Thoughts on Bloomberg getting into the race

Author: HistoryBuff

Posts

Total: 38
Topic's author
#1
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
Michael Bloomberg, the 77 year old, billionaire former mayor of New York, is reportedly looking to get into the democratic race. There is a deadline to file your paperwork for (i think it was alabama) today. 

1st off, I think that Bloomberg thinking he has any hope of winning is hilarious. He'll be lucky if he cracks 5%, maybe 10% if he is really successful at undermining Butigeg and taking the upper middle class vote. He is exactly the kind of candidate who has little to no base. He is economically right wing but culturally liberal. There are lots of political donors and dem establishment types that love that. There are very few voters that do. 

2nd, i think it smacks of that centrist "liberal" bubble and hubris. He thinks that because he is well connected and has lots of money that he should be president. He thinks his plan of going after things like global warming and gun control will be super popular when he has nothing that makes him different than most of the other candidates. He is completely out of touch with what voters want. 

3rd, i kind of like the idea of him jumping in. He has no hope hope of winning, but he will pull centrist and upper middle class support away from other candidates. People like Warren, Butigeg and, to a lesser degree, Biden should be worried about losing a few points to Bloomberg. They also might have to worry about him taking their donors which could really hurt. Biden in particular is low on cash and needs those super pacs working over time for him. if they switch to bloomberg that would be bad for him. 

A candidate like Sanders will lose no support at all to someone like Bloomberg. Which to me makes it good news as it will weaken others and give Sanders a billionaire foil to play off of. 
#2
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
There are lots of political donors and dem establishment types that love that. There are very few voters that do. 
Bernie is struggling beating Pete in Iowa

If very few voters care about this it would be represented in the polls but sadly yet another time where facts don't confirm your reality that Bernie is an unpopular candidate. Bernie is contesting Biden for 3rd place. 
He is completely out of touch with what voters want. 
You are living in a bubble if you think "centrist liberal" politics doesn't win elections. Hillary beat Bernie. Bernie is losing to Pete in Iowa and is barely beating Biden. 

Please also define "centrist liberal".
Which to me makes it good news as it will weaken others and give Sanders a billionaire foil to play off of. 
More than likely if Bloomberg is as un-electable as you think he will drop out and the voters will go some place else. Those voters for Bloomberg don't just vanish. They go somewhere and given how you speak about him it is more than likely they would just help Warren, Biden or Pete beat Bernie when he does decide to drop out. 
Topic's author
#3
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Bernie is struggling beating Pete in Iowa
This topic was about bloomberg. Why are you trying to make it about bernie and pete?

You are living in a bubble if you think "centrist liberal" politics doesn't win elections. Hillary beat Bernie. Bernie is losing to Pete in Iowa and is barely beating Biden. 
Who exactly is bloomberg's base?

Is it black or hispanic people? He is a strong supporter of stop and frisk which is a wildly racist policy. So not likely.

Is it working class? Most working class people don't even know who Bloomberg is. His name recognition is mostly in New York or people who read his financial news publications, so not the working class. He doesn't really advocate for any policies that would help the working class either. 

Is it progressives? 100%, no. He is not the most progressive on pretty much any issue. And he is centrist/right wing on some as well. 

His base is upper middle class white people. Those are the people who will like his liberal social policies and his conservative fiscal policy. 

Bernie and Biden have a fairly diverse base. He isn't taking any support from Bernie. He might be able to take some from biden. But since alot of his base comes from the working class and black people, not alot. 

Warren and Butigeg also appeal to upper middle class white people. So there is the possibility he could be a threat to butigeg. He might be able to take a few points from warren. But warren also has a fairly large progressive base as well. 

