Army Soldier Blinded By Iranian Explosives In Iraq Has Some Choice Words About Soleimani Attack


Army Soldier Blinded By Iranian Explosives
In Iraq Has Some Choice Words About Soleimani Attack.
As the Left continues to melt down over President Donald Trump’s decision to take out one
of the worst terrorist leaders on the planet, Iranian Quds Force leader Qassem Soleimani,
there are many Americans who not only agree with it, but think it’s long overdue. They would be America’s Iraq war veterans,
many of whom were permanently scarred and injured by Iranian-made devices supplied by
Soleimani and his forces. One of them, retired U.S. Army Staff Sgt.
Roger Bartlett, who was blinded in one eye by one of those devices while serving in Iraq,
reminded Americans — including ungrateful, history-challenged, racist dirtbags like Colin
Kaepernick — the price they paid at Soleimani’s hand. In an interview with Fox News’ Martha McCallum,
Bartlett, who has been a frequent voice against the Iran nuclear deal and the fact that Obama’s
sanctions relief provided Soleimani cover for his terrorist activities, said of Trump’s
decision that it is “retribution.” “All these guys… died at the hands of
the Iranians in this current regime and some to the Quds Force and Soleimani, at his hands,”
Bartlett said holding up pictures of his comrades, Fox News reported. “So for us, it’s, it’s
retribution.” “But it’s finally policies that make sense
and protecting the United States and its citizens and especially its military who serve in these
conflicts,” Bartlett added. But…but…but…what about Iranian ‘retribution?’
Shouldn’t Americans be quaking in their shoes, fearful of the awesome, deadly, global
military reach of the all-powerful Iranian regime? Uh, not really, says Bartlett. “I say we need to send a message. They’ve
been sending us a message for years that they’re at war with us. We’ve done nothing,” he
said. “We’ve sent money. That didn’t work.
We tried to buy a morality, that didn’t work. We sent policies out, put sanctions
on them, not at the level that they’re at now. But none of those things worked,” Bartlett
said. “So how many times you got to … stick
your finger in this light socket before you realize it shocks you?” He also said he believes there “are plenty
of good Iranians” who would benefit from a regime change. “You just get rid of this regime. It would
be wonderful if we can do that,” Bartlett said. “And if we can support those locally
who are willing to live in today’s society without terrorism, that’s great.” President Trump has said that his action this
week was not about regime change or seeking a war with Iran, but clearly the former is
the administration’s objective. Tough sanctions along with overt support for Iranian dissidents
is how you achieve that without putting American boots on the ground. Clearly, this president isn’t looking to
pay off the Iranian regime, that’s for sure.

Comedian George Lopez Offers To Assassinate President Trump On Behalf Of Iranian Government


Comedian George Lopez Offers To Assassinate
President Trump On Behalf Of Iranian Government. The Hollywood leftist hypocrites have been
out of their minds since the election of President Donald Trump in 2016. And few of them have been as incensed as comedian
George Lopez who has said awful things about the president. But he took it to the extreme this weekend
in a tweet that he made, and then deleted, offering to assassinate the president. “#Iranian authorities have put a bounty
on American President Donald Trump’s head during the televised funeral of General #QasemSoleimani
after he was assassinated last week. What are your thoughts?” Chicano World News said
on Instagram. To this Lopez commented “We’ll do it for
half.” His comments drew stark criticism on Instagram and Twitter.
People on Twitter quickly asked for the Secret Service and FBI to get involved and investigate
the actor and comedian. Imagine that. An American, who has made millions
of dollars in America, pledging to assassinate the President of the United States on behalf
of a foreign government. And it is not the first time a famous actor
has threatened to assassinate President Trump since he was elected. In 2017 actor Johnny Depp was at the Glastonbury
Festival in England when he asked if they could bring President Trump there. When the crowd booed him he said “You misunderstand
completely. When was the last time an actor assassinated a president?” “I want to clarify,” he said. “I’m
not an actor. I lie for a living [but] it’s been a while. Maybe it’s about time.” It is time for the Secret Service and FBI
to stop brushing these things off as hyperbole and start to take them seriously. It was a famous actor of the day, John Wilkes
Boothe, who assassinated former President Abraham Lincoln. No one is immune from being
an assassin.

Hasan Puts #YangGang To The Test | Deep Cuts | Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj | Netflix


“What do you think of the
Lakers doing so well this season?” Alright, look. That’s messed up. You guys know I’m a Kings fan. And you know that the Lakers
have consistently broken our hearts. It makes me so mad that they’re gelling, that LeBron is back, that they’re all getting along. There’s no drama. Dwight Howard is, like,
now all of a sudden mentally there. Alright. Does anyone else have
any questions for me or anything? I’ve got a question! Why’d you cut our interview so short? Ladies and gentlemen,
Andrew Yang! Andrew Yang! You too! Yes! Dude, you did fuckin’…
Did you see the way he did that? Aye man, you got the like,
the swagger’s– I’ve seen it, it’s up now. Oh, thank you, man. Thank you. You hopped up like you had wheelies, man. Let’s see Bernie Sanders do that. Oooh, wow! Shots fired. Andrew, that’s ageist, bro. Don’t do that. Bernie’s an inspiration and
role model to me, uh… Don’t qualify. Don’t qualify. Go full
Nas, Jay-Z. Go full Take— Just go Takeover. Oh… You know what you should do? Like,
the Takeover track, be like, “You little fuck, I got
money stacks bigger than you.” You should do that. Alright, anyways. – You’re not the first person to tell me that.
– Um, are you— are you ready for this? I’m ready. You realize the last presidential candidate
that came on Deep Cuts dropped out, so… We had Beto on the show. The ne—
Like, the following day he dropped out. You have to answer the question while
holding an egg on a spoon. So describe, in Spanish, what’s
happening right now on stage. Ah, pues, es muy complicado… – You ready for the danger zone? This is like—
– You have absolutely nothing to worry about. – Okay.
– I’m gonna undo the Patriot Act jinx right now, Ahh, it’s not a jinx. Come on, man. He was polling pretty low, but alright. Now there’s only one dude on TV
doing this all the time. Alright. So obviously, certain media outlets
have blacked you out. Yes. – I’ma just say it. MSNBC…
– Yeah. And I’ve got to say… They call you John Yang… All I’m asking for is that they say,
“We’re going to treat— – Now you wanna— …you exactly like every other candidate.
We’re going to allow surrogates on our air just like we allow surrogates from other campaigns.”
And they’re going to acknowledge that they’ve omitted me from over a dozen graphics
and have made mistakes in our coverage. Very, very reasonable. Just treat us like everyone
else and then I will be back on the air the next day. Okay, but you’re asking for an apology,
though. They have to admit fault? – I mean they actually—
– You want the news media to admit fault? You want Rachel Maddow to tack on
another 30 minutes to her three-hour show – and be like, “I’m sorry, Andrew.”
– I’m not looking for 30 minutes. – I would take one minute.
– One minute? Okay. Uh, but the fact is they’ve already apologized for
some of the mistakes they’ve made in isolation, so I’m just asking for an apology to acknowledge
that they’ve made additional mistakes, as well. Okay. Why don’t you do this:
Go right to Camera One and say, “Hey, MSNBC… the only time I agree with Trump
is when he’s talking about MSNBC.” Wow. – I, I would not put it that way.
– Aw, come on! Come on, dude! I’m trying to— Look, you’re what, at 6%? – Yeah, I’m in, I’m in fifth place.
– If you get the beef poppin’… I guarantee you’ll go up to 8%. If you really… If you really swing dick at MSNBC… Dude, you already have the internet.
They’ll go crazy. – Look, I got to—
– Reddit loves you! I got to give them a road back… – Just go raw.
– …because after I’m president, you know, I’m going to be doing
interviews with them. – I’m serious.
– We got to give them the path back. But MSNBC, just come clean and say,
“Look, mistakes were made. Let’s put this behind us so we can get to the
business of beating Donald Trump in 2020.” Mike Bloomberg just declared his candidacy.
You’re the numbers guy. Should billionaires exist and be able
to run for office? Two questions. Well, our economic system has been geared
towards this winner-take-all dynamic for years. So, it’s going to produce some billionaires as
a byproduct of the way the economy is set up. Uh, and so, you can’t go back in
time and rewire the way the economy – …should have been starting in the ’90s.
