8 thoughts on “Bloomberg Vows to Fight On”

  1. He should find a way to get arrested too. You know… for street cred with the other mayors.

  2. For some reason this just reminded me, that when I was a kid and Bucks County was still rural, my dad would often refer to the new people moving in as “the new mayors,” because almost invariably they acted like it was their right and duty to run the neighborhood. Maybe MAIG could expand its membership to include anyone who could demonstrate an attitude that it was their right to change the way their neighbors live.

  3. So we can now quite accurately publicly dismiss MAIG as merely the pet project of a bored billionaire 1%-er nanny, not an actual organization of well-meaning public servants.

    That doesn’t make Bloomberg less of a threat, but calling a spade a spade will undercut MAIG’s credibility.

    1. Perhaps we can promulgate a meme that Bloomberg is doing it for his own profit, in some roundabout way. That would be equal-and-opposite to the anti’s meme that all pro-gun sentiments, and the NRA, are nothing but “fronts for the firearms industry.”

      Actually, it is plausible that Bloomberg wants to keep his name out there for future, grander political ambitions. For someone like him, it could be cheap, early campaign spending.

      1. I prefer, tactically, to stick to what are more-or-less incontrovertible truths as opposed to reaching for more arguable claims.

        If you overreach, the clever opponent will seize on that one statement and make the entire discussion about splitting that hair. Those not really interested will… lose interest, and the thrust of your argument will be deflected and lost.

        For an anti to contest that MAIG is a “billionaire’s pet project” at this point they will have to redefine the meaning of the word “is” in the statement “Bloomberg (and other 1%-ers) is the primary and majority funder of MAIG.”

        The very attempt to spin that truth will cost them credibility in the eyes of the non-aligned.

        It’s why I try to stick to the claim, for instance, that it cannot be reasonably argued that “more guns = more crime” rather than trying to positively argue the more arcane “more guns = less crime” claim.

        If you frame the context correctly for the non-ideological listener, using analogies like free speech they will readily identify with, that restrictions need to be justified, not free exercise, and then show that there is no rational basis to show that loosening restrictions leads to more crime, the anti is left without a logical argument that will resonate and will have to resort to their usual emotional rants. Leaving you the calm rational one which people want to identify with at the ballot box.

        That’s how I like to play it anyway.

  4. I suspect that Bloomberg is in this issue for the long haul. First, he sees MAIG as the major player in gun “reform.” Second, his ego and dollars are already heavily invested. Wealthy elites tend to have pet obsessions into which they wrap their identity. We have seen this also in Joyce Foundation. They have caught hell for “gun control” in part because it’s the oddball in their funding initiatives. But they continue because it is Ellen Alberding’s pet initiative.

  5. I suspect Bloomie wants to be Hitler deep down. He needs to stick to busting on over sized soda violators in his own flippin state.

Comments are closed.