Bloomberg Collapse?

For those who watched the Dem debate last night, was that the worst performance in a democratic debate that you've seen? His odds of being elected completely plummeted and I was cringing during so much of it. Why did he expose himself to that savage beating?

WSO Elite Modeling Package

  • 6 courses to mastery: Excel, Financial Statement, LBO, M&A, Valuation and DCF
  • Elite instructors from top BB investment banks and private equity megafunds
  • Includes Company DB + Video Library Access (1 year)

Comments (105)

Feb 20, 2020 - 10:22am

Was looking to start this thread as well.

For someone of his financial success and who was also the mayor of a major city like NYC I find him so easily flustered and so much less well-spoken than I'd ever imagined. He took a beating last night by everyone and honestly got completely demolished. So many blatant "non-answers" and stuttering.

I recall him saying something along the lines of "I'll address that if I can be allowed my full allotted time" and in my head I was just like "well maybe if you didn't stutter so damn much you'd be able to get a full rebuttal across"

Feb 20, 2020 - 10:37am

This was the most surprising thing to me. If he was going to attend (he could've used any excuse as he isn't participating in Nevada/SC so no need or something), why wouldn't he have run-throughs where people just slam him with the hardest attacks they can to prepare? Did he really spend $400mm already and not let anyone prepare him with attacks? It gives me the feeling its just yes-men all the way down for him.

Feb 20, 2020 - 10:41am

He needs to fire his entire staff minus the marketing team. His commercials are excellent. He's taking risks like the meme posters that are interesting if nothing else. His performance last night was shockingly embarrassing.

Commercial Real Estate Developer

  • 2
Feb 20, 2020 - 10:25am

It was definitely surprising seeing someone with a lot of personal success and a real background in politics whiff so hard...

Learn More

300+ video lessons across 6 modeling courses taught by elite practitioners at the top investment banks and private equity funds -- Excel Modeling -- Financial Statement Modeling -- M&A Modeling -- LBO Modeling -- DCF and Valuation Modeling -- ALL INCLUDED + 2 Huge Bonuses.

Learn more
Feb 20, 2020 - 10:36am

I will hedge this by saying that most voters don't watch the debates and his omnipresent ads are going to be seen far more than his responses will...

...but...

Holy shit was that an absolutely terrible performance. He got torched by the left. He got torched by the center-left. He got obliterated from every conceivable angle.

I can think of only one good point he made, about the environment, one good zinger he gave, about Bernie's millionaire status and three houses, and one good...statement, that he was the only one there to start a business, but other than that it was a complete shit show. His answer on the NDAs in particular was just awful. Warren's opening salvo against him is already being meme'd.

For someone with his political experience, and business experience, and frankly, personal wealth - how could he not hire a team to prepare him better? Part of his entire pitch to be president is that he knows how to assemble the best teams. He should have been grilled in mock debates by his staff and the team collectively should have come up with a whole host of acceptable answers. He is polling 2nd or 3rd nationally and is even leading in Florida. This was his moment to come out of the gate strong and really take the lead from Bernie but he blew it.

This will only help Bernie, which frustrates me to no end. The moderate vote is overwhelmingly larger than the far left vote, but there are too many moderates in the race so none of them seem to be able to win.

Commercial Real Estate Developer

  • 8
Feb 20, 2020 - 10:53am

Your lane comment is fair. I'm exposing my bias here in that I am explicitly anti-Sanders and would prefer literally anyone else on the stage to him (even Klobuchar, who bombed last night).

538 has him winning the most delegates (albeit not a majority). The amount of candidates still in the race does help Sanders though, because it mathematically prevents someone else from giving him a real challenge. If this comes down to say, three people, by all means he can be beaten and handedly. If it doesn't, and 6-7 people remain, he wins, either outright or in a contested convention.

And I personally believe that if Bernie wins the nominee, Trump wins 2020.

Commercial Real Estate Developer

  • 5
Feb 20, 2020 - 10:56am

They've also polled head-to-head matchups with Sanders against all other dem nominees one-on-one. He obliterates the edge case moderates (warren he beats by two, Biden by 4), as in he is up double digits against the likes of Pete, Amy, and Bloomberg.

I personally believe that Sanders is by far the best choice against Trump as he polls best in the swing states (other than Florida realistically) and the rust belt. The democrats tried a "moderate" with Clinton and lost the easiest election possibly ever.

Feb 20, 2020 - 11:18am
justphresh:

I personally believe that Sanders is by far the best choice against Trump as he polls best in the swing states (other than Florida realistically) and the rust belt. The democrats tried a "moderate" with Clinton and lost the easiest election possibly ever.

But this is what people don't get--the general public isn't paying attention to the race yet. These early general election polls aren't particularly meaningful. In the last 2 months when the general election electorate is paying attention, they will be made aware of Bernie Sanders' ugly, ugly distant and recent history. Bernie Sanders is only a household name in circles that are paying attention to primary campaigns, which is a narrow set of people.

As an aside, there is no way the general election polls are close to accurate. In most, Trump is polling in the low-40s. Trump's personal approval is higher today than on election day 2016 where he polled 46% in the popular vote. There is zero chance--win or lose--that Trump pulls in just 43% of the vote.