– What do you— what do you mean by that? It’s already designed for people
to get a billion dollars? It is designed so that it’s going to end up
producing some number of billionaires, which we have to remedy and as president— Because of what? Monopolies or what? Like what— Yeah. You’ve seen market power consolidated
in the hands of fewer and fewer companies and then you’ve seen technology
and capital converge. The— But should he, should a billionaire like
Bloomberg be able to run? That’s the real question. Because he can just buy his way
through a situation that you’re not in. Yeah. History has shown that self-funding candidates have a very,
very poor track record in elections. And the fact is, you can’t buy
passion, you can’t buy belief. Uh, if you have people and money,
I’ll take people every single day. And that’s what I believe the billionaires in this race
are going to find out, as well, in the days to come. – But should— Should billionaires be able to run?
– The way we’re set up— You’re Euro-stepping the answer here and then going to the hole. I’m— I’m going man. Now you gotta answer that. Come on, Andrew. Yeah. Billionaires should be allowed to spend money
on behalf of their own campaigns. Yes, I believe so. Okay. But, and you’re— You’re okay going up
against the David versus Goliath situation? Well, I think what they’re going to find is that spending
money on advertising dollars is going to be like pushing on a string where after a certain amount of ads,
it actually becomes more irritating than anything else. Uh, you’re nodding because you see this and you don’t even live in Iowa. So, if— if you live in this age— So, like, people in Iowa are like, “Dude, I cannot…
It’s just Fashion Nova, Fit Tummy Tea, and Michael Bloomberg.” Is that what their Instagram is? There was an article where some teenagers
were doing a comedy routine where they were like, imitating these political ads because
they’ve seen them over and over again. So much so that it’s become a joke. You know what, man? You guys know what time it is. It’s time for
the surprise math quiz. Let’s see it. – Andrew, here we go.
– Alright. Two trains travels in opposite
directions from the same station. The first train travels 20 miles an hour faster
than the second train, but it starts one hour and 30 minutes
after the second train. Five hours after the second train starts,
the trains are 512 miles apart. What is the speed of the first train
in miles per hour? Go. As the math guy, I know
the answer is always C! Dude, it’s E, are you kidding me? It’s E. Go, show the work. Super simple.
We did this before. Let X be the speed of train two. X plus 20 is the speed of train one. Obviously, 3.5X plus 20, plus 5X, five two,
8.5X plus seven equals five over two. X is 52. Speed of train: 52 plus 20, 72.
Easy. You sold a test prep company, bro? I did, I did. I did. Alright, man. – Now you’ve said the Freedom Dividend…
– Number one in the country. tested well as an alternative to UBI. Yeah, yeah. We’ve tested all the
names for giving people money. – Dude. Come on, dude.
– No, true. I’m going to be the only one.
It’s just like, “You really tested it?” You were like, “Okay. Let’s try, uh,
‘Allowance for Adults.’ Eh, it’s not going to work.” Yes. We didn’t have that on the list. – Patriot Bucks. Liberty Dollars.
– We had something very close to that. – Patriot Bucks?
– We had a lot of variants. – We had, uh, we had Freedom Dividend, which won.
– Liberty Bribe. How about Liberty Bribe? How about, how about, how about
‘Not Even Half Your Rent… – Bucks”?
– That’s true here in New York. That is true. – Okay. No, but it tested really well. Yeah.
– Anything with the word “Freedom” in it. Anything with the word “Freedom”
in it tested way, way better. – Yeah. You know the show is called Patriot Act…
– But we tested a whole bunch of that stuff. because the Patriot Act was super fucked up. – Yeah. And it got passed.
– Okay. Uh, the Republicans are really
good at naming terrible stuff… – Okay.
– …really appealing names. Okay. But Silicon Valley people love it.
Shouldn’t we have a little bit of skepticism if Silicon Valley bros love
the idea of the Freedom Dividend? Just based on… everything. – Well, the reason why I love the Freedom Dividend…
– Yeah. is that it makes people stronger, healthier, mentally
healthier, less stressed out. We’ll start to put value on things that, right now, the market ignores.
Like the work my wife does at home – with our two boys, one of whom is autistic…
– Yeah. Caregivers, nurturers, uh, coaches and mentors,
and increasingly artists, creatives, and even journalists. There are people in
Silicon Valley that do support this and some of them support it for the exact
right reason— because they know that we’re in the midst of the greatest economic and
technological transformation in our country’s history and we need to do something
about it as quickly as possible. Are we using the Freedom Dividend
as a short-term solve on massive capitalistic inequality that already exists? So, say me and my wife, we get the Freedom
Dividend of a thousand. So, we get 24 Gs a year. How is that going to take down the structure
of the Michael Bloombergs, the Jeff Bezoses? What does that do?
That’s not even a dent to them. Well, to me, what it is— – To massive economic inequality that’s only growing.
– Yeah. Um, what it is, is a foundation for all of us. Like you have— Do you ever stop building
a house at the floor? You ever be like, “Oh, this is a nice floor.”
Of course not. You have the floor and then you have
to build a structure on top. And you’re going to go after
the technology companies as well? – Oh yeah.
– Monopolies, all that stuff. Well, the biggest thing that I’m stressed out
about where the tech companies are concerned, – uh, is that—
– You know we’re on Net— We’re on Netflix. – We’re on Netflix. Everybody but Netflix.
– It’s cool. Everybody but Netflix. Go ahead. I don’t think this does apply to Netflix, happily. You’ll be— that wasn’t intentional. Okay, good, good, good. Okay. Oh, good. Go ahead, go ahead, go ahead, go ahead. – Yeah, fuck Google. Go, go, go, go.
– …is that— Yo, you’ll be like, “Disney’s a huge fuckin’ problem.
Fuck them. I’m gonna break them up…” That’s funny. Go ahead, go ahead, go ahead. So, I’m a parent, uh, and what stresses me out
most about technology is that we’re going through a mental health crisis in this country—
record high levels of anxiety and depression, and it’s related to technology use and
smartphone adoption and social media apps. Uh, and a friend of mine in Silicon Valley said that we
have some of the smartest engineers in our country turning super computers into dopamine delivery
devices and slot machines for teenagers. And it’s having a disastrous effect
on our mental health. So what we have to do is we have to get into
the guts of these social media apps and recalibrate their design choices so they don’t just
have the profits of the companies in mind, but they also have our mental health and the
mental health of our children. Now… You believe data should be owned
by the person who generates it. Yeah! Our data needs to be ours. These companies
are selling and reselling it and profiting to the tune of billions and billions of dollars… Which companies specifically? What are
we talking about? The Majors. Facebook, Amazon, Google— the Majors,
are selling our data and profiting to the tune of billions, even tens of billions, of dollars. So I’m proposing that our data is ours. Even if we decide to lend
it to these tech companies, they have to tell us what they’re doing with it.
They have to share in the value with us, so we would literally get data checks
from the tech companies. Wow. And then we have to be able to turn the dial off
and unplug it at will. And— And this is fundamental. Right now, we’re in a
position where the tech companies know us better – than some of our family members.
– Yeah, that’s true. – And they’re putting all these—
– That’s very true. It is true, right? Netflix might, too.
But in Netflix— – Oooh.
– No, no— Oooh.
– But in Netflix’s case— Oh, really? I told you to go after MSNBC.
Now you’re trying to fuck with my bag. No, no. But in Netflix’s case, they just figure out what
we want to watch so it’s quite benign, actually. And then they figure out what sort
of money to invest content in. – A lot of times we have all these—
– Nice save, nicely done. Nicely done. I have a subscription. Yours or like, a cousin’s? Be real. My cousin borrows mine,
that’s what kind of cousin I have. Alright, alright. I want to go back to something that I
was really fascinated with in your book. You’re the automation guy. That’s how
you kind of became— and made a name – on the national stage.
– Yes. How bad is this robot situation on a scale from
Roomba to Black Mirror? Where are we at? We are approximately halfway
between Roomba and Black Mirror. We’re about 50% of the way to robot dogs. Whoa, whoa, wait. No, no, no, wait. Half? Like— So, what are we? Like… So, there’s Tamagotchi, Terminator…
– Yeah. and you said we’re halfway? We’re definitely past Tamagotchi. We’re short of Skynet, but we have to move
pretty quickly and rewrite the rules of this economy to work for us because it’s
not going to happen unless we make it happen. What are the biggest threats to automation?
