Democratic Party set to include Michael Bloomberg in debates

[pknopp]

What I said long ago would happen has happened. You can feel it all a coincidence if you want but you know it isn't.

ROFLMAO! The data you have supporting your assertions is "What you said long ago" ...... let me guess you're bucking for the Most Vapid Poster of 2020 Heavy Weight Title Belt? and for the record I don't base my conclusions on how I feel.

I would have more respect for you if you told me that your conclusions were based on astrology or a seance because that would be more rational than your current argument.

It's based upon paying attention.

LOL, Paying attention to what? Your "feelings"? The voices in your head?

Maybe you put some effort into gathering and analyzing actual data before drawing and putting forward conclusions and you wouldn't have to spend so much effort trying to deflect from the fact that you didn't, just a thought.

You can't analyze data on something simply made up.

ROFLMAO! then why are you working so hard at it? After all you just made up your initial claims out of thin air and now you're trying to analyze your way out having to provide data to support them.

Do you still believe that Hillary was way ahead in the last election until just before the election?

LOL and now you're trying to put words in my mouth to deflect from your own incompetence, please point out where I claimed I believed "Hillary was way ahead in the last election until just before the election".

Asking a question is not putting words in your mouth. It is asking you to.

Are you saying you did not believe the polls? (See the "?". That is put there to derive an answer to a question, not say you said anything).

 

[Cosmos]

Billionaire thinks he can buy the election like it was a toy on Amazon. DNC stupid enough to fall for it.

Besides being a billionaire businessman, what were Trump's qualifications for office?

Trump has an agenda that is widely appealing to a broad cross-section of America.

Bloomberg is antithetical to most Americans with his absurd nanny-state ideas and his anti-2nd Amendment stance. He's just an elitist power-hungry bastard that should retire.

 

[NightFox]

ROFLMAO! The data you have supporting your assertions is "What you said long ago" ...... let me guess you're bucking for the Most Vapid Poster of 2020 Heavy Weight Title Belt? and for the record I don't base my conclusions on how I feel.

I would have more respect for you if you told me that your conclusions were based on astrology or a seance because that would be more rational than your current argument.

It's based upon paying attention.

LOL, Paying attention to what? Your "feelings"? The voices in your head?

Maybe you put some effort into gathering and analyzing actual data before drawing and putting forward conclusions and you wouldn't have to spend so much effort trying to deflect from the fact that you didn't, just a thought.

You can't analyze data on something simply made up.

ROFLMAO! then why are you working so hard at it? After all you just made up your initial claims out of thin air and now you're trying to analyze your way out having to provide data to support them.

Do you still believe that Hillary was way ahead in the last election until just before the election?

LOL and now you're trying to put words in my mouth to deflect from your own incompetence, please point out where I claimed I believed "Hillary was way ahead in the last election until just before the election".

Asking a question is not putting words in your mouth. It is asking you to.

... have you stopped beating your wife?

Asking a question would have been "Do you believe" not "Do you STILL believe", see the difference?

Of course you don't because by all appearances you're a disingenuous dingbat that can't admit it when your claims are based on nothing more than your own private little fantasies.

Are you saying you did not believe the polls? (See the "?". That is put there to derive an answer to a question, not say you said anything).

Did I imply anything like that? No I didn't, I haven't even talked about polling, I asked you to provide some data to support your claims and so far it's been nothing but attempts at deflection and nonsense from you.

LOL, I have to hand it to you, you sure put in a herculean effort when it comes time to deflect from the fact that you have no idea as to what you're talking about, it's just too bad you can't put in the same effort when it comes to formulating rational, evidence based conclusions.

 

[pknopp]

It's based upon paying attention.

LOL, Paying attention to what? Your "feelings"? The voices in your head?

Maybe you put some effort into gathering and analyzing actual data before drawing and putting forward conclusions and you wouldn't have to spend so much effort trying to deflect from the fact that you didn't, just a thought.

You can't analyze data on something simply made up.

ROFLMAO! then why are you working so hard at it? After all you just made up your initial claims out of thin air and now you're trying to analyze your way out having to provide data to support them.

