

As an unaffiliated, I get to pick which primary to vote in (D, L, R). I chose D this time, and there were three federal-level races, seven for the state, a district judge, and the county board of commissioners. I will vote for folks from all three parties in November.

It took ten minutes to look up the candidates last night, to mark up my sample ballot.

There were two I knew already to mark off (I sketched out some possibilities for roomie, though I would never tell him who to vote for): One who got a seat on the city council and then turned around to run for state treasurer before she had worked out the kinks of being new to office, and the other who is a half-bubble off plumb. This second one runs for a local office every chance she gets, and wants to air her grievances with everyone all the time, and is quite frankly, I think, unstable. Good for her for playing the game the way it is written, but we will not be voting for her.

[silverscreenselect]

I was commenting about Bloomberg in general, not directing any comment at him, and SSS has to get out his pointy stick.

Apparently, we now have a new standard on this Bored. You have to address your inane comments about Trump to me before I can respond. You said that it was "incredibly dangerous to elect a billionaire who controls a vast media empire." I just noted that Trump's awful close to Rupert Murdoch, another billionaire who controls a vast media empire. You may be right about Trump not being a billionaire, though. Since he doesn't think his business dealings are a matter of public interest (and you're apparently OK with that), we don't know for sure.

If you want to see a hypocrite, look in the mirror.

[Ritterskoop]

Christie, I, too, am mildly interested in Bloomberg's and Steyer's campaigns. It will be good to see either or both in a debate, so we can see how they respond to pressure, and how well they think on their feet. It's only fair that they have to go under the microscope, too.

[flockofseagulls104]

I was commenting about Bloomberg in general, not directing any comment at him, and SSS has to get out his pointy stick.

Apparently, we now have a new standard on this Bored. You have to address your inane comments about Trump to me before I can respond. You said that it was "incredibly dangerous to elect a billionaire who controls a vast media empire." I just noted that Trump's awful close to Rupert Murdoch, another billionaire who controls a vast media empire. You may be right about Trump not being a billionaire, though. Since he doesn't think his business dealings are a matter of public interest (and you're apparently OK with that), we don't know for sure.

If you want to see a hypocrite, look in the mirror.

Again. deflect the point.
I pointed out the fact that Bloomberg controls avast media empire. And he does. And what he doesn't own, he can buy.
You are worried that trump 'is in bed' (apparently to you, he is "in Bed" with everyone you despise) with a guy who may or may not control Fox News, one cable channel.
Why wouldn't you worry about a guy who made his billions in the mass media industry?

I know why.

If I want to see a hypocrite, I just look it up in the dictionary and see a picture of you. (nah nah nah nah nah nah) I know you are, but what am I?

[kroxquo]

Also pardoned today was Michael Milken and Bernard Kerik. The complete list of commutations or pardons today:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/18/us/p ... rdons.html

[silverscreenselect]

You are worried that trump 'is in bed' (apparently to you, he is "in Bed" with everyone you despise) with a guy who may or may not control Fox News, one cable channel.

After selling off the entertainment business to Disney, Murdoch and/or his family still control Fox News, Fox Sports and various sports networks, the Fox broadcasting network, and various TV stations. That's through what's left of 21st Century Fox, which has been rebranded as Fox Corp. The rest of his holdings were owned by his primary business, News Corp, which was unaffected by the Disney sale. That includes the Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones, the New York Post, 'Barrons, HarperCollins publishers, the Times of London, and numerous Australian publications. That's a heck of a lot more than "one cable channel."

You were the one who brought up originally why people should be afraid of Bloomberg. "Besides that, even if you hate trump, I think it would be incredibly dangerous to elect a billionaire who controls a vast media empire." So, you feel it's dangerous to elect Bloomberg, but not a president who's very chummy with an alternate version of Bloomberg. That's hypocrisy.

[Beebs52]

You are worried that trump 'is in bed' (apparently to you, he is "in Bed" with everyone you despise) with a guy who may or may not control Fox News, one cable channel.

After selling off the entertainment business to Disney, Murdoch and/or his family still control Fox News, Fox Sports and various sports networks, the Fox broadcasting network, and various TV stations. That's through what's left of 21st Century Fox, which has been rebranded as Fox Corp. The rest of his holdings were owned by his primary business, News Corp, which was unaffected by the Disney sale. That includes the Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones, the New York Post, 'Barrons, HarperCollins publishers, the Times of London, and numerous Australian publications. That's a heck of a lot more than "one cable channel."

You were the one who brought up originally why people should be afraid of Bloomberg. "Besides that, even if you hate trump, I think it would be incredibly dangerous to elect a billionaire who controls a vast media empire." So, you feel it's dangerous to elect Bloomberg, but not a president who's very chummy with an alternate version of Bloomberg. That's hypocrisy.