Array

  • 3
Most Helpful
Feb 20, 2020 - 11:24am
real_Skankhunt42:
In the last 2 months when the general election electorate is paying attention, they will be made aware of Bernie Sanders' ugly, ugly distant and recent history.

The lack of attacks thrown at Bernie, presumably to not anger his cult of supporters in case he doesn't win the nomination, is shocking. He is currently the leader in the polls. He is seemingly going to win Nevada easily.

I understand why everyone wanted to dunk on Bloomberg last night, but to date we've seen the collective get their knives out for Biden, Warren, and Buttigieg (not to mention Harris) but Bernie gets off easily with only a couple of body blows landing.

The man is a hypocrite when it comes to wealth, a deadbeat dad, was a loser the first half of his life, has made outlandish comments in the past supporting oppressive regimes, has abusive supporters online, is 78 years old with a heart attack, and is taking a Trump-like approach in refusing to release his medical records. And it's barely discussed.

Commercial Real Estate Developer

  • 11
  • 1
Feb 20, 2020 - 2:17pm
CRE:

real_Skankhunt42:
In the last 2 months when the general election electorate is paying attention, they will be made aware of Bernie Sanders' ugly, ugly distant and recent history.

The lack of attacks thrown at Bernie, presumably to not anger his cult of supporters in case he doesn't win the nomination, is shocking. He is currently the leader in the polls. He is seemingly going to win Nevada easily.

I understand why everyone wanted to dunk on Bloomberg last night, but to date we've seen the collective get their knives out for Biden, Warren, and Buttigieg (not to mention Harris) but Bernie gets off easily with only a couple of body blows landing.

The man is a hypocrite when it comes to wealth, a deadbeat dad, was a loser the first half of his life, has made outlandish comments in the past supporting oppressive regimes, has abusive supporters online, is 78 years old with a heart attack, and is taking a Trump-like approach in refusing to release his medical records. And it's barely discussed.

Yeah, we agree completely on Bernie. The Democrats are stupid to not attack the frontrunner; the Republicans did the same in 2016 because they were afraid to offend Trump supporters. It's a stupid calculation. If you want to be the king, you gotta attack the current king and seize his throne. Bernie has not been properly vetted, and there's a lot of material to use against him. It will be hilarious seeing the Trump team savage Bernie in the general election.

Feb 20, 2020 - 11:59am

Hillary lost because she was Hillary, not because she was a moderate. The Democrats still don't get that so many people hate Hillary the individual. It had nothing at all to do with any of her policies. A center left candidate would beat Trump; Bernie will hand Trump the election.

Be excellent to each other, and party on, dudes.
  • 3
Feb 20, 2020 - 12:50pm

To your last point about too many moderates. I think the party would have been wise to have a stricter standard for who gets on stage so there are fewer people. This isn't the preseason anymore, we're a few states in. Klobuchar has no realistic chance, and I would argue Warren doesn't either. By allowing them on stage, they dilute the discussion. And in Warren's case, she was able to throw death blows at Bloomberg because she in high-risk hail mary mode and can take those risks that otehrs can't . . I don't even think she helped her cause or looked great while tearing him apart, but she hurt him. Net net, not a winning exchange for the party.

Feb 20, 2020 - 1:05pm
PteroGonzalez:
I don't even think she helped her cause or looked great while tearing him apart, but she hurt him.

Oh I do. She's way too far left for me, but I think she's an impressive person who is clearly intelligent and that was on full display last night. She arguably won the debate.

I suppose I'm not a "progressive" so I don't understand, but I have no idea why someone on the far left would pick Bernie over her.

Commercial Real Estate Developer

  • 4
Feb 20, 2020 - 11:06am

I said it 6 months ago, I will say it again, he chose the wrong party. He represents the ruling consensus of the past 3 decades and there is simply no appeal for that any longer.

The left has made the norm that if you said something X decades ago that can be considered offensive by the social justice crowd today, you are out. Bloomberg is simply too old to not have committed thought crimes in the past. Of course he got torched. He did deliver one zinger to Bernie, which is an absolute truth that put that snake oil salesman to shame.

Once again, the winner is Trump. If Bloomberg by pouring infinite money wins the Dem primary, many Bernie voters will sit one out in November, while Trump retains 95% of Republicans. We might even see a party split, especially if Sanders comes on top and is stopped by the Dem establishment. If Bernie wins the primary and isn't stopped, then some of the centrists will stay home.

Sweet.

Never discuss with idiots, first they drag you at their level, then they beat you with experience.

  • 4
Feb 20, 2020 - 11:10am
neink:
The left has made the norm that if you said something X decades ago that can be considered offensive by the social justice crowd today, you are out.

To be fair, Bloomberg has said some shit in the last 10 years that would make a lot of people cringe and has refused to walk a number of them back, but it is frustrating how people aren't given credit for evolving their views with time.

Obama certainly wasn't pro-gay marriage when he first ran for office. His views evolved with the time and he didn't get obliterated for it.

Holding a viewpoint, examining it against the evidence, and changing your view if the evidence doesn't support your initial conclusion is a mark of intelligence, not of "flip flopping."