Do you still believe that Hillary was way ahead in the last election until just before the election?

LOL and now you're trying to put words in my mouth to deflect from your own incompetence, please point out where I claimed I believed "Hillary was way ahead in the last election until just before the election".

Asking a question is not putting words in your mouth. It is asking you to.

... have you stopped beating your wife?

Asking a question would have been "Do you believe" not "Do you STILL believe", see the difference?

Of course you don't because by all appearances you're a disingenuous dingbat that can't admit it when your claims are based on nothing more than your own private little fantasies.

Are you saying you did not believe the polls? (See the "?". That is put there to derive an answer to a question, not say you said anything).

Did I imply anything like that? No I didn't, I haven't even talked about polling, I asked you to provide some data to support your claims and so far it's been nothing but attempts at deflection and nonsense from you.

LOL, I have to hand it to you, you sure put in a herculean effort when it comes time to deflect from the fact that you have no idea as to what you're talking about, it's just too bad you can't put in the same effort when it comes to formulating rational, evidence based conclusions.

I don't even know what you are ranting about now. Sanders is in the lead. He always has been.

 

[NightFox]

LOL, Paying attention to what? Your "feelings"? The voices in your head?

Maybe you put some effort into gathering and analyzing actual data before drawing and putting forward conclusions and you wouldn't have to spend so much effort trying to deflect from the fact that you didn't, just a thought.

You can't analyze data on something simply made up.

ROFLMAO! then why are you working so hard at it? After all you just made up your initial claims out of thin air and now you're trying to analyze your way out having to provide data to support them.

Do you still believe that Hillary was way ahead in the last election until just before the election?

LOL and now you're trying to put words in my mouth to deflect from your own incompetence, please point out where I claimed I believed "Hillary was way ahead in the last election until just before the election".

Asking a question is not putting words in your mouth. It is asking you to.

... have you stopped beating your wife?

Asking a question would have been "Do you believe" not "Do you STILL believe", see the difference?

Of course you don't because by all appearances you're a disingenuous dingbat that can't admit it when your claims are based on nothing more than your own private little fantasies.

Are you saying you did not believe the polls? (See the "?". That is put there to derive an answer to a question, not say you said anything).

Did I imply anything like that? No I didn't, I haven't even talked about polling, I asked you to provide some data to support your claims and so far it's been nothing but attempts at deflection and nonsense from you.

LOL, I have to hand it to you, you sure put in a herculean effort when it comes time to deflect from the fact that you have no idea as to what you're talking about, it's just too bad you can't put in the same effort when it comes to formulating rational, evidence based conclusions.

I don't even know what you are ranting about now. Sanders is in the lead. He always has been.

Yeah, I'm not surprised that you don't understand someone asking you to provide credible evidence to support your assertions.

Most infants don't.

Now off to /dev/null with ya.

 

[alang1216]

Bloomberg is antithetical to most Americans

The reality is that Trump is antithetical to most Americans. In a recent poll 53% of Americans disapprove of him (44% approve). Remember, he was elected by a minority of American voters. Those numbers don't include the heavily-Democratic, District of Columbia. DC has a population greater than Wyoming or Vermont.

 

[Cosmos]

Bloomberg is antithetical to most Americans

The reality is that Trump is antithetical to most Americans. In a recent poll 53% of Americans disapprove of him (44% approve). Remember, he was elected by a minority of American voters. Those numbers don't include the heavily-Democratic, District of Columbia. DC has a population greater than Wyoming or Vermont.

Don't bother me with polls. Your poll probably includes about 900 people. And you have no idea about the validity of their answers.

 

[The Original Tree]

Billionaire thinks he can buy the election like it was a toy on Amazon. DNC stupid enough to fall for it.

Besides being a billionaire businessman, what were Trump's qualifications for office?

Trump has an agenda that is widely appealing to a broad cross-section of America.

Bloomberg is antithetical to most Americans with his absurd nanny-state ideas and his anti-2nd Amendment stance. He's just an elitist power-hungry bastard that should retire.