Ultimately, the people he could possibly appeal to is like 15-20% of the vote tops. And he would need to take them from people who have been in the race alot longer. I'd say he is likely to become another one of those candidates struggling to break 5%. He may end up like Steyer (the other billionaire) struggling to crack 3%. 
#4
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
This topic was about bloomberg. Why are you trying to make it about bernie and pete?
Nothing in the rules said I can't and I want too.
Who exactly is bloomberg's base?
Whatever it is he is unlikely to win so the votes will just go back to the people he took from. 

Is evidence not a word you understand? Please do use it because you are simply doing this based on your feelings until you can support your claims. Your just as bad as Republicans because they also put feelings over facts. If you don't care then tell me. 
Topic's author
#5
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Nothing in the rules said I can't and I want too.
It's not like there is a formal rule list. But it was not really related to what the topic was about. If you just want to trash progressives then this isn't really the right topic. 

Whatever it is he is unlikely to win so the votes will just go back to the people he took from. 
But will they? In Iowa for example, A recent poll puts Warren at 20, Buttigieg at 19, Sanders at 17 and Biden at 15. If you are under 15 you are a non-viable candidate and you get nothing. If, for example, Bloomberg was able to take 1 point from Biden, 5 points from Buttigieg and 6 points from warren, then he could theoretically leave Sanders as the only viable candidate making him get all the delegates. That isn't a super likely scenario, but it is just meant to highlight how he could screw over the centrist candidates and leave a progressive to win. 

Is evidence not a word you understand? Please do use it because you are simply doing this based on your feelings until you can support your claims.
As he isn't in the race yet and there is no polling, it is literally impossible to provide evidence. This post is purely speculative. Please calm down. If you think i'm wrong, please explain who you think he is likely to appeal to or what his path to victory could be?
#6
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
If you just want to trash progressives then this isn't really the right topic. 
I want to trash socialist/commies. Social progressives are completely fine but when you talk about economics and then bring up socialism then I know how little the person has really thought about their dreams. I think you fall in because you tout the same stuff that they do but I haven't really seen your directly stating any socialist ideas. Are you a socialist?
A recent poll puts Warren at 20, Buttigieg at 19, Sanders at 17 and Biden at 15.
False
Pete is at 17. Bernie 15.8. Biden 15.5. This has got to be bernie logic or maybe you have sources but refuse to lose them. Just don't expect me to not state that you are arguments are based on feelings.
As he isn't in the race yet and there is no polling
I wasn't talking about Bloomberg. I was talking almost every single time before the first time I told you to bring evidence. You refuse to use evidence. You are basically an anti-intellectual and clearly showing Bernie's base. Poor more than likely stupid. 

Topic's author
#7
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I want to trash socialist/commies.
There aren't any socialists or commies in this election. Either you don't know what those terms mean or your bias is causing you to use them incorrectly. 

Pete is at 17. Bernie 15.8. Biden 15.5. This has got to be bernie logic or maybe you have sources but refuse to lose them. Just don't expect me to not state that you are arguments are based on feelings.
Please actually read the things I write before saying they are false. I said "a recent poll". You then listed the average of polls for the last month. The most recent poll is the Quinnipiac poll done on October 30th. Those numbers are from that poll. So what I said was true. Also, I provided evidence and then you attacked me because this was just "feelings". Maybe you should reflect on how your bias is affecting your arguments. just a thought. 

I wasn't talking about Bloomberg. I was talking almost every single time before the first time I told you to bring evidence.
I think you just don't want to accept any information you don't like. I mean I just provided you exact numbers from a poll done a week and a half ago and you attacked me for not using evidence. I'm not certain any amount of evidence would be enough to prevent you from descending to using personal attacks to try to deflect the conversation. 