Commercial Real Estate Developer

  • 4
  • 1
Feb 20, 2020 - 11:20am

You are right but the game has deteriorated significantly under Obama's second term and now he's starting to become a victim of it as well:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/11/22/barack-obama-conserva…

He's just lucky he's mostly out of politics.

Nonetheless, you are right. On some things I change my mind radically after 6 months. It's ridiculous that people are not allowed to have chances of redemption.

Never discuss with idiots, first they drag you at their level, then they beat you with experience.

  • 1
Feb 20, 2020 - 12:01pm

Watched an interview with Bernie on Phil Donahue from the late 80's and he was proudly a "Socialist." Then he was a "Democratic Socialist" in 2016 and now his supporters are branding him a "Social Democrat." What a joke.

The self-styled "Progressives" in this country despise Democrats and especially "Centrists" who are the new bogeyman. They have no interest in forming a coalition, no interest in compromise, no interest in passing policy. They are leading a revolution of the minority and everyone better hop on board, or else

Be excellent to each other, and party on, dudes.
  • 5
Feb 20, 2020 - 12:12pm

Here's the thing--I could accept, on its face, that there are "social democrats" in America, and a large contingent. But when you investigate Bernie's past, it's clear that Norway and Denmark haven't been his standard bearer of his social democratic policies. Basically, he has praised and supported countless far-left and anti-American governments throughout his career, without repudiation. I can even accept that young men and women say and support stupid things, and if that's the case I wish he would say so. But he is unapologetic about anything he has said, done, or supported in the past. That's frightening.

I'd bet a goodly amount of money that there is a large contingent of Americans that would support a very free market (as the Nordic countries have) with a social welfare backstop paid for by higher taxes on everyone and strict immigration limits. That's really not what the Sanders camp is proposing--they are proposing social welfare (impossibly paid for by only the rich) with far more restricted markets and open borders. It's the Nordic model turned on its head. That's why I don't accept Sanders' false premise that he is simply advocating for the Nordic model.

Array

  • 8
  • 1
Feb 20, 2020 - 1:07pm

If anything, Warren is a better representation of the Nordic model, but her star seems to be falling. We'll see if last night gives her a boost or not.

Commercial Real Estate Developer

Feb 20, 2020 - 2:17pm
real_Skankhunt42:

Here's the thing--I could accept, on its face, that there are "social democrats" in America, and a large contingent. But when you investigate Bernie's past, it's clear that Norway and Denmark haven't been his standard bearer of his social democratic policies. Basically, he has praised and supported countless far-left and anti-American governments throughout his career, without repudiation. I can even accept that young men and women say and support stupid things, and if that's the case I wish he would say so. But he is unapologetic about anything he has said, done, or supported in the past. That's frightening.

I'd bet a goodly amount of money that there is a large contingent of Americans that would support a very free market (as the Nordic countries have) with a social welfare backstop paid for by higher taxes on everyone and strict immigration limits. That's really not what the Sanders camp is proposing--they are proposing social welfare (impossibly paid for by only the rich) with far more restricted markets and open borders. It's the Nordic model turned on its head. That's why I don't accept Sanders' false premise that he is simply advocating for the Nordic model.

The "Democratic Socialism" branding is disingenuous marketing. The DSA's mission philosophy and policy objectives are socialist. Their eventual long-term goal is the abolition of private property. They are hoping to use the branding to pull wool over the eyes of the American people.

The Scandinavian countries moved away from the socialist model in the 1980s when it became clear that they were in trouble economically. Their model is capitalism but high taxes and massive social welfare. But there are two important caveats here: first, they have fairly low immigration, and second, they have small homogenous population that is in agreement regarding economic policy and the role of the government. Neither of those facts apply to the United States. Bernie is not just advocating for a socialist economy. He also wants to destroy the energy industry via the Green New Deal and has now moved far left on immigration, arguing for ending deportations, eliminating ICE, decriminalizing illegal entry, and even giving free health insurance to illegal aliens. Insanity.

Feb 20, 2020 - 12:12pm

He was terribly unprepared. There were two easy answers to the question of why he won't release the women from the NDA's:

  1. Best Answer: "I can't even discuss them at all, not even in general terms on this stage, because that alone violates the NDA. Next question."

  2. 2nd Best Answer: "I can't release them because they involve accusations against other people, not just me."

Both of those would've been easy escapes and he chose neither.

He got his ass beat on that stage by people who are nowhere near as smart or accomplished as him.

What's amazing is he landed two of the best punches of the night (asking if any of them had started a business, and calling out Bernie for being a socialist with millions of dollars and 3 houses). And even when netted against those two strong moments, he was a total disaster overall. He got stopped and frisked.

Feb 20, 2020 - 12:28pm

I agree that Bloomberg's performance was poor. I was very interested in watching him but probably had my head in the sand regarding how he might perform. I do not think it should be all that surprising that he did not perform well. Wealth, intellect and business success does not necessarily translate into being effective on a debate stage and he proved it last night. In general, I do not think he is a great speaker, which is a big part of the communications skills one needs to be effective in a debate.