Slight difference. Bloomberg IS Bloomberg news.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytime ... t.amp.html

[Bob78164]

You are worried that trump 'is in bed' (apparently to you, he is "in Bed" with everyone you despise) with a guy who may or may not control Fox News, one cable channel.

After selling off the entertainment business to Disney, Murdoch and/or his family still control Fox News, Fox Sports and various sports networks, the Fox broadcasting network, and various TV stations. That's through what's left of 21st Century Fox, which has been rebranded as Fox Corp. The rest of his holdings were owned by his primary business, News Corp, which was unaffected by the Disney sale. That includes the Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones, the New York Post, 'Barrons, HarperCollins publishers, the Times of London, and numerous Australian publications. That's a heck of a lot more than "one cable channel."

You were the one who brought up originally why people should be afraid of Bloomberg. "Besides that, even if you hate trump, I think it would be incredibly dangerous to elect a billionaire who controls a vast media empire." So, you feel it's dangerous to elect Bloomberg, but not a president who's very chummy with an alternate version of Bloomberg. That's hypocrisy.

Slight difference. Bloomberg IS Bloomberg news.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytime ... t.amp.html

Much more important difference. Bloomberg News doesn't have anything remotely approaching the reach and influence as the Republican propaganda arm known as Fox News. --Bob

[Beebs52]

After selling off the entertainment business to Disney, Murdoch and/or his family still control Fox News, Fox Sports and various sports networks, the Fox broadcasting network, and various TV stations. That's through what's left of 21st Century Fox, which has been rebranded as Fox Corp. The rest of his holdings were owned by his primary business, News Corp, which was unaffected by the Disney sale. That includes the Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones, the New York Post, 'Barrons, HarperCollins publishers, the Times of London, and numerous Australian publications. That's a heck of a lot more than "one cable channel."

You were the one who brought up originally why people should be afraid of Bloomberg. "Besides that, even if you hate trump, I think it would be incredibly dangerous to elect a billionaire who controls a vast media empire." So, you feel it's dangerous to elect Bloomberg, but not a president who's very chummy with an alternate version of Bloomberg. That's hypocrisy.

Slight difference. Bloomberg IS Bloomberg news.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytime ... t.amp.html

Much more important difference. Bloomberg News doesn't have anything remotely approaching the reach and influence as the Republican propaganda arm known as Fox News. --Bob

Apparently you're not into financial stuff.

[Bob78164]

And since you are apparently uncomfortable with a "billionaire who's in bed with another billionaire who controls a vast media empire.", why would you be in favor of a billionaire who controls one directly?

He won't. If he's elected, he'll sell the company.

He won't even wait for Donny to keep his promise to release his tax returns. --Bob

[Bob Juch]

I was commenting about Bloomberg in general, not directing any comment at him, and SSS has to get out his pointy stick.

Apparently, we now have a new standard on this Bored. You have to address your inane comments about Trump to me before I can respond. You said that it was "incredibly dangerous to elect a billionaire who controls a vast media empire." I just noted that Trump's awful close to Rupert Murdoch, another billionaire who controls a vast media empire. You may be right about Trump not being a billionaire, though. Since he doesn't think his business dealings are a matter of public interest (and you're apparently OK with that), we don't know for sure.

If you want to see a hypocrite, look in the mirror.

Again. deflect the point.
I pointed out the fact that Bloomberg controls avast media empire. And he does. And what he doesn't own, he can buy.
You are worried that trump 'is in bed' (apparently to you, he is "in Bed" with everyone you despise) with a guy who may or may not control Fox News, one cable channel.
Why wouldn't you worry about a guy who made his billions in the mass media industry?

I know why.

If I want to see a hypocrite, I just look it up in the dictionary and see a picture of you. (nah nah nah nah nah nah) I know you are, but what am I?

You are misinformed. Bloomberg made his money with his Bloomberg Professional service. Most of his media pursuits are for users of the Bloomberg Terminal. Bloomberg Television and Radio broadcast financial information.

[Beebs52]

"Addressing roughly 100 journalists spilling out of a glass-walled conference room, Mr. Micklethwait said Michael R. Bloomberg’s entry into the Democratic race had not changed his commitment to skeptical coverage. “We always knew it would be tough,” he told the group. “But we are actually showing what we are: an independent news organization.”

Not every reporter was reassured. Rival candidates had attacked the journalists’ coverage as biased; some sources had stopped returning calls. One reporter said the bureau’s credibility was at stake, citing Mr. Micklethwait’s public memo that Bloomberg News would refrain from “investigating” Mr. Bloomberg and his Democratic competitors.

Mr. Micklethwait said he had been referring to a team of specialized investigative reporters and not the broader political staff, but he declined requests from the journalists in the room to issue a clarification. "