Bloomberg

LOL, what would be even better is if we could charge him for it and when he tried to channel his money to his drunken twins we could take it back leaving the entire Bush Dynasty penniless...........mwah mwah mwaahhhh
 
Bloomberg's move is a great thing for American politics. I hope it's a precursor for more to come. This comes at a time when droves of Americans are running away from the two-party trap.

Now, if only Americans would do the right thing and demand open ballot access for more parties we might have the beginning of a real political revolution.
 
blackascoal said:
Bloomberg's move is a great thing for American politics. I hope it's a precursor for more to come. This comes at a time when droves of Americans are running away from the two-party trap.

Now, if only Americans would do the right thing and demand open ballot access for more parties we might have the beginning of a real political revolution.
Click to expand...


Our entire system is set up for only two competitive parties. Unless we go to a parliamentary system, or some type of proportional representation, that's the way it's always going to be. Third parties have not chance. Not a prayer. It's a winner-take-all system. Not a proportional one. Winner take all systems ensure that only two parties compete.

The fact is, under our system, there's only ever going to be two coalitions - a left-center coalition (Democrats) and a center-right coalition (Republicans). You can change the names around, but the calculus remains the same. Either one is part of the broad center-left coalition, or one is wasting their time with fringe groups that will never affect one iota of change.
 
blackascoal said:
Bloomberg's move is a great thing for American politics. I hope it's a precursor for more to come. This comes at a time when droves of Americans are running away from the two-party trap.

Now, if only Americans would do the right thing and demand open ballot access for more parties we might have the beginning of a real political revolution.
Click to expand...

Well, he hasn't officially thrown his hat into the ring, I think he would offer a nice alternative and give the major parties a nice little wake up call as he drains both their votes.
 
Cypress said:
Our entire system is set up for only two competitive parties. Unless we go to a parliamentary system, or some type of proportional representation, that's the way it's always going to be. Third parties have not chance. Not a prayer. It's a winner-take-all system. Not a proportional one. Winner take all systems ensure that only two parties compete.

The fact is, under our system, there's only ever going to be two coalitions - a left-center coalition (Democrats) and a center-right coalition (Republicans). You can change the names around, but the calculus remains the same. Either one is part of the broad center-left coalition, or one is wasting their time with fringe groups that will never affect one iota of change.
Click to expand...

And here I thought I was the resident pessimist.
 
LadyT said:
Well, he hasn't officially thrown his hat into the ring, I think he would offer a nice alternative and give the major parties a nice little wake up call as he drains both their votes.
Click to expand...

On the heels of Bloomberg's announcement, today's CNN.com poll asked simply "would you vote for an independent candidate for president in 2008?" -- not naming anyone. The response at the time I checked was relatively small, about 20K or so, but of those, 81% had replied "yes". It's too early to make any predictions but definitely attitudes are changing in an important direction; we're all fed up with spin, hype, lies, special interests, and monumental stupidity in bureaucracy.
 
Thorn said:
On the heels of Bloomberg's announcement, today's CNN.com poll asked simply "would you vote for an independent candidate for president in 2008?" -- not naming anyone. The response at the time I checked was relatively small, about 20K or so, but of those, 81% had replied "yes". It's too early to make any predictions but definitely attitudes are changing in an important direction; we're all fed up with spin, hype, lies, special interests, and monumental stupidity in bureaucracy.
Click to expand...

Yes. This is true. He actually may have a good chance as an independent. I'd love to see him make a good showing at least.
 
lmao...

Bloomberg is a fraud...he will only draw votes from the ilk of the 'City of New York' he made his money in Federal Grants and in the entertainment business..
He flip flopped from Dem to GOP as he saw this was his best chance to be elected in NYC...he could care less about y'all middle classers except for a vote or two...:rolleyes:
 
Battleborne said:
Bloomberg is a fraud...he will only draw votes from the ilk of the 'City of New York' he made his money in Federal Grants and in the entertainment business..
He flip flopped from Dem to GOP as he saw this was his best chance to be elected in NYC...he could care less about y'all middle classers except for a vote or two...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I disagree with you on all accounts thus far.
1) From what I've seen he's cultivated good relationships with minority communities in the city. Even in the wake of the Sean Bell murder.
2) Who says flip-flopping is always bad? He's wealthy and powerful for a reason: he's adapted to change in order to succeed. If the party isn't aligned with your principals, why on earth would you remain?
3) as for your accusing him of selling out for a vote or two, you're highly mistaken, he didn't cave to the unions at the risk of losing their support. If I remember correctly some union wanted to bill the city for its health care benefits in return for his support. He turned his back on supporters yet he saved the city $1B.
 
Cypress said:
Our entire system is set up for only two competitive parties. Unless we go to a parliamentary system, or some type of proportional representation, that's the way it's always going to be. Third parties have not chance. Not a prayer. It's a winner-take-all system. Not a proportional one. Winner take all systems ensure that only two parties compete.

The fact is, under our system, there's only ever going to be two coalitions - a left-center coalition (Democrats) and a center-right coalition (Republicans). You can change the names around, but the calculus remains the same. Either one is part of the broad center-left coalition, or one is wasting their time with fringe groups that will never affect one iota of change.
Click to expand...
Normally I would agree, but I think the time may be right to change that. People an both sides, are fed up.
 
Well...

LadyT said:
I disagree with you on all accounts thus far.
1) From what I've seen he's cultivated good relationships with minority communities in the city. Even in the wake of the Sean Bell murder.
2) Who says flip-flopping is always bad? He's wealthy and powerful for a reason: he's adapted to change in order to succeed. If the party isn't aligned with your principals, why on earth would you remain?
3) as for your accusing him of selling out for a vote or two, you're highly mistaken, he didn't cave to the unions at the risk of losing their support. If I remember correctly some union wanted to bill the city for its health care benefits in return for his support. He turned his back on supporters yet he saved the city $1B.
Click to expand...