Poor more than likely stupid. \
If your only method of debating someone is to go to ad-hominem attacks, you just come off as someone either so biased that they reject information outside their bubble, or as someone who is too stupid to understand information they are provided. I suspect it is the former rather than the latter. But it could be either. 
#8
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
There aren't any socialists or commies in this election. Either you don't know what those terms mean or your bias is causing you to use them incorrectly. 
Are you saying Bernie doesn't lean towards socialism?
Please actually read the things I write before saying they are false. I said "a recent poll". You then listed the average of polls for the last month. The most recent poll is the Quinnipiac poll done on October 30th. Those numbers are from that poll. So what I said was true.
An average would be better because the Q poll could've been the outlier compared to all the other polls. That is why I used an average instead put forward one poll.
Also, I provided evidence and then you attacked me because this was just "feelings". Maybe you should reflect on how your bias is affecting your arguments. just a thought. 
Are you blind? I am sure you are not. Where is the link? You don't have evidence if you don't cite your sources. 
I'm not certain any amount of evidence would be enough to prevent you from descending to using personal attacks to try to deflect the conversation. 
Please I was more than cordial arguing against the gish galloping your gave me the first and only time you gave links but now I see none. Do you want to prove your are not an anti-intellectual putting your beliefs over what reality is? Your just like the conservatives. Instead of believing in God you believe in a socialist utopia. 

Answer my question so I know that you stated you are one. Are you a socialist?
If your only method of debating someone is to go to ad-hominem attacks, you just come off as someone either so biased that they reject information outside their bubble, or as someone who is too stupid to understand information they are provided. I suspect it is the former rather than the latter. But it could be either. 
This exact same thing can be said to you apart from ad-homs. The things is it is inaccurate to be annoyed at my ad-homs when you don't even present where I can consistently shown to bring evidence. If you state me calling an anti-intellectual because you value feelings over facts an ad-hom, I reject. Mainly because I am simply saying what is happening. You are not providing evidence because you haven't cited your sources. It is not my job to present the links that you didn't bother too. It is your job if you actually don't want to come off as an anti-intellectual.  
#9
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
Hell get crushed
#10
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 934
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
Bob Steyer: (Spends tens of millions of his own wealth to get to 0.9% in polls nationally)

Bloomberg: "I like his style!"

On a more serious note, Bloomberg has almost no base of support to draw from since moderate voters already drift towards Biden or Buttigieg while more liberal voters drift towards Sanders or Warren, he is damn near out of time to build any sort of following in the primary states before the votes start coming in, and keep in mind there are still well over a dozen candidates in the field, a majority of whom are spending every cent they have into Iowa or Nevada. 

Even if Bloomberg puts a billion dollars on the table to fund his own campaign, at this point its still too little too late

#11
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,978
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Imabench
It used to be money always equated to support in politics before the age of instant twitter and youtube communications where you HAD to break deals with the MSM to even have a chance.
Topic's author
#12
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Are you saying Bernie doesn't lean towards socialism?
The definition of socialism is "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.". 

Bernie has never advocated for the means of production being owned by the state. Virtually all politicians agree that the government should engage is some level of regulation of them, so if Bernie is a socialist, so is pretty much every politician. 

An average would be better because the Q poll could've been the outlier compared to all the other polls. That is why I used an average instead put forward one poll.
And that is a totally reasonable argument to make. I can respect that answer. Calling me a liar on the other hand is not an acceptable answer when what I said was true. 

Are you blind? I am sure you are not. Where is the link? You don't have evidence if you don't cite your sources. 
I provided the exact numbers. The link you gave me was the exact same website though, so clearly you already had it. But if you want the link then please just say so. Engaging in personal attacks just derails the discussion. 

Answer my question so I know that you stated you are one. Are you a socialist?
No, I do not believe that the means of production should be owned by the state. 

You are not providing evidence because you haven't cited your sources.
Providing the exact numbers is evidence whether or not I provide the link. I agree though, I should have sent the link. But it was the top result in the link you gave me, so you clearly knew where to look. 
Topic's author
#13
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Imabench
Even if Bloomberg puts a billion dollars on the table to fund his own campaign, at this point its still too little too late
Bloomberg has a bigger profile than Styer. Because he owns bloomberg news, alot of upper middle class people will know him. He is also active in donor circles so there is the threat than donors might abandon other candidates in favor of him. That could hit butigeg or biden. 

