Bloomberg Leaves Republican Party

[Glocksman]

Well, we're 'shall issue' here, which means that unless you're in a legally proscribed category, the state police are required under law to issue the permit.

[Dark Flame]

This will be the first election I'll be able to vote in, and I'm not all that enthusiastic about it. There really is no perfect candidate, it's all a "lesser of two evils" thing.

Bloomberg possibly running for President doesn't help. I like most of his policies, but like Glocksman, I cannot stand his anti-gun policies.

[MKSheppard]

Anyway, Bloomberg sure as hell won't carry Virginia that's for sure; People might think that overall "State's rights" is dead, and has been dead since the 1860s and 1960s; but you'd be surprised how pissed off some people do get if some "out of state assholes" try telling them how to do things.

[Glocksman]

And before we derail this into yet another gun thread, Stravo's comment about Bloomberg being an 'empty suit' carries more weight with me than any number of position papers and endorsements he might have.
After all, Stravo's trustworthy* and has seen the SOB 'up close' WRT how effective a leader he is.



*No, I don't know him personally but going by his posts over the years I'd trust him over most any professional politician.
Though you could call that 'damning with faint praise'.

[Darth Wong]

And thanks to the usual suspects, we now have a thread about Mayor Bloomberg where more than a page of posts have told us absolutely nothing about his positions on any issue other than gun-control.

What is this guy's attitude on major issues?

[Dark Flame]

He supports gay marriage, abortion rights, gun control and stem cell research, and raised property taxes to help solve a fiscal crisis after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

That's from the OP.

Does anybody know how high these property taxes would be if they were implemented?

[Mr. T]

He supports gay marriage, abortion rights, gun control and stem cell research, and raised property taxes to help solve a fiscal crisis after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

That's from the OP.

Does anybody know how high these property taxes would be if they were implemented?

You're misunderstanding. The article is saying that he's raised property taxes in New York while Mayor, not that he plans to raise the nation's property taxes if elected President.

[Glocksman]

And thanks to the usual suspects, we now have a thread about Mayor Bloomberg where more than a page of posts have told us absolutely nothing about his positions on any issue other than gun-control.

What is this guy's attitude on major issues?

AFAIK, he's pro gay marriage (a plus in my eyes), pro choice, (I'm somewhat ambivalent on this, so it's a wash for me), pro illegal immigrant and an open borders advocate (a big negative for me).

As for the rest, I really don't know where he stands other than that he was a lifelong Democrat before he switched parties in order to run as a Repub to succeed Giuliani.

You're misunderstanding. The article is saying that he's raised property taxes in New York while Mayor, not that he plans to raise the nation's property taxes if elected President.

Indeed.
We don't have a national property tax, and good luck to any Presidential candidate trying to shove that one through Congress.

[Darth Wong]

What's his position on the Iraq Clusterfuck?

[Stravo]

And thanks to the usual suspects, we now have a thread about Mayor Bloomberg where more than a page of posts have told us absolutely nothing about his positions on any issue other than gun-control.

What is this guy's attitude on major issues?

He's essentially a democrat without being called one. Liberal on social issues (prochoice, pro gay rights) extremely anti-gun anti smoking crusader and business friendly. No personality.

[Darth Wong]

How about health-care, Iraq (as mentioned previously), Iran, Israel, global warming, nuclear power, the Patriot Act, and corporate mergers?

[Stravo]

How about health-care, Iraq (as mentioned previously), Iran, Israel, global warming, nuclear power, the Patriot Act, and corporate mergers?

Not sure on Health Care but Anti-Iraq (an issue when he was pro-Lieberman) he HAS to be Pro-Israel in NYC. Definitely very green. He has proposed congestion tolls for cars traveling into Manhattan below 86th street which I strongly support and the outer boroughs and NJ oppose. He has vowed to make NYC the greenest city in America, cutting our emissions in half, subsidizing building of eco friendly buildings. Corporate stuff he is very pro business but not pro business in the George Bush suck the corporate until it bukake's on you but more like "Here's some tax breaks now go generate some jobs for us." He's also opposed to over development which is a big issue here in the city.