He appeared to be unprepared to answer tough questions, which is surprising. Anyone who has followed the news fron the past week could have take an educated guess as to what topics would be raised about him. It is partly Bloomberg's fault and partly his teams's fault. With that said, he was being attacked by everyone and being in that environment can't be easy, especially when it is your first presidential debate . All of the other people have been running for POTUS and preparing for debates for a much longer period than him. He and his team need to learn from the experience and do better the next time. He was fired when he was 39 and then became an extraordinarily successful business person.

  • 5
Feb 20, 2020 - 1:08pm
financeabc:
Wealth, intellect and business success does not necessarily translate into being effective on a debate stage and he proved it last night.

He won back to back to back elections though as Mayor. It's not like he's a novice at politics.

Commercial Real Estate Developer

Feb 20, 2020 - 1:20pm

True but...he has not run for office in about 10 years. Towards the end of my "baseball" career I had taken off a year and when I came back, my hitting was terrible. I am not sure if he was ever a great debater (Last night was the first time I had ever seen him in a debate).

Controversial
Feb 20, 2020 - 12:42pm

The dude was heavily supportive of stop and frisk explicitly to surveil and acost minorities. Fuck him.

Array

  • 5
  • 14
  • Analyst 1 in S&T - Equities
Feb 20, 2020 - 12:55pm

Ah, knew I'd see a comment like this from WSO's resident black man.

Yes, Bloomberg enacted those policies. But it was the police and their commissioner who abused them. Can't blame Bloomberg for the actions of some racist cops.

Feb 20, 2020 - 12:58pm
Analyst 1 in S&T - Equities:

Ah, knew I'd see a comment like this from WSO's resident black man.

You posted anonymously bro? Pathetic.

Did the cops say this?

"You've got to get the guns out of the hands of the people that are getting killed," Bloomberg can be heard saying. "You want to spend the money on a lot of cops in the streets, put the cops where the crime is, which means in minority neighborhoods."

"So, one of the unintended consequences is people say, 'Oh my God, you are arresting kids for marijuana that are all minorities.' Yes, that is true. Why? Because we put all the cops in the minority neighborhoods. Yes, that is true. Why did we do it? Because that's where all the crime is," Bloomberg says. "And the way you get the guns out of the kid's hands is to throw them up against the walls and frisk them."

So he's advocating for the harassment of a huge swath of minorities (85% or so of stop and frisk stops found nothing) because a small percentage of said minorities commit crime. WSO's resident black man, indeed. You anonymous little pussy. But at least you had the balls to reply to my post instead of these sniveling fucks that MS with no rationale behind it.

Array

  • 7
Feb 20, 2020 - 1:13pm
ResearchLackey19:

tbh finding sth 15% of the time sounds really high.

Eh, idk what they "found" each time and these guys were acosting poor minorities who fit the "gangster" profile which should raise the percentage. Still no justification for widespread and institutionalized racism and harrasment.

Array

  • 2
Feb 20, 2020 - 1:23pm
BobTheBaker:

ResearchLackey19:

tbh finding sth 15% of the time sounds really high.

Eh, idk what they "found" each time and these guys were acosting poor minorities who fit the "gangster" profile which should raise the percentage. Still no justification for widespread and institutionalized racism and harrasment.

I will rely on you for the stats as usual but BBG's chain of thoughts make a lot of sense to me. Personally, I would want a lot of cops walking around and checking "gangster looking" people's pockets if I live in an area with high crime rate. Especially if they are violent crimes..

Feb 20, 2020 - 1:34pm
ResearchLackey19:

BobTheBaker:

ResearchLackey19:

tbh finding sth 15% of the time sounds really high.

Eh, idk what they "found" each time and these guys were acosting poor minorities who fit the "gangster" profile which should raise the percentage. Still no justification for widespread and institutionalized racism and harrasment.

I will rely on you for the stats as usual but BBG's chain of thoughts make a lot of sense to me. Personally, I would want a lot of cops walking around and checking "gangster looking" people's pockets if I live in an area with high crime rate. Especially if they are violent crimes..

You agree with stopping and harassing individuals on the off chance that they might be up to something because they are of a certain color and disposition? Imagine someone believing this is okay in America.

Array

  • 4
Feb 20, 2020 - 1:47pm
BobTheBaker:

ResearchLackey19:

BobTheBaker:

ResearchLackey19:

tbh finding sth 15% of the time sounds really high.

Uh yeah... i mean BBG is saying he wants more cops in areas with high crime... Its not like
Eh, idk what they "found" each time and these guys were acosting poor minorities who fit the "gangster" profile which should raise the percentage. Still no justification for widespread and institutionalized racism and harrasment.

I will rely on you for the stats as usual but BBG's chain of thoughts make a lot of sense to me. Personally, I would want a lot of cops walking around and checking "gangster looking" people's pockets if I live in an area with high crime rate. Especially if they are violent crimes..

You agree with stopping and harassing individuals on the off chance that they might be up to something because they are of a certain color and disposition? Imagine someone believing this is okay in America.