There is also the threat that his entrance would be the proverbial blood in the water for Biden. The only reason Bloomberg would enter is because he thinks Biden can't win. If the media picks up on that narrative it could undermine support in Biden. Biden's main selling point is the idea that he can beat trump. If he loses that he would be in trouble. It is far from certain Bloomberg would have that kind of political weight though. 

#14
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
Bernie has never advocated for the means of production being owned by the state. Virtually all politicians agree that the government should engage is some level of regulation of them, so if Bernie is a socialist, so is pretty much every politician. 
What did I say?
Are you saying Bernie doesn't lean towards socialism?
I used the word "lean". Meaning he doesn't have to be a full-blown socialist to be leaning towards to it. Now I have clarified that. Would you like to make a response?
And that is a totally reasonable argument to make.
Are you even going to attempt to argue against what I said?
Calling me a liar on the other hand is not an acceptable answer when what I said was true. 
Quote me saying that please.
I provided the exact numbers. The link you gave me was the exact same website though, so clearly you already had it.
I don't think it is worth me arguing this so I will drop it.
No, I do not believe that the means of production should be owned by the state. 
What do you value?
Why do you support Bernie?
I'll stop calling a socialist. Sorry.
But it was the top result in the link you gave me, so you clearly knew where to look. 
Okay. 


Topic's author
#15
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheRealNihilist
What did I say?
You asked if bernie leans socialist. He does not advocate for collective ownership of the means of production. And he advocates for regulation, like all politicians do. So does he lean socialist? He does in the same way as the rest of the democratic party does. If he is a socialist, so is the rest of the dems. Personally, I don't think he nor the dems are socialist. 

I used the word "lean". Meaning he doesn't have to be a full-blown socialist to be leaning towards to it. Now I have clarified that. Would you like to make a response?
He leans that way the same way that every other democrat and most of the republicans do. He advocates for regulation.

Are you even going to attempt to argue against what I said?
Why would I? I acknowledged that was a legitimate point. I am not attempting to dispute that an average is better than a single poll.

Quote me saying that please.
I gave exact stats. You said "False". If what I said was untrue then the logical inference is that I am lying. 

I'll stop calling a socialist. Sorry.
Thank you, many people use vague or incorrect terminology. I am not immune from this either, i am not trying to blame you. I think it would be more productive to not use labels like socialist since they don't accurately describe anyone running for president. 

What do you value?
Why do you support Bernie?
I think that a government exists to protect and provide services to it's people. As a society we need the ability to get around, so the government builds roads. We need our people to get an education, so the government builds schools. A government clearly cannot, and should not, be responsible for everything. The soviet union and China (though they were never communist) proved that a government controlled economy could not work. 

I don't always agree with everything Bernie Sanders says. But his policies are much better than most others. He is also much more honest and straight forward than most of the other candidates. Take buttigieg for example, a few months ago he said he was all for medicare for all, now he is campaigning hard against it. Sanders has been advocating for the same positions for decades. He can be trusted to do what he says he will. People like buttigieg cannot. 
#16
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
You asked if bernie leans socialist. He does not advocate for collective ownership of the means of production. And he advocates for regulation, like all politicians do. So does he lean socialist? He does in the same way as the rest of the democratic party does. If he is a socialist, so is the rest of the dems. Personally, I don't think he nor the dems are socialist. 
I must've forgot what he said. Just read this and found out he isn't stating what I would consider socialist. Guess my other complaint would be that he is a populist. Creating a bad dynamic between the rich and the poor. Link.
He advocates for regulation.
Okay.
I am not attempting to dispute that an average is better than a single poll.
Why did you use the single poll in the first place?
I gave exact stats. You said "False". If what I said was untrue then the logical inference is that I am lying. 
You can infer what you like. You simply looked at one data from the link instead of looking what the data is about. An average not a single poll. That is false.
Thank you, many people use vague or incorrect terminology.
I knew what socialism meant but could've sworn Bernie said something towards that.
A government clearly cannot, and should not, be responsible for everything.
This is all I need. What do you think about rent control?
Take buttigieg for example, a few months ago he said he was all for medicare for all, now he is campaigning hard against it.
Can you link this?
Topic's author
#17
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Why did you use the single poll in the first place?
I grabbed the most recent poll. I was using the stats only to show how many points Bloomberg would need to take to radically shift the race. Getting the most precise measure was not really the intention. It was just meant as an example of how he could shake up the race. 

