Bloomberg is getting feisty! Keep on the offense and teach that communist about capitalism!

Way over the top.

Bloomberg is on the attack but I think he is doing it wrong. Go after policy, not how many houses Bernie has, no one really cares and anyone who will vote for Bernie isn't so naive to think he is some dude living paycheck to paycheck.

Damnit Sanders you need to call yourself a "social Democrat" not a "Democratic Socialist". You are just hurting yourself for no reason.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Hes pointing out how absurd it is that a millionaire is attacking him about being too rich.

The moderators are really screwing Klobuchar in this hour. She's been completely looked over.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

I totally get that, but you have to be pretty naive to not know Bernie is rich and somewhat a hypocrite. People support him because they want free stuff.

Biden is still doing well, keep it up

My ranking of the debate so far:
Warren
Biden
Sanders
Klobuchar
Buttigieg
Bloomberg

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Bloomberg has disappeared.

Probably best for him.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Go Amy!

Pete pick on someone else

When Pete goes after Amy he gets slammed for his lack of experience every time. You'd think he'd stop.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

This is why the debates were no gift to Bloomberg. Warren wanted a shot at him and she's beat him up all night.

This forever.

I suspect an adviser got in his ear and basically told him they need to do damage control at this point

The protesters help Biden there, IMO. Backfired

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

can't find anywhere what they were saying

Are you kidding me?!? A hypocrite? The guy is 78 years old. The salary for US Reps and Senators is $174,000/year. He has been one or the other for 38 years. 38 years!! Do the math. If he WASNT a millionaire by now with that salary people would be saying that he is incompetent with finances/thus fiscal policy. And I'd bet he's still amongst the least wealthy Senators. Just because the guy is on a platform for the working class, does not mean he should be disowning all of his possessions. Millionaire is not what it used to be. And I'd bet Bernie's wealth is still closer to 1 million than 10 million.

This is such an illogical statement it's mind numbing.

Never said he should be, but if you don't think he comes across as a hypocrite to millions of Americans, and not just republicans, I don't know what to tell you.

If you can't see how vapid and conflating your statement is, I don't know what to tell you.

I don't think it's free stuff as much as it is getting access to a fraction of the advantages that previous generations had access to.

LOL. Got to love Bernie supporters. "Eat the rich". Isnt Sanders rich? "Millionaire is not what it used to be". :lol:

It's a matter of relativity. Bernie is all about government for the 99%. To be in the 1% you need a family income of ~$420,000 annually. Bernie is not the 1%. Not even close. Maybe by accumulated wealth over almost 4 decades of public service on a standard elected official salary, but who would not be at that point? No one unless you made some really, really, really bad financial decisions. And you'd be going after him for that if that was the case.

Attack him for being a democratic socialist, attack him for his health, or age, or sounding like a broken record at times (consistency is boring in politics), but attack him for being a very modest millionaire while he's fighting for the underserved and underpriveleged? If he weren't at this point it'd be more concerning.

ok.

Nothing says champion of the working class like a guy who has 3 houses.

You're oblivious to reality. He said he's got a home in Vermont, one in DC where he's basically lived for 38 years serving in government, and one summer cabin in Vermont. But fuck him for standing up for the working class and the 500,000 homeless when not actually being homeless himself! hEs A hYpoCRiT!

And Pete's retort of only "having one home in Indiana" for the record was baseless too. Bernie has 40 years on Pete. I'll guarantee you Pete Buttigieg, with his McKinsey instincts will be a millionaire with more than 1 home by the time he's 78. Shit, Pete at 38 with 1 home is impressive. Most 38 years olds I know couldn't dream of buying a home where I live.

These things need some perspective and to be put things into context. Some of these arguments are so non-sensical.

But go ahead and vote for your richer candidate of your choice who is taking money, and influenced by big money donors and lobbyists.

Perception is reality.

What does that have to do with his policies? What income level do you have to be below to advocate for the working class? Your mask is coming off.

You advocate for child safety yet are not yourself a child, how hypocritical?

Warren looked the best in the debate. She seemed a bit fired up which I think is when she comes across best. And boy did she just hammer Bloomberg.

But since this is a woman, I'm sure some pundits will proclaim how "bitchy" and "shrill" she was.

Edit: And you're right, looks like the debate was a huge miscalculation by Bloomberg. He would have been better off just running ads through the whole thing and joining up when the stage had less contenders.

Only billionaires can pay for Sanders' vision of America. He needs them.

My current preferences...

Warren
Biden
Klobuchar
Buttigieg
Sanders
Bloomberg

With book deals, Bernie + wife is in the 1% income for the past several years. His net worth is about $2.5M so he is not in the top 1% there, maybe in the top 95%.

Who would not be a millionaire at that point? Oh com'on, plenty of 4 decade public servants who are not multi-millionaires.

But I agree with you. A multi-millionaire can speak up for the less fortunate (just like Bloomberg). However, it was a good offensive quip by Bloomberg considering he was getting beat up on. I wish he had done more of that.

Also, sure Bernie Bros can call him a democratic socialist or a socialist democrat. But if Hillary can be called a Republican on this board, nationalists can be clumped together with white nationalists, bigotry and discrimination falling under the over arching banner of racism ... let's go ahead and not quibble, Bernie is a socialist. The key reason why the Bros don't want to concede that is they know there is a stigma associated with that word.

My current preferences ...

Biden
Klobuchar
Bloomberg
Pete
Warren & Sanders

I have some renewed faith in Biden. He was the only adult in the room and thought he spoke well.

I did not like Pete's attacks on Klobuchar and thought Amy's comebacks were good re: her experience. However, Pete was probably the smoothest out there, just not sure how much substance is underneath.