Well BBG is saying he targeted areas with high crime rate.. Not a random group of minorities. Its not like I'm saying let's have cops walk around in Soho to stop and harass people with gangster vibes (now that would be on the off chance). And yeah, I would rather have that than getting shot. Hopefully people will stop carrying guns and weapons if enough people end up in jail. -> lower crime rate -> no need for BBG policies.
Feb 20, 2020 - 1:50pm
ResearchLackey19:

BobTheBaker:

ResearchLackey19:

BobTheBaker:

ResearchLackey19:

tbh finding sth 15% of the time sounds really high.

Uh yeah... i mean BBG is saying he wants more cops in areas with high crime... Its not like
Eh, idk what they "found" each time and these guys were acosting poor minorities who fit the "gangster" profile which should raise the percentage. Still no justification for widespread and institutionalized racism and harrasment.

I will rely on you for the stats as usual but BBG's chain of thoughts make a lot of sense to me. Personally, I would want a lot of cops walking around and checking "gangster looking" people's pockets if I live in an area with high crime rate. Especially if they are violent crimes..

You agree with stopping and harassing individuals on the off chance that they might be up to something because they are of a certain color and disposition? Imagine someone believing this is okay in America.


Well BBG is saying he targeted areas with high crime rate.. Not a random group of minorities. Its not like I'm saying let's have cops walk around in Soho to stop and harass people with gangster vibes (now that would be on the off chance). And yeah, I would rather have that than getting shot. Hopefully people will stop carrying guns and weapons if enough people end up in jail. -> lower crime rate -> no need for BBG policies.

Rather than getting shot? Bro what are the odds. High crime rate minority areas, and you best believe a black male walking in Manhattan (not a high crime rate) would've been at risk of stop and frisk as well. Shit, driving while black is still a thing and the nicer the neighborhood the likely a black person is the victim of it. You're advocating institutional surveillance based on the idea of "security". This is literally the justification governments have used to observe and oppress their populations for forever...

Array

  • 6
Feb 20, 2020 - 2:12pm

Idk what the odds are but i don't like it. Am I for institutional racism? Fck no. But facts are facts and nums and nums. Are you trying to tell me that Manhattan is not more "secure" than some poor neighborhood in Chicago? I am not sure if you are saying that having cops stop and frisk does not increase safety in these vulnerable areas but that would be hard to swallow. I'm fine with it if you think liberty triumphs security in all cases. I personally think that safety of my family is far more important than some people getting harassed temporarily.

Feb 20, 2020 - 2:17pm
ResearchLackey19:

Idk what the odds are but i don't like it. Am I for institutional racism? Fck no. But facts are facts and nums and nums. Are you trying to tell me that Manhattan is not more "secure" than some poor neighborhood in Chicago? I am not sure if you are saying that having cops stop and frisk does not increase safety in these vulnerable areas but that would be hard to swallow. I'm fine with it if you think liberty triumphs security in all cases. I personally think that safety of my family is far more important than some people getting harassed temporarily.

Let me give you the odds, 16,214 murderers in 2018 divided by 327 million ppl (u.s. pop.) means there is a 0.005% chance that any given individual was killed in 2018. That's 1 in over 20,000. Most murders are crimes of passion, or involve gang activity btw.

So you are saying it's perfectly fine that "some people" (read: minorities) get harassed so you can potentially avert the 1 in 20,000 chance you get murdered (forget the fact that your family you seek to protect is far more likely to kill you than some random stranger)? Is this a serious take? You are clearly and enthusiastically advocating for institutional oppression for reasons I am not sure make any sense.

BTW, Manhattan is safe because it is a rich area not because of any specific police presence or action.

Array

  • 7
Feb 20, 2020 - 2:17pm

You are literally not listening to me. I never suggested that we should roll out stop and frisk nationwide. BBG never suggested that either. He said target areas with HIGH crime rate so the stat that you gave me is meaningless. Quick Google search tells me your 0.005% chance nationwide goes up to 2% in Bronx. People are overly exposed to violent crimes in Bronx. Are you saying it is a not a serious take that we should take extreme measures in neighborhood that has 400 times more crime? And re: Manhattan, yeah that's my point. Some places are factually safer than others. Its not a sense of security like you put it. It is actually more secure.

Feb 20, 2020 - 2:17pm
ResearchLackey19:

You are literally not listening to me. I never suggested that we should roll out stop and frisk nationwide. BBG never suggested that either. He said target areas with HIGH crime rate so the stat that you gave me is meaningless. Quick Google search tells me your 0.005% chance nationwide goes up to 2% in Bronx. People are overly exposed to violent crimes in Bronx. Are you saying it is a not a serious take that we should take extreme measures in neighborhood that has 400 times more crime? And re: Manhattan, yeah that's my point. Some places are factually safer than others. Its not a sense of security like you put it. It is actually more secure.

No, I don't think you should oppress the entire population of the Bronx and surveil them because some people in the Bronx committed crimes.