’Cause a lot of people have criticized and said you’ve overplayed your hand on
how bad automation is gonna be. You know, I think it’s a very bad bet
to bet against technology over time. And sure, technology doesn’t proceed in a
straightforward, linear fashion. Sometimes it doesn’t look like stuff’s working and
then they’ll all of a sudden make some advance, and before you know it, we’re buying
all of our stuff on Amazon. So, the pace is unclear, but I’m 100% confident
that we blasted away 4 million manufacturing jobs primarily in the Midwest and
helped get Donald Trump elected. I’m 100% confident that Amazon is closing
30% of America’s stores and malls, paying zero in taxes while doing it, and the most
common job in our economy is retail clerk. So, these are indisputable facts before you get to
artificial intelligence replacing call center workers— Is my job at risk? That’s fine.
Is my job at risk? You’ll be the last person standing
while the rest of us all give up. I shouldn’t be happy. I shouldn’t be happy.
That’s messed up. Oh no, man. It’s good. I mean… having a secure
livelihood is nothing to be ashamed of. Oh dude, it’s comedy. That’s not secure.
You know how un-secure this is? I gotta— that’s one reason why you’re such
an awesome Asian-American role model… – Uh-huh.
– because I’m sure his parents were like, “This is, like, the worst, uh, career move ever.” And now, you can be like,
“Look, Mom and Dad, check it out.” Yeah. This is gonna be on YouTube,
Mom and Dad. Now, I recently watched the Disney Channel
Original Movie, Smart House. Now if you haven’t seen it… it’s basically a movie where the computer
takes over the role as mother and holds the family hostage. How does this
movie play into your fears of automation? Wow. Wow. I haven’t seen this movie yet. Um… Dude, I did my real research. I read the book,
I found a piece of pop culture from the ’90s – early 2000s, connected to it…
– Oh, it’s an old movie? It’s what? It’s— Yeah, yeah. It’s O.G.
It’s Lizzie McGuire level, you know what I mean? It’s that era. Yeah. Now you’ve said before you are going to be,
if you win the election, the first American president that was ex-goth. Yeah and this is— This is one way you know that
I had no intention of ever running for president. Let’s— let’s see the photo real quick. – Let’s see the goth photo.
– Sure thing. Okay. Alright. That’s not goth.
Dude, you’re wearing… you just have long hair and a—
you look like an extra in American Pie. – Well—
– Dude, if you’re really goth… dude, you gotta prove it. – Wow.
– Prove it with the Goth Test. Andrew, when is World Goth Day? I do not know the answer. May 22! Andrew, how many tattoos
of The Cure do you have? Zero. But I— but I do have pictures of myself
with a very Robert Smith-esque haircut. Okay. Andrew, who’s the biggest poser: your mom, the jocks, your teachers, or D, all of the above? Wow. I hate to throw my mom under the bus,
but I’m going to say D, all of the above. It’s your mom… because she brought you into this world. Wow, that’s very goth. Andrew, bangs should cover: bangs… one eye, both eyes, and at least three piercings, all of the above? – Definitely all of the above.
– That’s right. You’ve got to cover
everything to be truly goth. Last question. Name three brands of eyeliner. Uh, um… Maybelline… Nice. Thank you. Oh my gosh. – Maybelline Super Eyeliner.
– Nooo! Nooo! Maybe I was just a Maybelline guy, you don’t know. Alright, I support that. Alright, that’s the Goth Test. You have some pretty deep cut, weird policies.
Like you have the American Mall Act. Yeah. You want to revitalize malls? What I want to do is I want to, to help
these malls transition to new uses. Yeah. They can become theaters, community centers, – uh, places for religious organizations…
– I say, no, no… – even art installation—
– Don’t— don’t do boring religious stuff. Do this. Do skating rinks plus laser tag. – Sure.
– Remember like, when you were in elementary school, and you had a birthday party at a skate rink?
We don’t do that anymore. Put that in a mall, put laser tag there. – Hey, if that’s what the community wants—
– Sky Zone. You know how like, little kids have the big trampoline
places? It’s just all trampoline? Do that for adults. – Put that in a Sears.
– Wow. These are great ideas. So what we have to do
is we have to help the community. – Dude, that’s— come on. Nah, dude.
– No, listen! – Nah, you shot that down. Like, Andrew—
– I’m being genuine. Nah, dude, be a real politician. Be like Biden.
Be like, “That was great. That was great.” – I’m being genuine.
– And then like, massage me. Like do it that way. – Super Sky Zone in the Sears is a great idea.
– “That was a great idea!” Yeah. We just have to help the communities find new
uses for these spaces so they don’t become sources of blight and depress
property values for miles around. Other weird policy:
The Penny Makes No Cents. You want to get rid of pennies? I do want to get rid of pennies. – Did you start snapping?
– They know. They know. You’re like, “Take ‘em out.” I have some other ones.
Okay. Those little stickers on fruit. Get rid of ’em. Dude, get rid of ’em. On an apple— you ever bit into an apple
and you eat a sticker? – I’m anti-fruit sticker.
– You’re done. – I’m anti-fruit sticker. That’s a great idea.
– Okay, that’s another one. Visors. Visors are done, okay? What are you? What are you? Are you a hat or are you sunglasses?
Make up your mind. ’Cause the only people that wear visors
are NFL head coaches, but that’s it. Wow… the Anti-Visor Act of 2021. Alright, third pitch, just take it. I’m giving it to you. Don’t give me Freedom Dividend, this is just
out of the goodness of my heart. Celery, get rid of it. Like, come on. Unless you just had buffalo wings, am I right? No, no, no, no, no, no, no. But you—
that’s the problem. You have to pair it with something else.
Dude, celery, stand on your own two feet. Celery alone, bad idea, agreed. Yeah, It’s always got to be like,
“Oh, I’m with peanut butter. Don’t throw me away.” Nah, celery. Bring something to the table. Dude, I should be part of the
campaign, like honestly, like… I’m just like… I agree, running mate, running mate in 2020? The all-Asian American ticket! Yeaaaaah! Nah, dude. Nah, dude. You don’t want
a Muslim running with you, bro. Like, I don’t want to fuck up
the situation. You know— You know like, Barack barely made it being black,
but as soon as they were like, “He’s Muslim!” he’s like, “No, I’m not, dude. Come on, man.
I got, I already got one hill to climb here. Don’t, don’t add the M part.” This is like Good Will Hunting where I’m like,
“Hey man, I want you to go places, man.” Remember when Ben Affleck
does that to Matt Damon? – I don’t want you to be with the Ms.
– Aw, that’s touching. – Like, I want you to go places. Alright.
– That’s touching. Now, you want to empower MMA fighters. Um, did you come up with that
after you went on Joe Rogan? – Uh, before.
– Really? Because I’ve been an MMA fan for years, but MMA
fighters get paid only 10 to 15% of the sports revenues. In every other major sport, it’s 50%… – so they’re getting underpaid by 80%.
– Okay, so we actually have an MMA fighter right here. So, yeah… You’re on my side, right? I want you to empower him. Okay, here’s how I would empower him.
First, I’d get behind him. And then I would say, you got this, you got this guy.
He’s nothing to you. He’s nothing. He’s going to feel your power.
He’s going to feel your power. It’s going to make him not want to be here. – That’s how I would empower an MMA fighter.
– I told you, I told you to channel that Biden, baby. – Thank you, brother. You feel powerful, or you feel—
– Oh, way, way powerful. Okay, good, good. Andrew Yang, everybody! – Thank you all. Thank you, brother.
– That was great, man. Thank you, thank you. – Thank you!
– One more time for Andrew Yang. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you. Andrew Yang!

