Unlike Obama, who has a fuller understanding of history and attempts to govern with according restraint,
.....Bloomberg actually is on the authoritarian end of the liberal spectrum and has a long record of pushing for the sort of nanny-state regulations that this board claims to despise. So no, I would not be interested in voting for a "radical centrist" who would see his primary mandate as ceding economic control to the corporate sector, while at the same pushing a "progressive" agenda of restricting the size of sodas and places where you can smoke. He's the Epcot Centre of politicians.
I don't disagree with you on Bloomberg, he has some pretty fucked up libtarded ideas. He is an ardent and faithful practitioner of the religion of anthropogenic global warming and is a huge supporter of nanny state polices. Describing him as a "radical centrist" is spot on, but Obama has used his magic phone and magic pen to become among the most authoritarian presidents we've endured.
"..........Please don't complain later that you didn't see it coming. As always, Mr. Obama states publicly what his intentions are. He is doing that now. Toward the end of his speech last week in Jacksonville, Fla., he said: "So where I can act on my own, I'm going to act on my own. I won't wait for Congress." .....
........... The political left, historically inclined by ideological belief to public policy that is imposed rather than legislated, will support Mr. Obama's expansion of authority. The rest of us should not."
That was written in 2013. Since then Obama has used his magic phone and magic pen over and over again to circumvent the legislative process and impose his policies. You like his policies, so you continue to lick his taint and gargle his semen, ignoring the inherent problem with a runaway president overstepping the boundaries of his authority. The left in general have no problem with this since it is their guy ramming his policies down the throats of the American People. However, the middle and right have issued their objections. Republicans have taken over both houses of congress in large part due to frustration amongst the voting population over your self appointed "king's" actions. We'll see how this plays out in 2016.
Unlike Obama, who has a fuller understanding of history and attempts to govern with according restraint,
.....Bloomberg actually is on the authoritarian end of the liberal spectrum and has a long record of pushing for the sort of nanny-state regulations that this board claims to despise. So no, I would not be interested in voting for a "radical centrist" who would see his primary mandate as ceding economic control to the corporate sector, while at the same pushing a "progressive" agenda of restricting the size of sodas and places where you can smoke. He's the Epcot Centre of politicians.
I don't disagree with you on Bloomberg, he has some pretty fucked up libtarded ideas. He is an ardent and faithful practitioner of the religion of anthropogenic global warming and is a huge supporter of nanny state polices. Describing him as a "radical centrist" is spot on, but Obama has used his magic phone and magic pen to become among the most authoritarian presidents we've endured.
"..........Please don't complain later that you didn't see it coming. As always, Mr. Obama states publicly what his intentions are. He is doing that now. Toward the end of his speech last week in Jacksonville, Fla., he said: "So where I can act on my own, I'm going to act on my own. I won't wait for Congress." .....
........... The political left, historically inclined by ideological belief to public policy that is imposed rather than legislated, will support Mr. Obama's expansion of authority. The rest of us should not."
That was written in 2013. Since then Obama has used his magic phone and magic pen over and over again to circumvent the legislative process and impose his policies. You like his policies, so you continue to lick his taint and gargle his semen, ignoring the inherent problem with a runaway president overstepping the boundaries of his authority. The left in general have no problem with this since it is their guy ramming his policies down the throats of the American People. However, the middle and right have issued their objections. Republicans have taken over both houses of congress in large part due to frustration amongst the voting population over your self appointed "king's" actions. We'll see how this plays out in 2016.
This is the FS post of the year. I say some stupid shit, but I'm stringing someone along. You actually believe this. That the right wing would issue objections over bullshit their guy did. The right still says going into Iraq, tax cuts, sending checks to every taxpayer, etc. were the right things to do.
And to the second bolded item. Gerrymandering is mostly why Congress is Republican. Like in 2012, more people voted for Democrats that Republicans in the house, yet the house ended up with more seats. Why is that?
Broken windows had/has potential, but it wasn't the reason the homicide rate has been dropping since the early 90s, and at the expense of thousands of people's civil rights. It certainly isn't the liberal policy.
Broken windows had/has potential, but it wasn't the reason the homicide rate has been dropping since the early 90s, and at the expense of thousands of people's civil rights. It certainly isn't the liberal policy.
Who is liberal and who is conservative any more? What do those terms even mean these days? Is a liberal someone who wants to liberate people or are they just for spending liberally and expanding government control? Is a conservative someone who is shrewd with spending, or is it more about the "conservative" old school values? Someone tell me what the fuck is going on here. I need answers people.