Let's be a little honest here...Bloomberg changed parties in 2000 from Dem to Gop...as he grasped onto the proverbial shirt tail of Rudy...now that his term as mayor is up and he sees bigger things on the horizon...walla he goes for the 'Independent' rating as it worked for Libermann...this guy is a fraud...and being that I have been a registered 'American Independent' for the last twelve years...well he sure does not have my interest much less a possible vote! He is not even on the horizon outside of NYC...sorry but this nation far exceeds NYC and Hollywood!
 
LadyT said:
I disagree with you on all accounts thus far.
1) From what I've seen he's cultivated good relationships with minority communities in the city. Even in the wake of the Sean Bell murder.
2) Who says flip-flopping is always bad? He's wealthy and powerful for a reason: he's adapted to change in order to succeed. If the party isn't aligned with your principals, why on earth would you remain?
3) as for your accusing him of selling out for a vote or two, you're highly mistaken, he didn't cave to the unions at the risk of losing their support. If I remember correctly some union wanted to bill the city for its health care benefits in return for his support. He turned his back on supporters yet he saved the city $1B.
Click to expand...
Well said
 
Battleborne said:
Let's be a little honest here...Bloomberg changed parties in 2000 from Dem to Gop...as he grasped onto the proverbial shirt tail of Rudy...now that his term as mayor is up and he sees bigger things on the horizon...walla he goes for the 'Independent' rating as it worked for Libermann...this guy is a fraud...and being that I have been a registered 'American Independent' for the last twelve years...well he sure does not have my interest much less a possible vote! He is not even on the horizon outside of NYC...sorry but this nation far exceeds NYC and Hollywood!
Click to expand...

He changed parties. you still haven't said why that was inherently bad. He has made no secret of his displeasure with the current republican party so he has reacted to republican misteps by leaving them. He deserves praise in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Battleborne said:
Let's be a little honest here...Bloomberg changed parties in 2000 from Dem to Gop...as he grasped onto the proverbial shirt tail of Rudy...now that his term as mayor is up and he sees bigger things on the horizon...walla he goes for the 'Independent' rating as it worked for Libermann...this guy is a fraud...and being that I have been a registered 'American Independent' for the last twelve years...well he sure does not have my interest much less a possible vote! He is not even on the horizon outside of NYC...sorry but this nation far exceeds NYC and Hollywood!
Click to expand...
OP-vs-OP, and as for being a fraud???? he has been quite outspoken about his reasons. That's not the mark of a fraud.
 
Thorn said:
On the heels of Bloomberg's announcement, today's CNN.com poll asked simply "would you vote for an independent candidate for president in 2008?" -- not naming anyone. The response at the time I checked was relatively small, about 20K or so, but of those, 81% had replied "yes". It's too early to make any predictions but definitely attitudes are changing in an important direction; we're all fed up with spin, hype, lies, special interests, and monumental stupidity in bureaucracy.
Click to expand...


and why would this guy be any different ?

He appears to me to be flopping parties a few times for political expediancy, not morals and such.
 
Darla said:
Well, somebody has to pay for bush's war, eventually. And Damo and IHG would probably start screaming "That's Unconstituional" and require smelling salts, if we just taxed repukes, though, I am all for it.

The first thing that will have to go is his tax cuts for the richest, and once those are rolled back, we can increase their taxes for good measure. And when they whine, as they are wont to do, we can remind them that they benefitted from bush's war greatly. Who do you think is actually cleaning up in the great war bidness? The rich. So they can damn well start paying for it. So we roll back their tax cuts, then raise them a few points, and squeeze them until they start squeaking, and then, just because the squeaking is annoying, we can squeeze them just a little bit more.

Then we can cut the damned military budget, and then we can see where we have to go from there.

But we must have a single-payer (the term universal health care is meaningless and a red herring) system in this country.
Click to expand...

The rich don't usually whine about tax increases on them, actually...

People constantly demonize the rich, but I really don't see any of that in any of them I've ever seen or met.
 
Cypress said:
Our entire system is set up for only two competitive parties. Unless we go to a parliamentary system, or some type of proportional representation, that's the way it's always going to be. Third parties have not chance. Not a prayer. It's a winner-take-all system. Not a proportional one. Winner take all systems ensure that only two parties compete.

The fact is, under our system, there's only ever going to be two coalitions - a left-center coalition (Democrats) and a center-right coalition (Republicans). You can change the names around, but the calculus remains the same. Either one is part of the broad center-left coalition, or one is wasting their time with fringe groups that will never affect one iota of change.
Click to expand...

Bloomberg isn't exactly a fringe group. He actually has a chance.

I disagree, though... a range voting system could theoretically support more than two parties. There just wouldn't be much more diversity.

But the plurality system CAN work well with more than two candidates, as long as the three are equidistantly apart, like Bloomberg would be. Take, for instance, the Libdems. They're an example of a well-functioning third party that's just far enough from the two main ones to make sense.
 
LadyT said:
even if he did that would indicate that he's not in bed with any particular party which in and of itself is refreshing. Secondly Bloomberg has always been critical of republicans publicly even before it was cool.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/09/16/377/41783
Click to expand...

I have been critical of republicans when it was decidedly uncool.
You would not want me for president though.
Why did he swap to the Republican party in the first place ?

in all honesty he might be ok but I am very distrusing of party flipfloppers. Lieberman is a prime example. We had a few local ones here too, ran as dems got elected and switched to republicans. they were not re-elected though :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top