Kamala Harris Drops Out – Who should be next? | 2020 Election | QT Politics


As the crowded democratic primary race for
the 2020 election rages on, voters appear to be coalescing around a narrowing field
of realistic choices. The tier 1 choices at the moment appear to
be Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg. These four candidates are the top four in
the national polls, each with more than 10% support, according to the rcp averages, and
each has their own advantages. Joe Biden has probably the best name recognition
in the field, and is polling in first nation-wide. Bernie Sanders has raised the most money from
supporters, and has the greatest number of donors. Elizabeth Warren is the only candidate to
have, although briefly, surpassed Biden in the national polls, leads in her home state
of Massachusetts, and remains in second in Nevada, South Carolina, and California. Pete Buttigieg is currently surging nation-wide,
and leads in both Iowa and New Hampshire. It would difficult for any candidate not already
in the top four to break through at this stage of the game, but that doesn’t mean that everyone
else in the race should pack their bags. Andrew Yang, for instance, has shown remarkable
progress for a political outsider, and the longer he fights on, the more seriously mainstream
democrats are to take his central issues: data rights, automation, and universal basic
income. While there are good reasons to cast a cynical
eye on Bloomberg’s run, his financial power is formidable to say the least. Deval Patrick, too, just joined the race—and
while I doubt his experience at Mitt Romney’s vulture capitalist firm, Bain Capital, will
do much to earn him a place in the hearts of democratic voters—it may be a tad too
early to totally dismiss him out of hand. With a number of candidates recently dropping
out, Wayne Messam, Joe Sestak, Steve Bullock, and Kamala Harris, it seems reasonable to
ask… Who should be next? Tom Steyer has managed to make it onto the
debate stage twice, now, passing the polling and fundraising thresholds set by the DNC. For most, his appearances have been somewhat
overwhelming. But if he’s doing so bad in the debates, you
may ask, how has he managed to do well enough in the polls, and in fundraising, to make
it onto the debate stage at all? Well, unlike most of the candidates, Steyer’s
campaign is astoundingly self-funded. While most candidates release ads, in part,
to fill their campaign’s coffers, Steyer is losing astronomical amounts of money with
every ad buy. According to CNN, by October 10th, he had
spent over 30 million dollars on ads across televison and social media. As a result, he raised a paultry 2 million
dollars from less than 160,000 unique donors. Meaning, for every dollar he spends in ads,
he takes in less than 7 cents. Not exactly a promising return on investment. A businessman should know better. But, of course, Steyer’s goal is not to get
his message out there so that the people will help fund his campaign. His goal is to directly earn support from
uncommitted or uninformed voters through ads purchased from his own pocket book. His wager is, essentially, that he can buy
his way into the White House. This graph from 538 shows the ad spending
of different campaigns. Steyer’s ads are represented in green. As you can see, while Steyer remains a relatively
minor candidate in polling and fundraising, he is outspending his primary rivals many
times over. At the current count, Steyer has already spent
a whopping 46 million dollars. That’s a massive figure, but no suprise, given
Steyer is a billionaire, and in 2016 was the second-biggest Democratic donor in the presidential
race. Now, if we extend the graph just slightly,
to today, we see the big problem for Steyer. There’s another Billionaire in the race, one
with even more money than Steyer, who actually topped the charts as the number one biggest
Democratic donor in the 2016 race. Michael Bloomberg, in the last week of November,
and in December so far, is putting his resources at work, outspending even Steyer, many times
over. He’s already spent $31 million. If Steyer’s strategy is to just use his money
to outspend everyone else in the field, Bloomberg seems to be the only guy who can out do him. He’s quite simply got more money to burn. On top of that, Bloomberg’s spending is more
likely to drive his standings in the polls and with donors. He may be quite unpopular amongst Democrats,
but at least Bloomberg has experience beyond funding campaigns. He’s got actual executive experience, having
served as the Mayor of New York. Not exactly sufficient experience for most
Presidential hopefulls, but it is more than Steyer, and more than Pete Buttigieg, who
is currently showing strong promise in the National and Early State polls. Without original policy ideas, strong debate
chops, or experience in politics, he’s got virtually zero chance of catching fire as
a candidate organically. His only advantage has been his ability to
self-fund his campaign. Bloomberg’s entry in the race totally eliminates
that advantage. Not only should Steyer drop out, he should
do so ASAP, because unlike with most democratic candidates, it’s his own money he’s wasting. From the ultimate political insider, to the
ultimate outsider, Marianne Williamson should also drop out of the race. Williamson has said that she’s going to stay
in the race until the money dries up. Bless her heart. I love the orb mother, but it’s hard to imagine
that her campaign has any reason left to exist at this point. Early on, Williamson was able to get onto
the debate stage, and bring up her issues. At times, she even had reasonably good performances. She can even take partial credit for the fact
that one of her top issues, reparations, became a topic of conversation in the debates—enough
so that even Pete Buttigieg, who enjoys very little support from the Black community—would
attempt to win over black voters with his Douglass Plan. Despite having no experience in politics,
Williamson managed to make a bit of a mark. She should be proud of what she’s done, and
hang her hat on it. Now, there’s very little else she can do. Polling at .4 percent in the RCP averages,
she has no hope of returning to the debate stage, or gaining more attention in the mainstream
media, as the field narrows in on more serious prospects. Like Marianne Williamson, Michael Bennet is
no longer likely to gain any real attention in the mainstream media, or make it on stage
for future debates. Despite his past debate appearances, he’s
failed to make his mark, and is currently polling at .8% in the RCP averages. He was also one of the lowest-fundraising
candidates in the 3rd quarter, but for some reason he’s pledged to stay in the race, at
least until New Hampshire. There’s no reason for him to do that. As Colorado’s senior US Senator, he’s got
bigger fish to fry than a campaign going no where slowly. John Delaney’s reasons to drop out are so
numerous that a small wonder he even remembers what it was like to be on the campaign trail. Sure, unlike Bennet, he’s got little else
going on in his political career, having concluded his work in the House of Representatives in
January. But like Bennet and Williamson, his appearances
in the early Democratic debates gained him little traction. He is currently polling at just .6 percent
in the RCP averages: that’s 25% less than Bennett—although with numbers this small,
his total support is well within the margin of error for most polls. Delaney’s run is also comparable to Steyer,
as before Steyer came around, Delaney was the self-funded candidate. Delaney’s campaign is actually one of the
better funded ones—with over 27 million dollars. All but 3 million of that, however, came from
his own bank account. If Steyer should drop out, now that a bigger
self-funded campaign has entered the contest, it’s astounding that Delaney hasn’t caught
on that he’s wasting his money. Having launched his campaign all the way back
in July of 2017, Delaney has been in this race for literal years longer than the major
candidates. The only benefit to his enduring efforts would
be a Guinness World Record for longest-lived campaign failure. Although a far more plausible candidate than
anyone I have mentioned so far, Amy Klobuchar might seriously consider dropping out as well. When it comes to fundraising, she’s raised
about the same amount as Beto O’Rourke, who has already left the race. Polling-wise, she’s in 8th place, with 2.4%
in the RCP averages—not exactly remarkable for an experienced US Senator. And all of this is after two debates where
she clearly performed significantly better than she had previously done. If Klobuchar was going to surge into serious
contention, she would’ve done so already. The real trouble with Klobuchar is that she
offers very little not already offered by a higher-polling candidate. You want an experienced politician with moderate
ideology? You’ve got that with Joe Biden, the leader
in the national polls. Are you a moderate who thinks Biden’s better
days are behind him? Well, in fourth place, and surging in the
early states, you’ve got Pete Buttigieg—who clearly represents a new generation of moderate
dems, far more convincingly than Klobuchar. Do you not care about ideology, and are instead
focused on gender?, you want a woman president? Well, your best bet in that case would be
Elizabeth Warren. She’s in third place nationally, and in the
first two states. Booker, too, is showing weak numbers in the
polls, even after the 5th Democratic Debate, where he delivered what was probably his best
performance in the primary race so far. He’s polled at just 1 or 2 percent since then,
retaining an overall rcp average of just 1.8%. In terms of fundraising, he’s raised about
18 and a half million, and spend 14, meaning he’s not saving up much cash on hand for an
ad blitz in the offing. Booker has a ton of charisma, and solid experience,
but it appears that voters just aren’t buying what he’s selling. To paraphrase an expression Booker used in
a dazzling debate moment, he’s selling the Kool Aid but nobody wants the flavor. Julian Castro’s campaign has shown a number
of signs of impending doom. He’s begun to struggle to make the thresholds
required to make the debates, and as I’ve previously reported, he’s shutting down what
ought to be major campaign operations in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Sure, the official line is that this is to
focus on other critical states, like Iowa (where he his polling in 12th place), Nevada
(where he is polling in 10th place) and his native Texas (where he is polling in 7th place)… But with less than a million dollars cash
on hand, and declining presence in the press, it’s hard to see his prospects as anything
other than a wild long shot. The reality is that, despite being a recurrently
forceful presence on the debate stage, Castro was essentially put in a no-win situation
after his infamous clash with Joe Biden. After asking Biden “did you forget what
you said two minutes ago?”–and repeating that line of attack—the mainstream press
repeatedly reported the encounter as Castro making a distasteful swipe at Biden’s age. In my opinion, Castro was correct in calling
Biden out, and I broke that down in my analysis of the debate at the time. But I would go on to predict that Castro would
suffer in the polls, and that in the next debate, he’d be between a rock and a hard
place: he would have to chose to double down on his aggressive debate style—one of his
only advantages in the primary race—or bend to media pressure, and soften his approach. Castro seemed to do the latter. As a result, his last appearance on a debate
stage was unremarkable, and the low-polling candidate was lost in the shuffle. It may seem a little mean spirited to suggest
that many of the long shot campaigns should end soon, but as the primaries and caucuses
draw nearer, pruning the crowded field may be extremely useful for democratic voters. Crowded debates tend to translate into little
substance, as minor candidates attempt to make their mark with attacks on the major
players, who themselves benefit most by conveying as little meaning as possible—in order to
avoid rocking the boat. With numerous candidates, it also becomes
next to impossible for working Americans to sufficiently research each of their available
options. In this way, dropping out of the race is not
just the right thing to do in terms of time, and energy, and resources for a variety of
candidates—it is also the right thing to do, morally, for Democratic voters, and the
American people. For that reason, I will end this video honouring
the departed campaigns of the patriots who have respected the voters enough to remove
themselves from the race. But of the fifteen candidates still taking
up valuable air time, I ask, how many are wasting everybody’s time? How many are continuing on out of sheer vanity,
stubbornness, and fantasy?, and how many actually have a message worth listening to? And of those, how many really deserve serious
consideration? The Democratic Party has not always opted
for the best choice when it comes to presidential nominees. It may be time for the long shots to step
aside, so that the voters can inform themselves about the realistic options, and decide… Who should be next?