I'll give Bloomberg a pass. I do think he will be prepped better next time. He has some good lines but not enough offense and some bad responses like on his taxes and the NDA.

Warren & Sanders were 2 peas in the pod, "oh pick me, pick me" with their comical hand raising (much of that is blamed on the format and mods). Sander's rationale for not releasing his medical is bad.

I think you hit the nail why these Bernie Bros don't really want to support somebody else. Your comments are pretty out of touch.

Can you be for climate change and drive a car? Can you be for fixing hunger if you eat every day? I mean come on, your comments are so asinine they invite the trolls. I kind of like Bernie, I have no real interest in "free stuff". A lot of what he says is very true and has been saying it for years, if not decades, before he wrote a book and made a million.

I’m merely talking about perception. People are going to negatively receive a millionaire telling other millionaire and billionaires they shouldn’t have so much money. That’s going to be used against him every step of the way.

Dola- fwiw I’ll still vote Bernie if he wins the nomination.

That debate was fun. Do you think it will get renewed? I really enjoyed the beating Bloomberg got. That is not a man used to being questioned by his "inferiors."

That is an excellent point. We already have someone in the white House who has clearly never had his authority questioned. Is that something we want to repeat?

More along the lines of a Chinese politician advocating you can only have 2 children while having 5 themselves. Or somebody being against abortion while their wife or children or mistress etc are having one themselves.

I don't think Lathum or myself are saying you can't be rich and advocate for the poor. But if you are rich (and Bernie Sanders is rich) and on top of that you choose to attack somebody richer than you for being rich it's fair game to be counter attacked for having 3 houses and flying first class.

yes, but if you drive an electric car as opposed to a gas guzzler you gain a lot more credibility.

I think there are millions of people making a decent living, say 80K and up, who look at Bernie and wonder how his philosophy would harm them financially while noting he himself is a millionaire who has profited off the current system.

Trump claims to be an advocate for poor and minority people, yet we all know thats just not true.

When someone is a millionaire a couple times over and owns 3 houses, yet claims to be the advocate for the working class, that is going to be negatively perceived by some. Right or wrong it just is.

What mask are you speaking of?

If you're rich it's hypocritical to be a voice for the poor, and if you're poor you don't have enough money to have a voice.

The game that makes it impossible for someone to advocate for the poor.

I don’t think that’s true, but when you are a rich person who is telling other rich people they should have less money, while you remain rich, it comes across as hollow to a lot of people.

A quick google search shows Bernie made 571K in 2018 and donates 18k to charity. Does that strike you as someone giving back to the poor?

You can be rich and be an advocate of the poor, but it does sound stranger coming from Sanders because of his particular view of the situation. He doesn't think the rich like him merely should be taxed more, he thinks they shouldn't exist at all, and are immoral because of their wealth. Does that make Mayor Pete more moral than Sanders? When Dems start yelling at each other about who makes less money as a point of honor - as Obama did with McCain in 2008 when he bragged that he had 1 house to McCain's 5 - it comes off as ridiculous to me. I wonder how many houses Obama has now and if that makes him less moral than the Dem candidates with only 1 house now.

And if a rich person having more necessarily means a poorer person has less, then isn't Sanders' wealth taking money from the poor? If he made less on his book deal, than, in his world, the people who worked in the factories that made the physical books, the book sellers, the janitors at the offices housing the marketing staffs, etc, would all automatically make more. In his world, there's a fixed amount of cash in the world, it enters the system at the top, and the rich take too much. And that everybody else automatically gets more of it somehow if we cut off their supply. (That's the product he sells, anyway, and the economy that Bernie Bros describe, I don't know if he really believes that.) But he benefited from that game where the person on top of that equation takes most of the money, even if it was more than they needed.

Sanders scares me because he just comes across as so juvenile, emotion-based, playing to the crowd, telling everybody what they want to hear at all times. Fiery speeches about how these people are the enemy and if we destroy them all, we'll all take their place. It's a message that seems to be rooted in revenge rather than a long-view economic study of what will benefit most people in a complex economy. I know he's smarter than all that and that he's just taking the Trump approach to appeal to peoples' base instincts in order to get elected. It just gives me the creeps.

I don't know if there's substance behind the rhetoric but it's hard to see him as an effective president, which tempers the creep factor for me a bit. He doesn't seem to have any interest in compromising or working with anyone like Obama did. He'd stop the most vicious and blatant harms of the Trump years but legislatively-speaking - I assume we'd just get more old man screaming and supporter talk of conspiracies as to why he didn't fulfill his campaign promises. Though we'd also probably get desperate grasps for more executive power. I can easily Sanders selling the latter as being necessary to protect the 99%, and his supporters eating it up.

That's different than:


It's that idea, that rich people are hypocrites for speaking up for the poor, that I find mostly a tool for the rich to continue to hoard all the money.

One of my main issues with Sanders is that he has very little interest in party politics. If he wins, he's going to need significant majorities to get any of his plans done, yet he seems to have no commitment to getting those people elected.

This is my first year as a registered Democrat and first time voting in a Dem primary. And the candidates who resonate with me are all long gone. It's kind of depressing. I know I'm not really a Democrat at heart, but, it's certainly the party I align most closely with on the issues. I just really don't like the brand that's sold. I'm still undecided in the primary, but tuning into the debates just makes me like almost everyone less.

He is not saying you can't be rich or make money. He is just saying you have to pay more in taxes and play by the rules. I see nothing in his plan that personally exempts him from that.

It's just a dumb argument people make when they can't really argue the policy.

He does say billionaires shouldn't exist. And Bernie was also very critical of millionaires, until he became one.