Why did you use the single poll in the first place?
I wasn't using the poll to show what the current state of the race was. I was only using it as a baseline for my point that Bloomberg could torpedo the moderates. 

You can infer what you like. You simply looked at one data from the link instead of looking what the data is about. An average not a single poll. That is false.
Are are incorrect. I said " A recent poll" and then gave what the numbers for that poll were. You said that was false, which isn't true. That is what the most recent poll says. You are implying that I am wrong or a liar, neither of which was true. If you dispute the poll, then say so. Don't go after me for using it. 

I knew what socialism meant but could've sworn Bernie said something towards that.
Many people say that about him. Basically every major news network has. He calls himself a democratic socialist I think. But it isn't really the same thing. 

This is all I need. What do you think about rent control?
I haven't done much research on the topic. From what I have read it has a positive goal in mind, but the method isn't working well. I'm not an expert on the topic, but it doesn't seem to be an effective policy. 

Can you link this?
Here is a link to an article about. I think I said it was a few months ago but it was a little longer than that. He put out a tweet in Feb 2018, the text of which is:

"I, Pete Buttigieg, politician, do henceforth and forthwith declare, most affirmatively and indubitably, unto the ages, that I do favor Medicare for All, as I do favor any measure that would help get all Americans covered," Buttigieg tweeted in February 2018. "Now if you'll excuse me, potholes await."


His entire tone has changed over the course of the race. He started out trying to take a progressive stance. But as it became clear he couldn't beat Bernie and Warren on the left, he moved to a right wing stance. He is the quintessential politician saying whatever he thinks will get him elected. I honestly don't know what he really believes in. 
#18
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
 It was just meant as an example of how he could shake up the race. 
You said this:
As he isn't in the race yet and there is no polling, it is literally impossible to provide evidence
Care to explain this?
I was only using it as a baseline for my point that Bloomberg could torpedo the moderates. 
So the data you gave doesn't actually support what you said about Bloomberg?
Are are incorrect. I said " A recent poll" and then gave what the numbers for that poll were. 
I am moving on. Both of us having nothing to gain here.
From what I have read it has a positive goal in mind, but the method isn't working well. I'm not an expert on the topic, but it doesn't seem to be an effective policy. 
Do you still want to talk about this or maybe another time?
His entire tone has changed over the course of the race.
Can you show him changing his mind as well? 
Topic's author
#19
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheRealNihilist
As he isn't in the race yet and there is no polling, it is literally impossible to provide evidence
Care to explain this?
Bloomberg isn't officially in the race yet. I am not aware of any polling that exists that could show his popularity. It therefore isn't possible to provide evidence of how much support he has. Therefore the topic is speculative. 

So the data you gave doesn't actually support what you said about Bloomberg?
The data I used was not that different from the average. I was using it just as an example. Why are you grinding on a small detail when it was only being used for a baseline? The point I was trying to get across was that if Bloomberg could take a few points from a candidate, he could potentially prevent them from getting any delegates at all. Whether you use the average or 1 specific poll, the point is the same. 

Do you still want to talk about this or maybe another time?
I don't know all that much about it. To me it seems like a minor issue. It is an attempt to fix a symptom of the greater economic issues. Rather than deal with the underlying problems, politicians tried to apply a band-aid solution to hide the symptom. If you address the underlying problems in the way the US economy is working, then issues like that would be less prevalent.