5th Democratic Debate Bernie Highlights #DemocraticDebate #BernieSanders #Bernie2020


Democratic debate let’s create this video it’s
highlighting Bernie Sanders and debate 5 that just took place this is showing
some of its opening remarks senator Sanders I’d like to go to you Americans
are watching these impeachment hearings Democratic debate at the same time they’re also focused on
their more immediate daily economic and family concerns how central should the
president’s conduct uncovered by this impeachment inquiry be to any Democratic
nominees campaign for president how Democratic debate central would it be to yours
well Rachel sadly we have a president who is not only a pathological liar he
is likely the most corrupt president in the modern history of America but we
cannot simply be consumed by Donald Trump because if we are you know what
we’re gonna lose the election right now Democratic debate you’ve got 87 million people who have no
health insurance or underinsured we’re facing the great existential crisis of
our time in terms of climate change you got 500,000 people sleeping out on the
street and you got 18 million people are paying half of their limited incomes
filing what the American people understand is that the Congress can walk
and chew bubble gum at the same time in other words we can deal with Trump’s
corruption but we also have to stand up Democratic debate for the working families of this country
we also have to stand up to the fact that our political system is corrupt
dominated by a handful of billionaires and that our economy is rigged with
three people owning more wealth than the bottom half of America we can do it all
when we Riley the American people in the cause of justice Mayer Buddha judge let
me put the same question to you how central shit okay so right there he’s
asked a question about from the answers Democratic debate Democratic debate at well when he finds a way to move back
to his economic populist message highlighting
the three people own more wealth from the bottom 50% of Americans those are
things a lot of Americans do care about and so Bernie is a good job at
highlighting like yes what’s happening with Donald Trump that is important but
leaders of this country that can focus on multiple problems at once they don’t
only need to focus on that throughout his entire career Bernie has been
focused on economic populist message talking about wealth inequality talking
about the rigged system in his book our Democratic debate revolution he writes about policies like
NAFTA and how they really hurt the middle class in this country mine writes
about Wall Street and 2008 bailouts how the taxpayer money bailed them out and
they turned around right after and they’re storing money in tax havens
overseas and so good job by Bernie and staying consistent with his message
that’s the main thing that makes him Democratic debate unique from the other candidate on stage
makes me me from beauty judge and from Cory Booker and Uniqlo vote are really
the other candidates okay I went a little bit ahead later in the debate
he’s asked actually a pretty tough question about if he believes they
should chant lock him up to dull trumpet events and so it’s honest it’s a
question that almost either way no matter how he answers they’re like it’s
going to tick some people off but let’s go ahead and look at how he responds not
changed my charge is to see a nation right now which has so much common pain
to two of your campaign events recently Democratic debate senator should Democrats discourage this
or are you okay with it I think the people of this country are
touching on to the degree that this president thinks he is above the law and
what the American people are saying nobody is above the law
and I think what the American people are also saying is in fact and if this
president did break the law he should be prosecuted like any other individual who
breaks the law but at the end of the day what we need to do is to bring our
people together not just in opposition to Trump the initial question I think
that you wrote that somebody raised here was that we are a divided nation you
know what I kind of reject that I think Democratic debate when you talk about the pain of working
families in this country majority the American people want to raise the
minimum wage to a living wage when you talk about the climate crisis the
overwhelming majority the American people know that it is real they know we
have to take on the fossil fuel industry Democratic debate they don’t we have to transform our
energy system away from fossil fuel energy efficiency and sustainable energy
even on issues like guns the American people are coming together to end the
horrific level of gun violence so I believe yeah we got a deal with Trump
but we also have to have an agenda that brings our people together so that the
wealth and income doesn’t just go to the people on top but to all of us as
president but let me ask you to pick up on the issue that senator Sanders just
raised about no one being above the law so right there you bring that message
again into his message of economic populist I’m saying Americans actually
aren’t that divided when it comes to a Democratic debate lot of these issues a lot of people want
minimum wage a lot of people care about Medicare for all people want to see more
opportunity so Bernie was a good job again and just staying consistent no
matter what questions asked he’ll answer it it doesn’t completely
spit around and he’ll answer but then you’ll take the message right back to
economics and honestly with the way the income gap has risen since the night
since up news in the middle class has been vanishing with automation and
globalization there’s a reason why Democratic debate Bernie Sanders is this popular and he is
in this moment if you like this video go ahead and subscribe to my channel I’m
coming out with a lot of videos on Democratic debate history on politics full disclosure my
favorite candidates are Bernie and Andrew yang Elizabeth Warren I put in
that top three category as well but thank you for watching

Michael Bloomberg 2020 – 5 Problems | QT Politics


After initially declaring he would not run
for president in the 2020 election, Michael Bloomberg filled paperwork to qualify for
the Alabama primary in time to meet the deadline. This action, followed soon after by fillings
in other states, has prompted many to speculate that the billionaire is seriously considering
changing his mind about running, and his spokespeople have said he would be making up his mind soon. Were Bloomberg to declare a run, he would
reportedly have at least one supporter: Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest person, who apparently
encouraged his fellow billionaire to run during a phone call earlier this year. To win the presidency, Bloomberg would, of
course, have to begin by winning the democratic primary contest. In this video, I will lay
out five serious problems he would face, if he were to join the race. Now, before I launch into this, I want to
be straight up about my bias. I think that the fact that Bloomberg is even considering
a run is an unsavory indicator of times we now live in. I do not trust the ability of
any billionaire to empathize with, or understand the problems of, ordinary Americans. I find
it incredibly difficult to believe that any billionaire is likely to favor policy that
would help working class people, over the interests of their own economic class, and
the corporations they often own, work for, and/or own stock in. And, I find it difficult
to believe that a billionaire will faithfully act in the national interest of America, over
and above their own financial interests. Beyond that, regardless of their propensity
to support policy that would widen the already unconscionable wealth gap in America, I believe
there are serious symbolic issues with having a billionaire in the oval office. Bloomberg
is the fourth Billionaire, after Donald Trump, Howard Schultz, and Tom Steyer, to seriously
consider a 2020 run. Were Bloomberg to secure the democratic nomination, the 2020 election
would be the first general election contest between two billionaires in American history,
a disheartening blow to the notion that anyone in America can grow up to become the President
of the United States. So, for full disclosure, even if a billionaire
were to propose the perfect policies, and somehow prove a faithful commitment to it,
I would still be hesitant. Michael Bloomberg does not pose such moral quandary for me,
as I am in general disagreement about much of his ideology. But, to be quite clear, I
am biased to begin with. The very fact that he is a billionaire means that even if he
were running on a platform I loved, I would still have to seriously mull over the idea
of supporting him, and ask myself: Is it worth it? To begin with, were Michael Bloomberg to join
the presidential race, he must contend with the fact that he might be a spoiler candidate
for more popular moderate Democrats, like Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg. I don’t generally
like spoiler arguments, but the fact is that he avoided running in 2016 for that very reason.