Array

  • 4
Feb 20, 2020 - 2:17pm
BobTheBaker:

ResearchLackey19:

You are literally not listening to me. I never suggested that we should roll out stop and frisk nationwide. BBG never suggested that either. He said target areas with HIGH crime rate so the stat that you gave me is meaningless. Quick Google search tells me your 0.005% chance nationwide goes up to 2% in Bronx. People are overly exposed to violent crimes in Bronx. Are you saying it is a not a serious take that we should take extreme measures in neighborhood that has 400 times more crime? And re: Manhattan, yeah that's my point. Some places are factually safer than others. Its not a sense of security like you put it. It is actually more secure.

No, I don't think you should oppress the entire population of the Bronx and surveil them because some people in the Bronx committed crimes.

Is there a line that you will draw? Will you support Stop and Frisk in Bronx if 1 out of 2 people in Bronx are exposed to violent crimes?

Feb 20, 2020 - 1:38pm
ResearchLackey19:
Personally, I would want a lot of cops walking around and checking "gangster looking" people's pockets if I live in an area with high crime rate. Especially if they are violent crimes..

It's shocking how prevalent fascism enthusiasts are in America in 2020.

Commercial Real Estate Developer

  • 2
Feb 20, 2020 - 2:17pm

I live in a city...

Commercial Real Estate Developer

Feb 20, 2020 - 2:17pm
ResearchLackey19:

Right. I'm sure you live in the shittiest and most dangerous part of the city. Do you intentionally act like a snake or do you just miss other people's points?

You said I lived in the suburbs. I don't, which is what I responded.

You didn't say if I lived in a "dangerous" or "shitty" part or not.

Who is going out of their way to twist things, exactly?

Commercial Real Estate Developer

  • 2
Feb 20, 2020 - 2:17pm

What are you on, now?

You said:

ResearchLackey19:
I'm sure its easy for you to scream liberty over security in your suburban house hold.

Let's examine your point in this sentence since you think I'm misinterpreting it. This is in response to me saying "It's shocking how prevalent fascism enthusiasts are in America in 2020" and of course means that you think it is easy for me to "scream liberty over security" since I live in relative safety in the suburbs.

I responded that I did not live in the suburbs, which meant that your entire rationale for why I would chose personal liberty over the "security" of a police state was misguided to begin with. You responded to that by saying "Right. I'm sure you live in the shittiest and most dangerous part of the city." which attempted to reinforce that I'm choosing liberty over a police state because I am personally safe, and then you called me a snake and said I "missed your point" when really I just pointed out that your baseless assumption was false. Then you said I edit posts (which are unable to be edited a lot of times - so again, baseless).

All of this is stupid. I pick liberty over a police state because I don't live my life afraid of the "other," whether that other is of a different race, religion, socioeconomic level, etc. I pick liberty because I believe in personal freedoms and how easily arguments of "security" lead to the infringement of them. I don't live in the suburbs, don't edit my posts to change their entire meaning, tend not to think I look like a "dud," and don't even know what you mean by calling me a snake - I'm not underhanded at all. I'm right in your face.

Maybe log off the internet for a bit, kid.

Commercial Real Estate Developer

  • 6
Feb 20, 2020 - 2:17pm
ResearchLackey19:

lmfao. I'm sure its easy for you to scream liberty over security in your suburban house hold.

I promise you those residents of NY that were being stopped and frisked daily were not happy with their newfound "security".

Array

  • 1
Feb 20, 2020 - 1:10pm
Analyst 1 in S&T - Equities:
Ah, knew I'd see a comment like this from WSO's resident black man.

Is it surprising to you that a black person would have a problem with policies that specifically targeted the black community?

I bet BobTheBaker is anti-redlining too. The nerve!

Commercial Real Estate Developer

  • 3
Feb 20, 2020 - 1:00pm

Perhaps that's true, but why are these same targeted minorities the ones committing a majority of the crimes? Dude didn't create the policy because he hates blacks/latinos, but obviously saw they were disproportionately committing most of these crimes/carrying weapons, drugs, etc.

I've said this once and I'll say it again, the black community's biggest enemy is the black community itself. 100% crab mentality

Array
  • 3
  • 1
Feb 20, 2020 - 1:02pm
Vito_Genovese:

Perhaps that's true, but why are these same targeted minorities the ones committing a majority of the crimes? Dude didn't create the policy because he hates blacks/latinos, but obviously saw they were disproportionately committing most of these crimes/carrying weapons, drugs, etc.

I've said this once and I'll say it again, the black community's biggest enemy is the black community itself. 100% crab mentality

When you say the "majority of crime" what are you getting at? What percentage of minorities commit crime/murder that justifies all minorities being surveiled and acosted? I've never done anything more than get a speeding ticket, but because some other black guy killed a dude I should be profiled and acosted? There were 16,214 murders in 2018, let's assume half (~8100) were commited by black males. Do you realize there are roughly 15 million black 18+males in America. Think about the idea that 15 million of us should be profiled because 0.05% of us have commited murder (ignoring repeat offenders)...

The biggest problem the black community faces is ignorance, an institutionally repressive "justice" system, and the poverty wrought upon it by hundreds of years of discrimination.

Array

  • 6
  • 1
Feb 20, 2020 - 1:17pm
Vito_Genovese:
Perhaps that's true, but why are these same targeted minorities the ones committing a majority of the crimes? Dude didn't create the policy because he hates blacks/latinos, but obviously saw they were disproportionately committing most of these crimes/carrying weapons, drugs, etc.