Can you show him changing his mind as well? 
When someone said he doesn't support medicare for all, he responded by saying. 
"Buh? When/where have you ever heard me oppose Medicare for All?"

I've never linked a tweet, so let me know if this doesn't work. 

When pushed, he responded with the tweet I gave last time where he declared "unto the ages, that I do favor Medicare for All"


For his current position, I'm having a bit of trouble finding a good example. He uses alot of weaselly language to try to describe his plan as just like medicare for all when it really isn't. He seems to have learned to not just declare things.

If you don't mind watching a video, i came across one that discusses this exact topic. It's mostly the 1st five minutes. The 2nd half is him discussing why he thinks he switched. 

He went from fully supporting it and calling it the middle ground between right and left policies, to attacking it saying it can't be paid for. He has done a complete 180. 
#20
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
Therefore the topic is speculative. 
So for all we know Bloomberg can have no impact on the frontrunners or have an impact on the progressives right? Yes or no answer please. No point in dabbling in this. Bloomberg doesn't really matter until he takes one of the top 3 positions. 
Skipping like 2 paragraphs you said because not relevant now. I'll bring up rent control after other stuff.
He uses alot of weaselly language to try to describe his plan as just like medicare for all when it really isn't. He seems to have learned to not just declare things.
Name one weaselly statement and how is it weaselly?
1) Asking Warren a question is clearly not stating he is against medicare for all. Pete also has a variation of medicare for all. He hasn't changed his stance on everyone being covered, he is just doing it another way. 
2) Do you watch the Humanist Report regularly and do you agree with his opinions?
He went from fully supporting it and calling it the middle ground between right and left policies, to attacking it saying it can't be paid for. He has done a complete 180. 
Please quote him stating the middle ground. This is neither a direct quote by Pete nor a fair characterization of his position. He has not done a 180 with the information you gave (I urge you to watch the video again) and it is unfair to say that he did.

Topic's author
#21
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheRealNihilist
So for all we know Bloomberg can have no impact on the frontrunners or have an impact on the progressives right? Yes or no answer please. 
yes of course. As there is no polling and he hasn't even confirmed he is entering the race this topic is purely speculative. It is entirely possible he could get no support and be irrelevant. it is possible (though highly unlikely in my opinion) that he could jump into the lead. The point was just to discuss people's opinions on the subject. 

Name one weaselly statement and how is it weaselly?
Well just off the top, call his plan medicare for all is weaselly. His plan is nothing like medicare for all. It is largely the same plan as Biden. But he knows that medicare for all is popular so he takes the name and slaps in on a completely different policy. It is an attempt to confuse people. 

Pete also has a variation of medicare for all.
No he doesn't. He has a public option. That is not medicare for all. It's a bit like someone saying "I will bring you guys McDonalds" then bringing back burgers made of a cat he ran over and calling it "McDonalds for all who want it". It is wildly misleading.

Do you watch the Humanist Report regularly and do you agree with his opinions?
I watch him sometimes. I don't always agree with him. For example he says Butigieg flipped for the money. I kind of doubt that. I think he just realized there was no path to winning while pretending to be a progressive because that lane was taken. So he fundamentally changed his positions on issues to try to find a way to win. He is your standard unprincipled politicians willing to say anything to get ahead. 

Please quote him stating the middle ground. This is neither a direct quote by Pete nor a fair characterization of his position.
Have a look at 1:48 to 2:18. Pete used to say that medicare for all was the middle ground. That it was "the compromise position". But now he is back to advocating for something closer to what he described as "the true right wing position". 