He opted to back Clinton, rather than running himself, because he wanted to unite in common
cause against Donald Trump. Were Bloomberg to join the current Democratic
Primary, he does so mainly to oppose progressive candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie
Sanders, both of whom propose wealth taxes for Billionaires like Bloomberg. Theoretically,
were Bloomberg to make the debate stage—itself a somewhat dubious potentiality—he would
use his time to rail against the progressive moment, and perhaps bolster candidates more
favorable to his own ideology. However, were he to draw support, there is
no doubt where he would be most likely to draw it from: Joe Biden, who is similar ideologically
and demographically, and has the most support to lose. So, were Bloomberg to be extremely
successful and become a major contender, he would very likely split Biden’s base of support
in the process, thus improving the chances of Warren and Sanders, the very candidates
he would join the race to stop. That said, splitting the vote is the least
of Bloomberg’s troubles, as it’s a theoretical problem for anyone joining any race. It’s
also not likely to become a real problem, as to split the vote, you have to draw supporters,
and Bloomberg is not likely to do that effectively. One obvious problem for Michael Bloomberg
is that he is entering the race late. John Delaney was the first to declare his candidacy
at the end of July of 2017. By the end of April 2015, all of the major candidates had
already declared. Candidates who declared after Joe Biden include: Bullock, Sestak,
Steyer, and de Blasio, none of whom have so far been able to gain serious traction. One
of them has actually already dropped out, and two of them might as well have, as they
have failed keep pace with the DNC’s rules for making the debate stage. Aside from this anecdotal evidence, there
is good reason to suggest any new comer to the race would have a tough time: an October
YouGov/HuffPost poll found that 83 percent of Democratic voters were already satisfied
with or enthusiastic about the current field of presidential choices. With so late an entry into the contest, among
a field of highly-liked candidates, Bloomberg would have to have an incredible plan to gain
sufficient momentum to secure the nomination. According to his adviser, Howard Wolfson,
however, Bloomberg’s plan would be to not campaign in early caucus and primary states
like Iowa and New Hampshire, but instead focus on Super Tuesday. The last time a democratic candidate won the
nomination without winning one of the first two state contests was in 1972. And that was
a strange primary contest—McGovern won the nomination despite the fact that Humphry won
the popular vote—and it was a very different time: the second contest was Florida, and
half the states did not have a caucus or primary. I’m not going to say that avoiding the early
contests is a stupid idea, but history shows that no one has ever won by skipping straight
to super tuesday, since super tuesday began in 1984. So, were Bloomberg to join the race, he’d
be joining astoundingly late, competing against already-popular competitors, and doing so
with an implausible strategy. To pull off a victory in the face of all this, Bloomberg
would have to capture a kind of magic that transcends conventional thinking. But does
Bloomberg represent what Americans love? Mmm, not so much. If you made a list of things all Americans
love, that list may look something like this: Nowhere on anyone’s list would we see Wall
Street, the Mainstream Media, or Power-hungry Billionaires, yet Bloomberg manages to be
all three in one person. Michael Bloomberg began his career on Wall
Street, and made his fortune largely through the Bloomberg terminal, the financial information
computer that became a fixture of Wall Street trading floors. Selling these terminals, Bloomberg’s
company became massively successful, and he became one of the wealthiest people in the
world. He then conceived of Bloomberg Business news,
originally as a way of expanding the services provided through his terminals. Before long,
Bloomberg had a small media empire—Bloomberg Mediagroup–with magazines, a 24-hr business
news network, a radio service, and online platforms. Not satisfied by the power he accrued in the
worlds of finance and media, Bloomberg also began a political career, becoming the 108th
mayor of New York in 2001, and served three terms. He also teased making a run for president
in 2016 as an independent, before eventually endorsing Hilary Clinton. If Bloomberg’s threat of running as an independent
in 2016 sounds familiar, it may be because another billionaire, Starbucks CEO Howard
Schultz, tried the same tact this election cycle, before realizing that there was no
clamour for an arrogant, inexperienced billionaire. He announced he would not run in September
2019. But as veteran GOP propagandist Frank Lunz
points out, “Howard Schultz is not Mike Bloomberg. Mike
Bloomberg has shown his willingness to invest in the campaign. He’s shown his willingness
to be tough enough to be able to take the criticism, which Howard Schultz was not,” Still another billionaire, Tom Steyer, is
investing significant swaths of his own money, backing his own run for the Democratic nomination.
Despite massive spending, he is currently polling in 12th place, at 1.0% in the RCP
averages. Meanwhile, two of the top three candidates, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders,
have largely built their political brands railing against the undue power of the billionaire
class. Together Sanders and Warren represent 38% of Democratic support, a full ten points
ahead of the front-runner, Joe Biden. But one thing that separates Bloomberg from
Schultz or Steyer is the fact that he’s been a politician before. A mayor has never made
a direct leap to the oval office before, but there is no doubt that Bloomberg’s experience
as NYC Mayor makes him at least as prepared for the presidency as South Bend Mayor Pete
Buttigieg, who is currently polling in fourth place. So, while Bloomberg’s political experience
may be distinctly less substantial than typical presidents—who tend to have experience as
Senators, Governors or Secretaries of State—his mayoral experience may clear the bar, perhaps
substantially lowered in light of the fact that the current president—also a billionaire—had
zero experience in politics when he beat the candidate Bloomberg backed in 2016. (Hilary
Clinton). Bloomberg’s ties to wall street and the mainstream
media may be negative indicators for his potential in this race, as would his billionaire status.
But as far as billionaires go, he is not likely to be quite as clownish a candidate as the
billionaires we’ve seen so far: unlike Steyer and Schultz, Bloomberg can call himself an
experienced politician. But as far as experience goes, his may not be the kind the Democratic
electorate is looking for. As with most things, experience is more about
quality than quantity. Valuable experience for a politician means having accomplishments
to boast about, or at least, a track record of making the right decisions. When it comes
to decision-making, Bloomberg has many vulnerabilities. He supported George W Bush for president,
he supported the Iraq conflict, and has been a staunch supporter of free trade with China,
habitually turning a blind eye to Chinese protectionism and currency manipulation. But, of all the policies associated with Bloomberg,
one stands out more than any other: stop and frisk. The issue has been talked about in
recent opinion pieces about Bloomberg that have come out in the New York Times, and the
Washington Post, and will thus be likely to be talked about ad nausium by cable news pundits,
should the billionaire declare himself a presidential candidate. When the constitutionality of stop and frisk
was challenged in Federal court, the presiding Judge Shira Scheindlin considered statistics
of police stops between 2004 and 2019. Here were some of those: “52% of all stops were followed by a protective
frisk for weapons. A weapon was found after 1.5% of these frisks. In other words, in 98.5%
of the 2.3 million frisks, no weapon was found.” “In 52% of the 4.4 million stops, the person
stopped was black, in 31% the person was Hispanic, and in 10% the person was white.” “In 23% of the stops of blacks, and 24%
of the stops of Hispanics, the officer recorded using force. The number for whites was 17%.” “Weapons were seized in 1.0% of the stops
of blacks, 1.1% of the stops of Hispanics, and 1.4% of the stops of whites.” “Contraband other than weapons was seized
in 1.8% of the stops of blacks, 1.7% of the stops of Hispanics, and 2.3% of the stops
of whites.” After assessing these statistics, Judge Scheindlin
ruled that the procedure itself was not unconstitutional, but the way the NYPD carried it out was. “Targeting young black and Hispanic men
for stops based on the alleged criminal conduct of other young black or Hispanic men violates
bedrock principles of equality” In response to the ruling, Bloomberg wrote
a Washington Post editorial called “’Stop and Frisk’ keeps New York Safe,” in which
he called that judge “an ideologically driven federal judge who
has a history of ruling against the police” He also tied the stop and frisk policy directly
to saving lives, writing, “Never once in the judge’s 197-page opinion did
she mention the lives that have been saved because of the stops those officers made.” And he claimed, “when it comes to policing, political correctness
is deadly” Bloomberg’s fear mongering about the need
for stop and frisk is not substantiated by recent crime statistics. The NYPD’s own data
has found no increases in serious crime as a result of declining numbers of police stops.