I've said this once and I'll say it again, the black community's biggest enemy is the black community itself. 100% crab mentality

Good lord.

Why not attack the root causes of higher levels of criminality among those populations at that time in New York City as opposed to throwing kids up against walls and unnecessarily surveiling them? Sure, heightening the police state reduces crime on a net level, but at what cost to civil liberties?

The black community's biggest enemy is generational poverty brought on by centuries of slavery followed by decades of both legislated and then "turn the other cheek" discrimination. When you are poor, your life is infinitely harder, and while individuals can boostrap themselves to the top, populations cannot, and in this day and age, it is far less likely in America of all places in general.

Commercial Real Estate Developer

  • 6
Feb 20, 2020 - 1:52pm

I have just come to the conclusion that the format of the debates is a terrible platform for informed and intelligent discussion of points.. Each topic deserves at LEAST 20-30 minutes, not just 10 people talking over each other with zings.

As a side note, I kinda wish Bloomberg would own some of the shit he has said, just like Trump.

As a conservative from a blue state, between not voting for Trump or actually voting for Bloomberg would be a tough choice. If Sander's is the democratic candidate then it would make me want to vote for Trump.

Feb 20, 2020 - 1:54pm
C.R.E. Shervin:

I kinda wish Bloomberg would own some of the shit he has said, just like Trump.

This shit won't fly in the democratic party.

Array

Feb 20, 2020 - 2:17pm

I think the 20-30 minutes idea is not as good as people think... the debate was already what... 4 hours? I understand that we need more information than what 90 seconds can provide, but we do have the internet, and every candidate has a great platform to voice their full opinion. For those of us who care to hear more than 90 seconds... the information is there. But for those who would rather just see the high-level arguments and get to know how ALL the candidates interact, the current debate platform is adequate. Not perfect, but adequate.

Don't @ me

  • 1
Feb 20, 2020 - 1:59pm

What a dumpster fire in the latter half of this thread. Openly have people being saying they hate black people and only 2 people can come and fight that outrageously racist claim? What has this forum turned into? And the fact BobTheBaker has 8 MS for stating a FACT?! Are we really in 2020 America? Or 1955?

Feb 20, 2020 - 2:14pm

There's no excuse for sheltered white kids to hate black people though.

Not be exposed to black people? Sure. Not understand the structural difficulties they face? Totally. Literally writing "black people specifically look for handouts and are inherently lazy?" That's pure, white-trash, confederate flag waving horseshit. There's no excuse for it.

Commercial Real Estate Developer

  • 2
Feb 20, 2020 - 2:12pm
SteveBartman:
What has this forum turned into?

The off topic forum has had a cesspool undercurrent since 2016.

Something specific happened then - just can't put my finger on it...

Commercial Real Estate Developer

  • 4
  • 1
Feb 20, 2020 - 2:17pm

Trump is going to win a Nixon '72-style landslide.

"Work ethic, work ethic" - Vince Vaughn

  • 1
Feb 20, 2020 - 2:17pm
Yankee Doodle:

Trump is going to win a Nixon '72-style landslide.

I think Trump is the favorite, but let's not engage in hyperbole. In 1972 Nixon won 49 states (only lost Massachusetts) and the national popular vote by an insane 23 point margin, against George McGovern. In 19 states, McGovern did not win a single county. Nixon even won rock solid democratic bastions that no Republican has won since: southern Texas, Hennepin county MN, Cook County IL, Orleans County LA, Fulton County GA, Prince George's County MD, Erie County NY, Queens County NY. Amongst the 49 states that Nixon won, his closest state was Minnesota, which he still won by more than 5 points!

Yeah, this election is not going to be 1972.

Feb 20, 2020 - 2:17pm

I'm trying to think of a time when Bloomberg was ever impressive speaking in public for any reason.

I'm drawing a blank. I remember those weather updates he'd give trying to read in Spanish and even those were awful. He also ran against a couple of hacks in the Mayoral elections. He's just out of his depth here; Trump's description of him as a "low energy ball of nothing" was pretty apt.

Folks really do like to elevate folks or assign them skills they don't have simply because they're wealthy. I guess if you hear it enough you start to believe it yourself.

  • 2
Feb 20, 2020 - 2:17pm

I think there are just certain expectations of a person who has found the amount of success in business and politics as he has. He failed to meet them last night.

Commercial Real Estate Developer

Feb 20, 2020 - 2:17pm
CRE:

I think there are just certain expectations of a person who has found the amount of success in business and politics as he has. He failed to meet them last night.

Bloomberg is obviously very smart and successful, but I think it's important to place him in context. When he became NYC mayor in January 2002, his net worth was "only" $4 billion. Now he's worth $60 billion. What happened? During his mayoralty, Bloomberg provided massive tax breaks and incentives to financial firms to stay in NYC after the 9/11 attacks. In return, they spent a lot of money on Bloomberg terminal and services. Given that the Bloomberg company is a privately held joint partnership in which Bloomberg himself owns a whopping 88%, one does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out how he got so wealthy.