[Ma Deuce]

How about health-care, Iraq (as mentioned previously), Iran, Israel, global warming, nuclear power, the Patriot Act, and corporate mergers?

Dunno about most of those issues issues, but I do recall him cheerleading Israel during the Lebanon war last year. As for health-care, he has proposed reforms that place more emphasis on preventative medicine to reduce the need for costly treatments, but to my knowledge he has not endorsed a true universal healthcare system (But I'm unsure if he's actually opposed to it either).

[Vympel]

There's no one anti-Israel, AFAIK, amongst the Democratic or Republican presidential candidates. Maybe Kucinich? I dunno.

Really sad, consideirng what a massive waste of money they are for no gain and a whole lot of trouble, but the Lobby must be appeased.

[Glocksman]

He was pro-Lieberman but anti Iraq war????
Considering that he was a Republican at the time, that really doesn't make much sense on a national scale.

[Stravo]

He was pro-Lieberman but anti Iraq war????
Considering that he was a Republican at the time, that really doesn't make much sense on a national scale.

He and Lieberman were close personal friends and I beleive the GOP was asking Bloomberg to try and court him to join them. Bloomie supported Lieberman in lieu of the Republican and democratic candidate running in CT. He did make a point during several campaign stops to say he opposed Iraq but that he thought Lieberman was the best candidate in the field despite their opposing war views.

[/code]

[Natorgator]

Wow, the empty suit is on the road for presidential aspirations. This is starting to shape up to be a Ross Perot type election where everyone is pissed at the major parties and vote for the third party candidate to "teach those scoundrels in Washington a lesson."

I just don't see who is telling Bloomberg he even stands a chance. He has the charisma of balsa wood and all the personality of shrubbery and his policies are a mish mash of conservative and liberal ideas.

Still this is quite a shocker. We may have an exciting election on our hands.

I recently posted a thread about this topic about a week ago (and got no responses. ) I think he should run. He seems like a down to earth guy with good ideas and being that he is a billionaire he can practically buy his way into the public eye.

[Vain]

I'd vote for Bloomberg in a heartbeat, and not just because he's JHU alumni. Our politics are pretty much dead on, except for gun control (Ha!) and I'm more than willing to suck that up. I want a real fiscal conservative in the White House. His liberal social politics also appeal to me, and he's a major philanthropist, although not quite on the scale of Warren Buffett. Man I wish Buffett would run for President. :-/ As someone who has never lived in NYC, I liked what I saw from outside. He said that his goal for his first term was unfucking the economy, and his goal for his second term was fixing the educational system. I would be thrilled to death if we had a president who focused on those two things.

Bear in mind that if he does run, he will have to cut his second term as Mayor short.

I wonder if he'll decline the presidential salary, like he did with the mayoral one?

[Srynerson]

There's no one anti-Israel, AFAIK, amongst the Democratic or Republican presidential candidates. Maybe Kucinich? I dunno.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) isn't "anti-Israel," but he is quite critical of US support for the Israeli government:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul27.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul28.html

To address Bloomberg's candidacy, I have to say: Bloomberg '08 is to Democrats '08 as Perot '92 is Bush '92. I can't see how Bloomberg will draw more likely Republican voters than likely Democratic voters.

[Glocksman]

To address Bloomberg's candidacy, I have to say: Bloomberg '08 is to Democrats '08 as Perot '92 is Bush '92. I can't see how Bloomberg will draw more likely Republican voters than likely Democratic voters.

Oh he might carry some Republican voters with him, but my guess is that they'll be 'Rockefeller Republicans' in states that'd normally go Democratic anyway instead of Republican, thus having little effect on the overall Electoral College vote count.