As Politico reported, “The number of reported police stops have
dropped by a total of 98 percent since their peak in 2011. In that time, homicides have
decreased 43 percent, while major index crimes have declined 9 percent.” Perhaps more politically damaging than the
fact that Bloomberg was absolutely wrong about stop and frisk, is the fact that the policy
is poison to black and latino voters. As the Atlantic reported in 2016, “In a 2012 Quinnipiac poll, seven in 10
black New Yorkers opposed stop-and-frisk. In 2013, Marist found an even higher proportion,
75 percent, wanted an overhaul.” In a primary contest where reparations are
being discussed, and multiple candidates have proposed plans for dealing with systemic racism,
Bloomberg will very easily seen as part of the problem. Were he somehow to become the Democratic nominee,
over the objections of Black and Latino voters, Bloomberg’s nomination would very likely clear
the way for a Trump victory. As Jonathan Cape of the Washington Post explains, “Trump was the first Republican to win Wisconsin since
1984. He did so by about 23,000 votes. Black voter turnout in that state plunged from
74 percent in 2012 to 55.1 percent in 2016. Voter suppression efforts played a part, but
so did distaste for the candidates.” It is difficult to imagine how the Democrats
could beat Donald Trump without recovering at least part of the rust belt states, which
voted for both Obama and Trump. To do so, the party must inspire greater turn out from
Black voters, a task that would be virtually impossible with a candidate so inextricably
tied to the NYPD’s stop and frisk policy. This is a double blow to Bloomberg’s chances
in the democratic primary race. Opposition from people of color (and their allies) doesn’t
just meaning losing their votes in the primaries, it also means losing the votes of whites who
take electability to be a determinative factor when choosing a nominee. Losing the votes of people of color would
enough to end the presidential ambitions of most potential Democratic nominees. The only
thing more fatal to a potential campaign would be to alienate a full 50 percent of the American
electorate. When it comes to his past with women, Bloomberg may have already done just
that. Michael Bloomberg boasted in his 1997 autobiography
that he kept “a girlfriend in every city” during the 60s and 70s, and has claimed “chasing
women” to be one of his favourite things to do. In a 2013 feature in New York Magazine, Bloomberg
is quoted as responding to being thanked for his positions on gun control this way: “Without even acknowledging the comment,
Bloomberg gestured toward a woman in a very tight floor-length gown standing nearby and
said, ‘Look at the ass on her.’” In 1990, colleagues gifted him a booklet called
“Portable Bloomberg: The Wit and Wisdom of Michael Bloomberg.” One piece of wit
the volume contained, was the following “hilarious” joke: “If women wanted to be appreciated for their
brains, they’d go to the library instead of to Bloomingdale’s.” Look, I’d be perfectly happy to accept an
offensive joke, were the joke discernibly funny in anyway whatsoever. While I’m not
particularly offended as supporter of women, I am, in the words of Jerry Seinfeld, “offended
as a comedian”. Here’s another piece of Bloomberg wit: when
he noticed a sales representative at his company wearing an engagement ring, he is alleged
to have said to her, “What, is the guy dumb and blind? What the
h-e-double-hockey-sticks is he marrying you for?” That’s according to a suit filed by that sales
representative in the 1990s. She also claimed that when she told Bloomberg that she was
pregnant, he replied this way: “k it!” Bloomberg denied that he ever made those comments,
but did concede that he said of her, and several other women at the company, “I’d do her.” There have been far too many discrimination
and harassment suits filed against Bloomberg and his company to sufficiently detail here.
Several suits of this nature were filed in the 1990s and beyond. In 2008, at least 58
women filed a class-action lawsuit against Bloomberg LP, alleging pregnancy discrimination,
including demotions, cut salaries, and other mistreatment. In 1998 woman filed a suit against
Bloomberg after an executive allegedly forced himself on her. Bloomberg claimed he wouldn’t
believe the woman without an “unimpeachable third-party witness”. A similar case was
filed in 2013, with another female victim and another Bloomberg executive. The suit
alleged the multiple attacks she suffered were assisted in part by a hostile work environment
and a pattern of discrimination and harassment from multiple leaders in the company. It would be unreasonable to hold Bloomberg
responsible for the the worst acts of vylense against women perpetrated by executives at
his company. But it does seem to me fair to hold him at least partially responsible for
the apparently perpetually misogynistic culture of his company, and 100 percent responsible
for his personal history of demeaning and misogynistic comments. After learning about the history of Bloomberg
and his company’s treatment of women, it would be difficult to imagine that any kind of enthusiasm
for his campaign would come from well-informed female voters. But forget how Bloomberg’s past will affect
his popularity going forward. With relatively high name recognition, current opinion polling
about Bloomberg already paints a pretty vivid picture. According to polling by Morning Consult, Were
Michael Bloomberg to join the race today, he would be polling in 6th place, between
Kamala Harris and Andrew Yang, with 4% of the vote. Given the large field overall, and
the fact that candidates tend to experience a surge after declaring their candidacy, these
numbers don’t look altogether horrible for Bloomberg. After all, we saw Pete Buttigieg
rise to fourth place out of almost total obscurity, and he’s currently polling in 2nd place in
Iowa. But, while unknown candidates can join a race
and gain significantly in the polls as people learn who they are, Bloomberg’s single-digit
status has little to do with a lack of name-recognition. Again, according to Morning Consult: “If he were to run, Bloomberg would enter
the 2020 Democratic contest with higher name recognition among the party’s electorate than
11 current contenders, including fellow billionaire Tom Steyer of California. But Bloomberg does
have baggage, with a quarter of likely Democratic primary voters expressing unfavorable views
of him—higher than any of the 15 candidates currently in the race.” FiveThrityEight data confirms this: while
his name-recognition is on par with Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, who enjoy net-approval
ratings in the mid-thirties, Bloomberg’s net-approval is less than a third of theirs, at +11 points. So, not only does Bloomberg already have high
name-recognition, meaning he has little room to grow beyond the 4% support he might already
enjoy, were he to join the race, he would be beginning his run as the most hated candidate
in the field. For a years now, Michael Bloomberg has been
teasing presidential runs. There is no doubt that he wants to become the president. But,
to even have a chance of winning, Bloomberg would have to give up a great deal of privacy,
face enormous criticism, expend a small fortune of his personal wealth, and submit himself
to an exhausting process: with debates, rallies, interviews, and the behind-the-scenes efforts
of building an effective campaign team. All this, and he would still face incredibly long
odds for even becoming a top contender for the Democratic nomination. Were he some how
able to secure that, he would then face the even more exhausting process of running in
the general against a notoriously vicious and energetic rival. Not to mention, actually
being the president is a stressful, mostly thankless task. Bloomberg may very well want to become the
president, but given all he would have to go through to even have a remote chance of
winning the prize, I wonder if he has asked himself… Is it worth it?