He has not done a 180 with the information you gave (I urge you to watch the video again) and it is unfair to say that he did.
You clearly didn't watch the video. He went from fully supporting medicare for all and calling it the "compromise position" between right and left, to slapping that name onto what is, in no way, medicare for all. He now attacks and undermines actual medicare for all. That is a 180. 
#22
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
Well just off the top
Can you please not do that? It is best to say things you know are true instead of finding things that you have already stated your opinion. Can you provide a link to the weaselly comment while also stating how it is weaselly?
No he doesn't. He has a public option. That is not medicare for all.
Define medicare for all.
Have a look at 1:48 to 2:18. Pete used to say that medicare for all was the middle ground. That it was "the compromise position". But now he is back to advocating for something closer to what he described as "the true right wing position". 
Okay let me explain this:

He said think thanks stated ACA is a left wing proposal. If it was clear already it was actually a right wing proposal but given Obama was the one to commit to it then they opposed it.  Link to it being right wing.

He also said that medicare for all is a compromise comparing it to the UK. Meaning if we compare the UK to the US medicare for all would be in the middle instead of the left which he stated national healthcare would be at. 
You clearly didn't watch the video. He went from fully supporting medicare for all and calling it the "compromise position" between right and left, to slapping that name onto what is, in no way, medicare for all. He now attacks and undermines actual medicare for all. That is a 180. 
Quote him being for medicare then quote him being against medicare.
I want you to do this so that you can find what I didn't in the video. 
#23
Jeff_Goldblum
Jeff_Goldblum's avatar
Debates: 13
Posts: 132
0
2
10
Jeff_Goldblum's avatar
Jeff_Goldblum
0
2
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
He is completely out of touch with what voters want.
<br>
Agreed. His decision to jump in is laughable and I seriously doubt he'll accomplish much. I agree with you also, that it reflects his out-of-touch hubris.

People like Warren, Butigeg and, to a lesser degree, Biden should be worried about losing a few points to Bloomberg.
I don't follow the race very closely, but from what I know, I have to disagree on this. I think Warren is too left of Bloomberg for any of her supporters to defect. I don't know about Mayor Booty-Geg. I think Biden, who has centrist appeal, should be most worried about Bloomberg.
#24
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Mayor Booty-Geg.
You seriously making a booty joke about a gay person?

#25
Jeff_Goldblum
Jeff_Goldblum's avatar
Debates: 13
Posts: 132
0
2
10
Jeff_Goldblum's avatar
Jeff_Goldblum
0
2
10
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Well, not intentionally. I forgot he was gay.

Topic's author
#26
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Can you please not do that? It is best to say things you know are true instead of finding things that you have already stated your opinion. Can you provide a link to the weaselly comment while also stating how it is weaselly?
My point was that the name of his health care plan is itself weaselly. Do you want a link that will tell you what the name is? Calling a plan that is nothing like medicare for all "Medicare For All Who Want It" is weaselly. He wants to trick people into thinking his plan is just like medicare for all but with more choice. When in reality is it nothing like medicare for all and he just wants to bank on the popularity of the name. And several of the candidates do this. I saw an interview with andrew yang where he admitted he doesn't believe in medicare for all but he pretends like he does. 

Define medicare for all.
Medicare for all is the specific plan created by Bernie Sanders (I think there were others involved in writing it as well). It creates a single payer system to replace private insurance. If a plan does not do this, it isn't "medicare for all" and calling it such is a blatant attempt to confuse and misdirect people.

He said think thanks stated ACA is a left wing proposal.
His exact words in that clip are "ACA, which was a conservative proposal, came to be caricatured as left wing". He is saying it is a right wing proposal, which it was. 

He also said that medicare for all is a compromise comparing it to the UK. Meaning if we compare the UK to the US medicare for all would be in the middle instead of the left which he stated national healthcare would be at.
He was saying the "Left" position is one where the government directly provides healthcare. the "Right" position was one where it was entirely private. The compromise was a single payer system where the doctors are private but the payer was the government. He was saying that Medicare for All was the middle ground between right and left wing proposals.

Quote him being for medicare then quote him being against medicare.
"I, Pete Buttigieg, politician, do henceforth and forthwith declare, most affirmatively and indubitably, unto the ages, that I do favor Medicare for All"

In the video he states clearly that medicare for all, and a single payer system, was the compromise position between left and right. The healthcare plan he eventually released is nothing like medicare for all. It has no single payer system.

