Incremental improvement to cutting edge research combined with selling off bread-and-butter operations that support people in need.
Slight increase in austerity, to build society’s character and promote initiative and incentive to work from increased user debt loads.
Sell off everything to medical profiteers to prove he’s a brave maverick and strong leader not beholden to old Democratic party ideas, ready to sacrifice (others) to show a strong commitment to Democracy and letting people “work it out for themselves”.
Single-payer health care so people don’t go broke from being basic humans.
That seems a rather paternalistic attitude. Just because he’s not inherently evil and can operate as a functioning adult doesn’t necessarily mean he shares my values and priorities or that I should ignore what my Federal government is up to.
As a fellow Canadian, I know enough to sum it up in three words: stop and frisk.
That he still thinks it is good policy is plenty reason for me and most others around here to profoundly dislike him and not want him running an entire fucking country.
I mean… it’s not worth nothing if you have some personal experience, but would you say you know him intimately, or have seen him react to situations with meaningfully high stakes, or in scenarios that might be relevant to being prez? And conversely, have you had comparable dealings with any of the other candidates from any party?
My point being, humans wildly inflate the value of even the most tenuous personal contact in making judgments about others. Most of us would sympathise with a literal murderer, if we had previously known them socially. Most of us would prioritise being able to say “I know the president” ahead of any policy issue. Which is why Warren does those selfie lines; every one of those people is basically a lifelong convert. And of course, it’s why Turmp or Schwarzenegger or Jesse Ventura can get elected despite otherwise being no more qualified than someone picked at random from the line at the free clinic. (Because people relate to entertainers as if they knew them personally)
I don’t know. But I’m going to guess he will go for Obama care with public option at least for first four years, with a long term goal of matching the Canadian single system. I think that’s where the numbers combined with political feasibility will take him.
He actually cares, perhaps too much, about keeping people healthy. Anti-sugar, no smoking, gun control and etc. He also understands you can’t change such a huge part of the economy overnight even if it’s long term the right thing to do.
I understand your bigger point. But I would correct you in that he is not “another” as it relates to Trump. Bloomberg actually is rich and actually is a successful businessman. Trump is a con man. Bloomberg has legitimately given away more money then Trump has ever had using Trump’s own ridiculously inflated values. They are not remotely the same type of person.
I’ve met with him multiple times as part of larger meetings. He had a monitor above his desk displaying 311 data and trends in real time which he actually would react to. He is a seriously data driven guy. Which is my larger point. He makes decisions rationally and doesn’t owe anyone. Sometimes that hurts him like thinking he could be in the Bahamas as mayor and deal with a snowstorm from there. Of course he could, it’s not like he needed to physically shovel the snow. But people didn’t see it that way and he couldn’t grasp why.
They are both extremely wealthy old white dudes. Bloomberg is less awful than Trump, yes, but the “better than Trump” bar is so low I wouldn’t consider than much of an accomplishment.
Trump is raking in money hand over fist. If Bloomberg really wants to help, he should go away and use his substantial fortune to back one or more of the real progressives currently in the running rather than sucking away their oxygen.
The “public option” is the same as Biden’s, I’d guess?
That’s the one where sick people can pay the government market premiums instead of a private insurer.
That’s not progress, and it could make ObamaCare less effective.
But I guess the idea is to punt the healthcare ball four years, and wait for the long-term to happen whenever it comes along and becomes “politically feasible”.
Well… it’d be a missed marketing opportunity for him if he didn’t make out like screens full of data were very important. And I’m sure Elizabeth Warren spends a lot of time paying attention to financial and policy arcana, and no doubt it is impressive to watch Joe Biden networking at diplomatic cocktail parties. Every candidate has biographical details (often involving competence), and people who have met them and endorse their candidacies. But I haven’t met them.
(Actually I did encounter Bloomberg one time, in Macy’s (I think he was there to do an interview), which is more than I can say of the others, but apparently less than it would take to make me hope he becomes president torpedoes the 2020 Democratic primaries)
After all the back and forth I return to the original question: WTF does “owning it together!” mean? It really sounds like the slogan was selected from a long list of AI-generated phrases, chosen because it was the one that sounded most like it meant something.