Ruth Marcus and Michael Gerson on impeachment inquiry, withdrawal of Beto O’Rourke


AMNA NAWAZ: This week marked an historic moment. For only the fourth time in U.S. history,
the House of Representatives passed a resolution formalizing public impeachment procedures
against the president. Meanwhile, the race to head the Democratic
ticket has shrunk by one. Here to help make sense of it all are Marcus
and Gerson. That’s Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus
and syndicated columnist Michael Gerson, also with The Washington Post. Mark Shields and David Brooks are away. But you both are here. Happy Friday, and thanks for being here. MICHAEL GERSON: Good to be here. AMNA NAWAZ: A lot to cover. Let’s start with the little bit of news we
already have tonight on the impeachment process. Ruth, there’s some reporting late tonight
about details from one of the testimonies earlier this week. This was a man named Lieutenant Colonel Vindman. It’s being reported now that he, as a member
of the national security staff in the White House, was on that call between President
Trump and President Zelensky, and that he was instructed after that call by a top White
House lawyer not to discuss that call with anyone. When you take into account all the reports
about testimony this week, what are your takeaways? RUTH MARCUS: Well, for a conversation that
the president has told us was so perfect, he’s going to read it to us in a fireside
chat, there certainly was a lot of alarm about this conversation. It’s difficult to tell whether this was a
lawyer being careful and just simply telling the people he advises not to make more of
this conversation than there was, or whether this was a lawyer trying to cover up and conceal
this conversation. It’s one of the many things that we need to
know more about. And it’s one of the many things that we have
learned in the last several weeks that really makes this impeachment inquiry so central
and so essential, and just means that we cannot avert our eyes from this and go on with the
election as if we didn’t know what was going on here. AMNA NAWAZ: Michael, as we have mentioned,
the president keeps saying it was a perfect phone call. Vice President Pence has also said there was
no quid pro quo. He said this several times in an interview
with our own Judy Woodruff earlier this week. The more information we get, it seems to contradict
those two claims. MICHAEL GERSON: Well, I think it’s fair to
say that the professionals, the non-political appointees that were involved in this process
from State and the NSC, were deeply concerned, contemporaneously, when they found out about
it, and they brought it up to superiors, and didn’t get much result. Even the political appointees that were involved
in this, however, didn’t exonerate the president. They actually pretty much confirmed the account
from the whistle-blower. So the effect of all this is to take away
the argument no quid pro quo. That argument doesn’t work anymore. It’s been deflated and defeated. And I think Republicans are now driven to
other positions, because that has been taken away. RUTH MARCUS: Well, we will see if they let
it be taken away. But I completely agree with Michael. Asked and answered on quid pro quo. That was the significance of this week. Not only Ambassador Taylor from the previous
week, but Lieutenant Colonel Vindman and Tim Morrison, another aide at the National Security
Council, reaffirmed quid pro quo. The second question is, OK, if you don’t have
the “there’s no quid pro quo” argument, do you have the unfairness argument? That’s the other significance of this week
is, we finally have — debate about whether we should have had it earlier — a resolution
that will set forward what the procedures should be going forward. Republicans are claiming that this is deeply
unfair and the whole thing is tainted by the previous unfairness. But I guess I would ask them, if they had
video — if the impeachment inquiry came up with video of the president shooting someone
in the middle of Fifth Avenue, would they say we should ignore that because the proceedings
were unfair? They weren’t. And they shouldn’t ignore anything. And they have set out fair proceedings going
forward. AMNA NAWAZ: Well, what about the process here,
Michael? Because that is the sort of the core of the
Republicans’ protests at this point, right, that the process has been unfair. As it looks like we’re moving into an open
public hearing set now, what about those protests? Are those valid? MICHAEL GERSON: Well, it seems basically fair,
what they have outlined. As far as the Judiciary Committee, the president’s
lawyer gets the right to bring witnesses, challenge witnesses. In fact, we may next week get a lot of the
closed hearing information come out next week, as far as the transcripts of these other things. So there’s a degree of transparency there
that I think just makes intuitive sense. RUTH MARCUS: And if… MICHAEL GERSON: But the Republicans love to
talk about process, because they don’t want to talk about substance. I mean, they’re happy when they can talk about
process in this case, because their arguments are pretty weak otherwise. AMNA NAWAZ: Go ahead, Ruth. RUTH MARCUS: If these procedures aren’t fair,
then they weren’t fair to Bill Clinton, because they’re essentially the same procedures. AMNA NAWAZ: Let me ask you about how some
of these messages and information are going over with the American public, because we
heard Judy ask this of Vice President Biden earlier, is there a potential political cost
for Democrats here? We saw that House vote really strictly along
party lines. Take a look at this poll now, the new numbers
from The Washington Post and ABC News. People were asked, should Congress impeach
and remove President Trump from office? That’s obviously a different bar, impeach
and remove. But the country is very evenly divided when
it comes to that. What do you say to that, Ruth? Is there a political cost for how this is
moving forward now for Democrats? RUTH MARCUS: Well, one thing I would say to
it is — and I suggested this before — it doesn’t matter. This conduct is serious enough that it needs
to be taken seriously, political cost or not. And the other thing I would say is that, if
you look at those numbers, which show a very divided country, but look back at numbers
from July before the Ukraine story broke, when the question was asked, not whether he
should be impeached and removed from office, which is a dramatic outcome, but simply whether
an impeachment inquiry should go forward, the number was 37 percent. So, from 37 percent supporting an inquiry
going forward to 49 percent supporting removing him from office, that’s a dramatic change. And the reason for that dramatic change is
because the facts have emerged, that people understand this is something serious going
on. AMNA NAWAZ: Michael, very briefly, moving
into next week, there are some key White House officials who have been invited to testify. What do you think we will be hearing next
week? And could it change the narrative at all? MICHAEL GERSON: Well, I think that Bolton
holds a lot of power in his hands right now. I don’t know when he might appear. But it’s — this is a case where he could
confirm a lot of things and have some significant influence. And I think, as we move into the public hearings,
some of these witnesses, like the lieutenant colonel, are going to be great witnesses. RUTH MARCUS: In his dress blues. Imagine that. MICHAEL GERSON: Right. Exactly. So, I think Democrats can look forward to
that, I think. And some of those witnesses will be very effective. AMNA NAWAZ: I’d be remiss if I didn’t ask
you about the 2020 race. We had some news on that front as well tonight,
as we reported earlier. The field has been narrowed by one on the
Democratic primary front. Beto O’Rourke announced today he is dropping
out of the race, saying: “Though it is difficult to accept, it’s clear to me now this campaign
doesn’t have the means to move forward successfully.” What does that say to you, Ruth? RUTH MARCUS: He didn’t have the money. This crowded field has made it all but impossible
for individuals who might otherwise have broken through to break through. Beto O’Rourke just two years ago was the new
thing. But, this cycle, there’s a new new thing in
the form of Pete Buttigieg. And he — I’m sorry, in a sense, that he didn’t
make the decision to run for the Senate in Texas again, because I think he would have
had a better shot at that. And I think it might have been better both
for him and the country. MICHAEL GERSON: And he took positions, though,
in the campaign that would make a run in Texas impossible, in my view. RUTH MARCUS: That is true. MICHAEL GERSON: When you come out against
tax exemptions for churches that disapproved gay marriage… RUTH MARCUS: And take guns. MICHAEL GERSON: … talking about gun confiscation,
I mean, I think Trump’s support survives on fear. And he justified those fears for a lot of
people. I think it’s better for the Democratic Party
that he’s gone. AMNA NAWAZ: What does it say to you about
him leaving now? And where do his supporters go, given some
of the movement we have seen recently off of those fund-raising numbers, right? We saw Judy asking Vice President Biden about
some of the struggles he had with fund-raising. He had what some would say is a meager $15
million at the end of the last quarter. Kamala Harris restructuring her campaign,
probably under financial pressure there, too. This is a key moment in that race. Where does his crowd go? MICHAEL GERSON: Well, there’s some winnowing
going on in the race. I don’t think his crowd was large enough to
make much of a difference, to be honest. But he certainly represented kind of liberal
idealism in the race. And there are others that take that up. I mean, the candidate that has risen over
the last few weeks and months is Elizabeth Warren. And she now has her plan out about how to
pay for Medicare for all. And I think the reaction to that, the way
that the views settle on it, is going to determine whether people think she can win or not. AMNA NAWAZ: And very briefly, Ruth, in 30
seconds, has she done a good job defending that now? RUTH MARCUS: Well, kudos to anybody who puts
out a plan with some meat on the bones and some explanation of what she thinks it’s going
to cost and how she thinks — is going to pay for it. But I’m going to quote Nancy Pelosi here on
Medicare for all. There’s a comfort level that people have with
their current private insurance. And if that is to be phased out, let’s talk
about it, but let’s not just have one bill that would do that. And she questions whether you can win the
Electoral College with that message. I think that’s a serious question for Democrats. AMNA NAWAZ: That’s going to be a conversation
to continue there, for sure. Ruth Marcus and Michael Gerson, thank you
so much for being here.