I *don't* see him having very much support outside of the coasts, and even then, not enough to do anything more than act as a 'spoiler' like Perot was in 92 and 96.
Of course a lot depends upon who the eventual Republican and Democratic contenders are and what the state of the nation is like around election time.

[CmdrWilkens]

The thing is that, as the Duchess pointed out, he has the monetary means of absolutely saturating the airwaves with ads to try and entice folks who agree with just a portion of his mis-mash of stances. There are places he would definately lose in the electoral colelge vote but I think if he really wanted to go out and spend $1bn then he would rack up a rather impressive chunk of the popular vote with unforseen consequences on the electoral college (not in the least by possibly denying NY to the Dems throwing them off their game forcing campaiging in previoulsy red states to try and throw the whole mess into the House when nobody captures 270)

[Crown]

This will be the first election I'll be able to vote in, and I'm not all that enthusiastic about it. There really is no perfect candidate, it's all a "lesser of two evils" thing.

I don't mean to sound patronizing, condensending, the 'wise old fart' to the 'young naive child' but seriously; welcome to the real world. I can not remember even once voting for a 'near perfect' or 'good' candidate. You vote to keep the other bastard out of power, it's as simple as that. And it flat out flawed me that people weren't voting Kerry in fucking droves in 2004 even if they had an issue with one or two of his positions.

Instead, we got four more years of this circus show.

Bloomberg possibly running for President doesn't help. I like most of his policies, but like Glocksman, I cannot stand his anti-gun policies.

Oh, for fucks sake!

Would all Americans GET THE FUCK OVER IT already? He can't take your guns away. The next president can't take your guns away, 100 presidents down the line won't be able to take your guns away. It's in your consitution, and the entire 'fly over states' would go on rampage if they tried.

Jesus.

[Dark Flame]

Oh, for fucks sake!

Would all Americans GET THE FUCK OVER IT already? He can't take your guns away. The next president can't take your guns away, 100 presidents down the line won't be able to take your guns away. It's in your consitution, and the entire 'fly over states' would go on rampage if they tried.

Jesus.

No, we won't. I read history, I know what happens when guns get taken away.

And saying "Oh it'll never happen to me" is a shitty way to look at anything. I don't know about you, but I don't want to say "It can't happen here" and forget about, only to find out, too late, that it happened. Sure, guns probably will never be outright banned in America, but that doesn't mean that we can ignore the issue with your "It won't happen to me" approach.

[Crown]

No, we won't. I read history, I know what happens when guns get taken away.

This conversation just took an interesting turn ...

And saying "Oh it'll never happen to me" is a shitty way to look at anything. I don't know about you, but I don't want to say "It can't happen here" and forget about, only to find out, too late, that it happened. Sure, guns probably will never be outright banned in America, but that doesn't mean that we can ignore the issue with your "It won't happen to me" approach.

Are you a fucking idiot? No one man can change take away something so clearly defined in your consititution as gun ownership without the consent and rubber stamp of Congress (which Dubya got on such 'non important' issues as civil liberties for US citizens), for the simple reason that no Congress would go along with it.

You have reperasentatives that are just as much in love with their 'boomsticks' as you are.

Sadly you don't have any that were willing to protect fundamental civil liberties as the right to a trial.

So I again I say; get the fuck over it. This is a fucking non-issue. Just like Kerry's 'might not have earned a Purple Heart'. If you are too fucking idiotic to see that for yourself that I can't help you.

[Darth Wong]

No, we won't. I read history, I know what happens when guns get taken away.

No, I seriously doubt you read any history. There is no real historical connection between gun ownership and individual rights. Did you know that Iraqis under Saddam Hussein had the right to keep and bear arms too? The fact that certain autocratic regimes disarmed their populations is a serious case of putting the cart before the horse; they always took away lots of other rights either at the same time or before this happened.

The "canary in the coal mine" for social freedom is the loss of freedom of the press, not the loss of gun rights.