Feb 20, 2020 - 2:17pm

The Dem debate was hilarious and entertaining. They really came out to fight. Pocahontas was especially fiery, with the passion of a Native American warrior chief. She took Bloomberg to the woodshed over his comments on women and the NDA.

Bloomberg was insanely unprepared for the debate. Not sure if he was so arrogant that he thought he could wing it or whether his debate prep team didn't properly do its job. All the attacks were easily anticipated and relayed by his opponents for the last few weeks. Bloomberg was a great mayor; NYC was safe and prosperous under his leadership while it is now a decaying violent mess under socialist DeBlasio (Bernie supporter). His record for the most part is good, but he can't aggressively defend it because the Democratic Party has moved far left on economic policy, crime, identity politics, culture. At the same time, he does not want to apologize for his record, so his answers on the debate stage were awkward.

What struck me the most is just how far left the Democrats have moved. Obama 08 was a typical center-left campaign, but compared to today's Democrats, Obama was an arch-conservative. Biden's poor primary performance thus far is indicative of the party's desire to move beyond Obama and go even further left. The fact that a lifelong socialist who praised communist regimes throughout his adult life, illustrates this reality perfectly. It was also unreal that the debate audience groaned when Bloomberg attacked Bernie's socialism and praised capitalism. Really? Do these Democrats not understand basic economics and how the real world works?

Feb 20, 2020 - 2:17pm

Commodi et et quo quidem molestiae illum. Voluptas et culpa modi sint aliquam ut. Doloremque quia occaecati ratione qui ducimus. Et repellat illo qui ea nam quia. Magni fugit suscipit similique quae. Tenetur similique et numquam explicabo vel.

Accusamus qui rerum unde quo. Quidem reiciendis qui suscipit blanditiis pariatur omnis. Cupiditate nesciunt blanditiis voluptate rem exercitationem sit. Esse quas repudiandae itaque dicta voluptas deleniti. Quasi ipsam animi voluptas repudiandae. Molestiae tempore in deleniti consequatur eos ea repellendus sit.

Earum consectetur veritatis inventore in officia. Maiores quas odit consequuntur ut. Veniam voluptas amet cumque natus labore ullam.

Reprehenderit accusamus modi odit doloremque eos ut in. Tempore est eligendi et suscipit occaecati pariatur. Rerum velit alias quo rerum voluptas. Sint consequatur voluptatem facere id quia. Qui sit officiis est cumque consequatur rerum dolorem.

Array

Feb 20, 2020 - 2:17pm

Quia atque rem nostrum ullam. Enim exercitationem voluptas odit dolor repellendus. Nesciunt id aut neque culpa quod nisi. Qui magni repellat nihil quo.

Est natus odit non fuga. Nihil non asperiores quia fugit vel. Atque quae corporis nihil. In saepe sit reiciendis quam voluptate aut earum. Quaerat provident et enim libero impedit saepe.

A rerum provident non corrupti ipsa. Aliquid ullam illo quis et quae saepe qui. Officiis quis quo vel quam quas dolorum. Et sit nisi et ullam. Omnis sed natus delectus eaque ea sit earum.

Occaecati distinctio consectetur sunt quia illum sed esse. Aliquid deleniti dignissimos nostrum possimus aut corrupti. Placeat et fugiat mollitia ut numquam et. Hic omnis temporibus ipsa. Quo rem facere voluptate tempore ut. Eligendi qui quidem iure quia accusamus tempora sed.

you didn't make good choices; you had good choices

Feb 20, 2020 - 2:17pm

Maxime veritatis id illo quia delectus animi. Est atque ipsum iure. Velit impedit dignissimos sed ab. Voluptate ut ipsa veniam ullam. Inventore exercitationem sit ea sit qui qui in natus.

Ratione porro deserunt a ipsam omnis vel non. Ipsa et veniam molestiae aut. Assumenda praesentium unde in dolores qui omnis id.

Feb 20, 2020 - 2:17pm

Est debitis hic deleniti magni qui expedita. Velit rem doloremque consequatur animi voluptatem eius ratione. Dolor cumque et porro magnam.

Ab nulla omnis vel soluta consequatur tempore. Laudantium omnis ut aliquid doloremque et facere. Culpa nobis incidunt velit vitae minus quia. Sit eum earum maiores fuga officia.

Accusamus distinctio magnam quo et iusto. Esse omnis quis nam commodi quibusdam nesciunt. Vitae quia doloremque provident necessitatibus. Pariatur voluptatem odio eos temporibus et. Aperiam quam voluptates in voluptatum assumenda. Sed suscipit distinctio delectus rem voluptatum delectus.

Adipisci consequatur nesciunt consequatur. Sapiente nulla asperiores et dolore vel et quo. Asperiores explicabo totam voluptas itaque asperiores veritatis.

Never discuss with idiots, first they drag you at their level, then they beat you with experience.

Start Discussion

Total Avg Compensation

September 2021 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (10) $853
  • Vice President (39) $363
  • Associates (220) $232
  • 2nd Year Analyst (135) $154
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (30) $147
  • Intern/Summer Associate (103) $143
  • 1st Year Analyst (491) $135
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (379) $82