search
top

No Respect!

They don’t respect you Mike. They aren’t jumping on the Bloomberg train. They aren’t taking you seriously. You’re just a wallet to them. Ingrates! Every one of them! I think you should cut them off and make them fend for themselves. That’ll show ’em who’s boss. Save all that money for your campaign, and people that respect you.

14 Responses to “No Respect!”

  1. adlib says:

    still gross every time they drop the expression “grassroots”

    • Chris says:

      Fake news.

      Provisions one and two have been on the books in VA for decades. Provision three is a soft OC ban but similar laws are on the books in dozens of other states.

      What is more important is how the state AG and commonwealths attorneys interpret the existing statutes.

      Link here has some background.

  2. Richard says:

    Checked out a few left-wing sites. He is not playing well with the Democrat base. He will be a better foil for Warren and Sanders than Steyer has been because he is even richer and people have actually heard of him.

    He is using the Jeb! strategy of losing the primary but winning the general. Outside of the obvious impossibility problem, he is even less popular than Jeb!. With any luck he will run as an independent.

  3. Matt says:

    He is a one issue guy and Beto ruined it for the dems this cycle.

  4. Andy B. says:

    I have seen a historical parallel on the right, that also involved guns.

    It was at the state level, in another state. A state-level gun rights group I was loosely associated with at the time had a choice between two Republican candidates in a primary. One had a pristine, proven record on gun rights, but was thought to be a softy on all the other social conservative issues. His opponent had a pretty solid record as a pro-life candidate, but no record at all on gun rights beyond talking one hell of a fight. The “gun rights” group of course supported the candidate with the pro-life record. The excuse they gave privately was, that so many of their supporters were pro-life, they couldn’t risk offending them by endorsing someone who was soft on the issue. But I knew personally which issue the leadership of the “gun rights” group supported more.

    The analogy with Bloomberg “on the left” is, he is at best a DINO, and his “Stop and Frisk” sealed that deal, once and for all. What most people on the left are demonstrating is, that gun control is not a serious issue for them — either — even if it is on their laundry/wish list, and useful for getting some votes.

  5. Alpheus says:

    Maybe a little off-topic, but I noticed in the article how they mentioned one Monique Roxanne Nelson, who was “accidentally” killed while strapping her toddler in a car seat, as a reason for one of the Moms Demand Action to be goind around demanding action.

    I looked up how she died, and I found out that she was killed in a gang shootout in California. Hardly accidental — at best it was reckless, but considering that it’s highly unlikely that either side of a gang fight would be found acting in self defense, it’s likely even murderous. And considering that she was killed in California by felons already prohibited from owning guns, I can’t help but wonder: what *gun* laws *could* you want, at this point, that would have prevented such a death? Why isn’t the anger directed at the gangs who shouldn’t have been shooting at each other in the first place?

    Sigh. I understand how grief can lead a mother to such action, but the complicity of the article-writer to just blindly accept this woman’s death as a good motivation for banning guns bothers me as well. Then again, if these people were logical, they wouldn’t be gun-grabbers, I suppose…

  6. Andy B. says:

    This is a an article about Bloomberg from a leftist’s perspective that I stumbled over.

    It’s title is “Bloomberg for President? God No!”

    The most interesting thing to me is that it doesn’t mention the gun rights issue in any context, indicating that (arguably) even the left does not regard gun control as a high priority issue. It’s only for use in and around elections.

    • Joe says:

      Bloomberg is the face of the “China-Lobby”, and he has supported every unrestricted free trade deal ever signed by any president since Bill Clinton; every single one of them hurting Middle-America in Dixie and The Heartland.

  7. Andy B. says:

    “every single one of them hurting Middle-America in Dixie and The Heartland.”

    That needs to be advertised in Dixie and The Heartland, if he hangs in there as a candidate until Super Tuesday.

    I get the impression that at least some on the left will happily help with that, as they regard him as an arch neo-liberal.

    • Joe says:

      I could see Bloomberg knocking off Biden and possibly getting the Democrat Nomination. He’s a dangerous person. Don’t underestimate him, because the Democrats led by Cankles Clinton completely laughed off Trump, and, I’m starting to see that same attitude from our side regarding Bloomberg.

      He is worth leaps and bounds more cash than Trump, and he can articulate political talking points better than any other Democrat candidate, as well as having a better demeanor than Trump.

      Economics is the only way Trump can beat him, and the GOP needs to hang Bloomberg with his China-Lobby Trade Deal Advocacy from the past. Bloomberg has no voting record in Statewide or Federal Legislative Politics like the other current Democrat candidates do.

      • Andy B. says:

        “Don’t underestimate him, because the Democrats led by Cankles Clinton completely laughed off Trump, and, I’m starting to see that same attitude from our side regarding Bloomberg.”

        An excellent warning, because it is never wise to underestimate any potential threat.

        I’ll restate my comments as, it is worth studying why he is broadly disliked on the left, so as to be prepared to effectively campaign against him on those issues.

        Concentrating on why we don’t like him is a waste of time, because no one on the right is going to support him, anyway. It’s been a long time since I’ve read any of Sun Tzu, but I seem to remember he had a few reflections on how to manipulate your opponent’s army.

        • The_Jack says:

          There is also that, in the general, getting someone to not vote for BLoomberg (stay home, write-in, 3rd party) is half as good as getting them to vote for Trump with respect to a state’s electoral votes.

          And given the massive negative partisanship is much easier.

          I suppose an angle to explore is the “the game is rigged” IE highlight how Bloomberg and Trump are similar to disenchant a Leftward voter.

          Kicking out the Orange man is one thing, but if it comes at the cost of another Wallstreet billionaire class old white male?

          • Andy B. says:

            To be clear, I was just thinking in terms of the Democratic primaries/caucuses. There of course is always the argument that hurting a “bad” candidate in a primary, is helping a “better” candidate, who may have a higher probability of winning the general election; and if both candidates are enemies of gun rights, you may have shot yourself in the foot.

            I would argue that targeting Bloomberg during the Democratic primary period (i.e., genuinely working in all ways to deny him the nomination) is a good tactic, because he has been the most committed enemy of gun rights. Things like Beto’s blurt about confiscating “assault weapons” may be great grist for propaganda, but shouldn’t count for much compared to years and millions spent on accomplishing exactly that. And if Bloomberg is defeated in the primaries, gun owners can plausibly claim credit for it.

            All that said: Republicans in turn may be shooting gun owners in our feet, by committing to being the Party of Trump. E.g., the states where the RP plans not to hold primaries. Another Republican candidate could prove to be more electable at this point, and that deserves to be tested. IMO very few of the Trump base would not support the Republican candidate, and if a Republican candidate committed to nominating Federalist recommendations for the SCOTUS, we would be in roughly the same place we are now, except for having a more palatable Republican POTUS.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

top