No surprise with this….
Despite money?
He’s just another rich guy running for President…
He and Steyer are in the wrong party…
Democrats don’t elect rich guys to be President…
Just look at what we have with the current guy….
Washington Post: “Electability is a central pillar of former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg’s newly launched presidential campaign, but a poll released Tuesday finds he is deeply unpopular with voters nationwide.”
“A Monmouth University poll found about twice as many registered voters rated Bloomberg negatively as positively — 54% unfavorable, 26% favorable. That margin was significantly worse than for five other Democratic candidates, as well as for President Trump. That same measure hampered Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016.”
image…Politico
Democrats don’t elect rich guys to be President .
James
Historically inaccurate
Who in modern times was elected that was in Bloomberg or Steyers money class BEFORE they got the job?
Nobody. But lots of millionaires got elected. Your fave, Hillary Clinton’s net worth was nine digits.
He, he, he…..
That’s why i added the the ‘before’ part….
Franklin D. Roosevelt was rather wealthy by 1930 standards, JFK was rich too. Neither comes close to Steyer or Bloomberg, but they were wealthy by the measures of the day.
Not in the same class Keith…..
And Trump has made things worst for ANY rich guy now….
Same class?? They are all the same class, well born and educated white guys.
Well that’s subjective right? Both FDR and JFK would be billionaires by today’s standards.
As you know, Trump isn’t, and never was, a billionaire. He lost all his father’s money.
Simply running down someone who is successful and rich for being rich is ignorant and counterproductive.
I agree with ya on Donald J. Trump’s ACTUAL wealth….
Probably why the guy is fighting so hard to NOT have people know the truth….
Maybe?
Just maybe THAT’s it with the Russian?
They pay Trump after he leaves office $$$$$
And he gets a dascha thrown in for extra…
Wouldn’t be surprised if we found out that the guy WAS a Russian asset after all…
Might be dumb to some on NOT electing a Rich guy for the Democratic nominee….
But?
Right Now?
THAT seems to be the case….
All that money ain’t much of anything for the two rich guys….
But it’s their own money James, not their daddy’s money, not corporate money, no paid speeches at Goldman Saks, no book sales to their own campaigns.
Just their own money.
It’s important to note: Bloomberg spent $100 million to flip the House and Steyer gave at least $50 million.
Ah….MY point exactly Keith….
Biden spends about what? $15M….
The other two spend almost $159M?
They don’t have more then 10% TOGETHER???
Unless Bloomberg is successful in reducing that “unfavorable “ number?His campaign is doomed.
Yes – of course.
Trump’s initial numbers were worse than Bloomberg’s. But his numbers have to start moving really soon.
Super Rich Mike Bloomberg just gave $10 million to the House Democrats to counterattack against negative Republican impeachment ads.
That gets him through the eye of the needle in my book.
He isn’t gonna be the nominee….
But he gets props for helping the Democrats!
Sec of the Treasury?
OMB Chief?
I’m just concerned about him going to heaven James.
He, he, he….
REALLY?😳
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Matthew 19:24 (King James or Authorised Version, 1611)
Wise wisdom from way back in the day….
Really? Now a rich man can’t go to heaven?
Such mumbo jumbo bullshit.
And here I thought Dave was an atheist?
Really James, wise words?
Do you think FDR went to heaven? What be the reason Tom Steyer would not go to heaven as a rich man?
Don’t know if rich guys go to heaven….
Ain’t nothing wrong with making money….
Democrats STILL don’t vote for really RICH people now….
That wasn’t your point at all James. You were disparaging people with money.
SUPER RICH…..
The examples where Bloomberg and Steyer….
They fit the bill….
I would never vote against someone because they are “super-rich”, but I don’t see why you wouldn’t consider the Clinton’s super-rich. If they make just 4% year return on their assets in interest and appreciation (without doing things like writing books or giving speeches), then they would still make more money in one year than you almost certainly have made on your LIFETIME by your wages, profit, AND investments combined. Chelsea’s children would not need to work a day in their lives and can still retire with more wealth than they have now. Why is that not super-rich?
The Clinton’s are NOT running this time Z….
Actually it is partial proof that the Bible is full of nonsense and can’t be the word of God.
Ouch on the Bible review…..
I’ve read that the Eye of the Needle was a very narrow gate in the city walls of Jerusalem. So it might be possible that with much effort a camel could pass through that needle, but only with great difficulty.
I think that the idea of that verse is that the observant rich should share their wealth on earth (with the poor, the Church, etc.) before approaching the gates of Heaven.
I’m still a confirmed atheist, but I think knowing more about the Jewish and Christian bible is always helpful. I own half-a-dozen annotated and unannotated versions, and used to own more.
Much of Western history and culture is very hard to understand without knowing some of the Bible (e.g. Jimmy Carter’s confession to having had lust in his heart, a reference that is far clearer if you read the Sermon on the Mount — specifically Matthew 5-27-31). Many of Lincoln’s speeches contain direct and indirect references to the Bible’s text, few of which I understand now but most of which would have been instantly recognizable to most of his audience, who, although not scholars, were observant, Bible-reading Christians.
I was aware that the “eye of the needle” reference intended to reverence an actual narrow gate that I assume no longer exists.
I also sometimes refer to the bible when I see people quote things, but frankly, it is on an annual basis at most, and I am unable to speak intelligently about most biblical topics. I was raised a Catholic – and went to Catholic grammar school, high school and college, but I stopped believing around sophomore year in college. Catholics are less knowledgeable about the bible than Protestants – partially because of its history in which congregants were not and still are not encouraged to read the bible and “come to their own conclusions”. Most of my parents were devoutly religious – almost to an extreme (mostly in a good way), but neither ever read the bible.
I once made it my goal to read the bible, but I got bored by page 3 and stopped. I found it incomprehensible and useless.
My chosen faith – Unitarian Universalists – of which many and probably majority of its members are either atheist or agnostic will sometimes try to find wisdom from other religions – certainly including, but not limited to Judaism and Chrisitanity – while at the same time saying that religious wisdom can just as easily be found in other sources – including newspapers. Certainly, there is value in understanding the various religions because so many people we interact with value their religion greatly – and it helps to understand where they are coming from.
Starting with Genesis (although interesting) can be heavy going. Try beginning with the New Testament, and if the Gospels prove too long, start with the Epistles (letters). Over time I’ve read everything in the New Testament except the Gospel of John and Revelations. The Sermon on the Mount (chapters 5 to 7 of St John) can be profitably and enjoyably read by those of any faith or none, without the need to accept its rather specific religious message.
And, much as I adore the language of King James’ translators (many of whom were working clergy used to reading aloud to a partly-illiterate congregation), find the translation or version that seems the most easily readable without being simplistic or biased. The New Jerusalem Bible (Roman Catholic), the New Revised Standard Version (multi-denominational), and Revised English Bible (mainly Anglican or Episcopalian) are three good modern-language translations.
I have given up on my goal to read the bible. There are more important things to read in which I haven’t yet done so. Others have duplicated your suggestion that I shouldn’t have started with Genesis.
I should have added that I still find it extremely difficult to relate to where religious conservatives are coming from. Sometimes, I feel religion is just used by them to justify what they aleready want to believe. Of course, that is true to some extent to all of us.
Same thing with the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.
Bloomberg is now up to 5%, up from 3% in his original poll. He still has a way to go.
I would like to see him on the Sunday Morning talk shoes. He is going to need to do more than just advertise.