Why Bloomberg endorses Obama

All Republican strategists really need to read his endorsement, especially the spiel about what kind of country he wants for his daughters, which I think are his real reasons, the SWPL reasons, for supporting Obama:

When I step into the voting booth, I think about the world I want to leave my two daughters, and the values that are required to guide us there. The two parties’ nominees for president offer different visions of where they want to lead America.

One believes a woman’s right to choose should be protected for future generations; one does not. That difference, given the likelihood of Supreme Court vacancies, weighs heavily on my decision.

One recognizes marriage equality as consistent with America’s march of freedom; one does not. I want our president to be on the right side of history.

One sees climate change as an urgent problem that threatens our planet; one does not. I want our president to place scientific evidence and risk management above electoral politics.

Bloomberg is one of the richest men in America. And he is voting for Obama for the following five reasons:

1. Climate change
2. Abortion
3. Climate change
4. Gay marriage
5. Climate change

He doesn’t care that Obama is going to raise his tax rate, and he doesn’t care about the estate tax. Leaving more money for his daughters is less important than leaving them a country with legal abortion, gay marriage, and colder weather.

Comments

[ic]

http://news.uk.msn.com/us-elections-2012/entire-planet-supports-obama-except-china/

Romney should run for Chinese President

[jeanne]

Haha, typical rich elite eh?

And he probably had some gal in his office write it. Busy guy, you know.

[Conquistador]

He cites his daughters which is very telling. With Clinton, Bush II, and Obama, we've had three presidents with only daughters. This is how patriarchy unraveled. Elite men promoting the interests of their daughters over other men. This trickles down and over decades created today's United States of Shemerica.

[superdestroyer]

Bloomberg is an example of the idea that liberalism for whites is a luxury that only the affluent can afford. I guess his daugthers attended private schools, Ivy League universities, and are wealthy. They do not have to worry about competing for jobs with immigrants, living in a safe neighborhood, or having the money to retire. Thus, bloomberg is a progressive.

[Dreamer]

You have to note the humourous timing of pissing off the entire city of NYC with the marathon and then announcing he endorses Obama.

[BlogRaju]

People at the Bloomberg level of wealth don't care about taxes; they know how to shield their money.

[chucho]

While Rome burns, our elite concerns itself with legitimization of buggery, keeping the birth rate down and MS-Excel sorcery. This was their finest hour, friends.

[BloomieShloomie]

What could be more important than killing your kid and homos?

[Alex]

"People at the Bloomberg level of wealth don't care about taxes; they know how to shield their money"

Exactly. It's very easy to do when you've got the knowledge and the connections. On the other hand, I don't think Bloomberg does shield his wealth; he's very probably a genuine liberal, and as such wants to duly pay his taxes.

[DaveinHackensack]

Regardless of who wins tonight, one lesson the GOP should draw from this cycle is to completely write off wealthy coastal elites. A venture capitalist whose blog I read is unimpressed with Obama's performance, but won't vote for the GOP because of climate change and abortion.

Stop and consider the implications of this for a moment: Mitt Romney is the former governor of Massachusetts, the most liberal state in the union. He is obviously smart, competent, and socially moderate. If Bloomberg and other wealthy coastal elites won't vote for Romney, they won't vote for any GOP presidential candidate ever, unless the GOP becomes as socially liberal as the Dems (in which case, the GOP would win ~40% of the wealthy coastal elites and lose ~90% of its current base).

[Kaz]

Bloomberg can pay someone to evade his taxes. He can pay someone to hide his money to protect it from any estate taxes. Of course he could give less fucks about those issues.

It's just another attack against the productive upper middle class.

[Sly]

Don't despair over an Obama victory. A Romney presidency will only serve to keep the white population of the United States divided even longer. Only after the coastal elites (talking to Dave, here) have gotten a taste of what's to come will they figure out that the white privilege they constantly bring up is illusory and that white Americans need a little solidarity. We can tell them until we're blue in the face, but they hate us and therefore won't listen.

A second Obama administration might also have another positive side-effect; the Republicans will finally jettison all of the more extreme (and therefore absurd) libertarian nonsense they've adopted after realizing that the only way they can win is to explicitly be the party that defends the legitimate interests of white Americans. Maybe then they won't be seen as the clowns they've made themselves out to be.

[The Undiscovered Jew]

"What could be more important than killing your kid and homos?"

Gaining elite social status, natch.

[destructure]

Its important to look carefully at what Bloomberg said. He's talking about what kind of world he wants to leave to his daughters. That's what liberalism is all about -- forcing the world to change. Unfortunately, its not really about changing the world for the better. The simple fact is that liberal psychology CRAVES change for its own sake. There is NO world that liberals would be happy with. And there is no world liberals wouldn't want to change. That as much as anything is why people should be conservative. To put the breaks on change. I'm not necessarily opposed to change. But it should be slow and measured not radical.

[not too late]

"I'm not necessarily opposed to change. But it should be slow and measured not radical."

How about when you change something, you change to something better. I am not against change either. I change stuff all the time, but to something better. Filling our country with folks from the third world is not an improvement.

[destructure]

not too late

I agree. That's why I don't necessarily oppose change. But even good change is destabilizing if it happens too quickly. It takes time to digest even the good changes.

[Joe Walker]

Why the hell is legalized abortion so important to the left? If a women doesn't want to get pregnant then all she has to do is use contraception.

[not too late]

I don't get the climate change thing. Why does it matter what anyone thinks of climate change? There is no way to fix it. It is like believing in evolution. So, what? It doesn't change anything. It doesn't get you a job. It doesn't hold down NAM immigration. It is just not important to day to day living.

[not too late]

"Why the hell is legalized abortion so important to the left? If a women doesn't want to get pregnant then all she has to do is use contraception."

NAMs aren't that good at planning. Basically if abortion were not legal and paid for by the gov't, we would have 2x-3x more blacks. No good liberal is going to say that, but that is the net result. We would have slightly more whites. The pro life movement is mostly a white phenomenon and its primary benefit is that it means it indoctrinates its own against abortion and means there are a few more whites. It has little effect on NAMs who are less principled.