Nothing will Stop Mr. Burns.....err Bloomberg!

 

[Cosmos]

Billionaire thinks he can buy the election like it was a toy on Amazon. DNC stupid enough to fall for it.

Besides being a billionaire businessman, what were Trump's qualifications for office?

Trump has an agenda that is widely appealing to a broad cross-section of America.

Bloomberg is antithetical to most Americans with his absurd nanny-state ideas and his anti-2nd Amendment stance. He's just an elitist power-hungry bastard that should retire.

Nothing will Stop Mr. Burns.....err Bloomberg!

Yep. That's Bloomberg all right.

 

[pknopp]

You can't analyze data on something simply made up.

ROFLMAO! then why are you working so hard at it? After all you just made up your initial claims out of thin air and now you're trying to analyze your way out having to provide data to support them.

Do you still believe that Hillary was way ahead in the last election until just before the election?

LOL and now you're trying to put words in my mouth to deflect from your own incompetence, please point out where I claimed I believed "Hillary was way ahead in the last election until just before the election".

Asking a question is not putting words in your mouth. It is asking you to.

... have you stopped beating your wife?

Asking a question would have been "Do you believe" not "Do you STILL believe", see the difference?

Of course you don't because by all appearances you're a disingenuous dingbat that can't admit it when your claims are based on nothing more than your own private little fantasies.

Are you saying you did not believe the polls? (See the "?". That is put there to derive an answer to a question, not say you said anything).

Did I imply anything like that? No I didn't, I haven't even talked about polling, I asked you to provide some data to support your claims and so far it's been nothing but attempts at deflection and nonsense from you.

LOL, I have to hand it to you, you sure put in a herculean effort when it comes time to deflect from the fact that you have no idea as to what you're talking about, it's just too bad you can't put in the same effort when it comes to formulating rational, evidence based conclusions.

I don't even know what you are ranting about now. Sanders is in the lead. He always has been.

Yeah, I'm not surprised that you don't understand someone asking you to provide credible evidence to support your assertions.

Most infants don't.

Now off to /dev/null with ya.

My accusation that Sanders is ahead just like I claimed before?

 

[The Original Tree]

Billionaire thinks he can buy the election like it was a toy on Amazon. DNC stupid enough to fall for it.

Besides being a billionaire businessman, what were Trump's qualifications for office?

Trump has an agenda that is widely appealing to a broad cross-section of America.

Bloomberg is antithetical to most Americans with his absurd nanny-state ideas and his anti-2nd Amendment stance. He's just an elitist power-hungry bastard that should retire.

Nothing will Stop Mr. Burns.....err Bloomberg!

Yep. That's Bloomberg all right.

Bloomberg is a Devil Worshipping Ungodly Asshole who is trying to circumvent campaign finance to help the cash strapped in debt Democrat party & disarm law abiding citizens in this country.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Bloomberg is a Devil Worshipping Ungodly Asshole who is trying to circumvent campaign finance to help the cash strapped in debt Democrat party & disarm law abiding citizens in this country.

You're right, of course.
But the number of Americans today who grew up in the "Right to Bear Arms" America is dwindling and being replaced by a much weaker minded, less patriotic population that increasingly sees the need to bear arms as more of a liability than a means of defending Liberty.

I suspect we'll soon reach a crossroad where the number of anti 2nd Amendment folks will so outnumber the pro-2nd folks that gun ownership will slowly become too difficult, too costly or too much of a liability because the left will continue to push to make it that way. Obviously this will (and already is) occur in blue strongholds first.

Virginia is a perfect example. The pro-gun people failed to stop the Left from taking both houses of their legislature AND the Governors office. Now, after the fact, they're angry and had that pro-gun march a few weeks ago, which the Left totally shrugged off and the next week passed several more new gun restriction laws. So, too little too late. And so the march towards gun confiscation gets closer. As America becomes accustomed to a "Gun Free" society, it will never go back to the Constitutional form of right to bear arms.

So whether or not Bloomersberg wins or loses, the hand writing is on the wall or so it seems.

Does that seem fairly accurate?