Do you need another sweeping declaration tweet were he says "I, Pete Buttigieg, politician, do henceforth and forthwith declare, that I do not believe in Medicare for All". I don't think he is dumb enough to do that. It would be political suicide. He will instead push his very much not medicare for all plan while pretending it is the same thing. Advocating a plan that does not include a single payer system is him saying he is against medicare for all. 

#27
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Well, not intentionally. I forgot he was gay.
Saying you forgot doesn't remove what you just said. You decided to attack him based on what he can't change. Just because you don't like the guy doesn't mean you can insult him especially on things he can't change. 
Topic's author
#28
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Just because you don't like the guy doesn't mean you can insult him especially on things he can't change. 
I think he was just making fun of the guy's name, not making a gay joke. 


Topic's author
#29
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
I don't follow the race very closely, but from what I know, I have to disagree on this. I think Warren is too left of Bloomberg for any of her supporters to defect. I don't know about Mayor Booty-Geg. I think Biden, who has centrist appeal, should be most worried about Bloomberg.
This is sort of what alot of pundits have been saying. But they are kind of missing a critical point. When people are well informed about politics decides who to support, they think about which policies they like, how far left/right they are etc. But for alot of voters this isn't the case. They have no idea what the difference between Sanders and Buttigieg's healthcare plans are.

For people like that, they don't care about how left or right the politician is. Some care about 1 specific issue. Some base it on who they think is most honest or most likely to win etc. If you look at the 2nd choice for Sanders voters, alot of them would pick Biden. And the 2nd choice for most of Biden supporters is Warren or Sanders. Ideology is not as important to voters as pundits like to pretend it is. 

Biden's coalition is mostly working class and black people. Butigieg is mostly upper middle class white people. Warren is alot of upper middle class white people, as well as fair number of progessives. Sanders is largely working class people, young people and progressives. 

Bloomberg has no appeal to black people (he pushes stop and frisk), his policies wouldn't really help working class people and he has little name recognition among that group. This means that sanders and Biden wouldn't have much of their base that would like Bloomberg. Warren and Buttigieg's base on the other hand would have alot of overlap. 
#30
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@HistoryBuff
Medicare for all is the specific plan created by Bernie Sanders
"The United States National Health Care Act or Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act is a bill first introduced in the United States House of Representatives by former Representative John Conyers "

"The act would establish a universal single-payer health care system in the United States, the rough equivalent of Canada's Medicare"
He said think thanks stated ACA is a left wing proposal.
His exact words in that clip are "ACA, which was a conservative proposal, came to be caricatured as left wing". He is saying it is a right wing proposal, which it was. 

This doesn't disagree with what I said.
He was saying the "Left" position is one where the government directly provides healthcare. the "Right" position was one where it was entirely private.
This is wrong. When he was stating the ACA was a right wing proposal he was talking about how Republicans were for it in the past. When he was talking about the left wing position that the government provides healthcare he was comparing it to other regions. 
He was saying that Medicare for All was the middle ground between right and left wing proposals.
No he didn't.
Do you need another sweeping declaration tweet were he says "I, Pete Buttigieg, politician, do henceforth and forthwith declare, that I do not believe in Medicare for All". I don't think he is dumb enough to do that. It would be political suicide. He will instead push his very much not medicare for all plan while pretending it is the same thing. Advocating a plan that does not include a single payer system is him saying he is against medicare for all. 
This is the problem. Instead of actually finding him against medicare for all you are assuming he is. You gave me a YouTube link which doesn't say he does. I gave you a chance to quote to him. You double down on this conspiracy even though I gave you the chance to quote him. You didn't then went ranting about a conspiracy. I admitted that Bernie hasn't proposed anything socialist but you can't even admit that you have no proof that Pete is against medicare for all.