IMHO, Bloomberg is the 2nd most qualified candidate after Kasich.
The country needs a smart, moderate president who can work with Congress and yet the brain-dead can't stop looking at Trump / Sanders
Bloomberg certainly has the executive experience the lawmakers in the field lack. I do think, though, it will take the realistic prospect of a Trump v Sanders general election for him to get into the race, and I still don't see that happening. IMO, Hillary will win the democrat party nomination, and most likely, Cruz will win the republican nomination.
IMHO, Bloomberg is the 2nd most qualified candidate after Kasich.
The country needs a smart, moderate president who can work with Congress and yet the brain-dead can't stop looking at Trump / Sanders
Bloomberg certainly has the executive experience the lawmakers in the field lack. I do think, though, it will take the realistic prospect of a Trump v Sanders general election for him to get into the race, and I still don't see that happening. IMO, Hillary will win the democrat party nomination, and most likely, Cruz will win the republican nomination.
I used to think it would be hillary. but as she loses momentum and the idea of an indictment becomes more of a possibility I'm having more trouble seeing it. Trump is gonna be the GOP nominee unless he drops out, it's sad but the reality
IMHO, Bloomberg is the 2nd most qualified candidate after Kasich.
The country needs a smart, moderate president who can work with Congress and yet the brain-dead can't stop looking at Trump / Sanders
Work with congress to do what? Anything that you work with congress on is going to be bullshit. The last thing this country needs is donor owned congress making a bunch of donor approved decisions. Shove shit down congresses throat. Trump/Sanders 2016.
IMHO, Bloomberg is the 2nd most qualified candidate after Kasich.
The country needs a smart, moderate president who can work with Congress and yet the brain-dead can't stop looking at Trump / Sanders
Bloomberg certainly has the executive experience the lawmakers in the field lack. I do think, though, it will take the realistic prospect of a Trump v Sanders general election for him to get into the race, and I still don't see that happening. IMO, Hillary will win the democrat party nomination, and most likely, Cruz will win the republican nomination.
I used to think it would be hillary. but as she loses momentum and the idea of an indictment becomes more of a possibility I'm having more trouble seeing it. Trump is gonna be the GOP nominee unless he drops out, it's sad but the reality
Trump is a "populist" who has brought some important issues to the forefront and he delivers his "message" in an anti-PC way that appeals to those who are sick and tired of PC bullying. But IMHO, his bombastic arrogance and persona will eventually wear thin. In fact prominent conservatives have been against him from the beginning, a number of them going so far as to skewer him in a recent issue of National Review. His polling numbers have the establishment running scared, that is for sure, they do fear he could win the nomination, but this show has run it's course before, with the populist candidate eventually being overrun by someone in the field who is more traditional, more presidential. We'll see.
Sanders is a left wing loon playing the "populist" card as well. Red meat for those easily manipulated by class warfare and interested in a massive paternalistic form of federal government full of "free stuff". He is a self described socialist who would normally have no chance, but Hillary is a terrible candidate, essentially running on a Bern light platform. She still has a substantial lead over the Bern in nearly all national polls, but as you point out, she also has an indictment hanging over her head. Bernie wins the nomination if she is indicted, otherwise, IMO, Hillary will carry enough of the primary vote outside the far left regions to win the nomination.
We'll see how this plays out. Bloomberg is no fan of Sanders, in fact a Sanders nomination might be enough to get him in the race. If both Trump and Sanders are the nominees, I'd say it's a near certainty that Bloomberg throws his hat in the ring. He'd have a damn good chance at winning in a general election under those circumstances and I'm sure he finds that appealing.
A vote for Bloomberg is a vote for the nanny state and more gun control. Pass.
Add to that his tax policies as Mayor and I'd say pass too. The reality is that for now grid lock would keep him from implementing policies that are too far left, and the thought of Trump/Sanders has a lot of people shaking and about to vomit. I believe he'd siphon votes from both sides and make things interesting.
Comments
And to the second bolded item. Gerrymandering is mostly why Congress is Republican. Like in 2012, more people voted for Democrats that Republicans in the house, yet the house ended up with more seats. Why is that?
The country needs a smart, moderate president who can work with Congress and yet the brain-dead can't stop looking at Trump / Sanders
Trump is gonna be the GOP nominee unless he drops out, it's sad but the reality
Sanders is a left wing loon playing the "populist" card as well. Red meat for those easily manipulated by class warfare and interested in a massive paternalistic form of federal government full of "free stuff". He is a self described socialist who would normally have no chance, but Hillary is a terrible candidate, essentially running on a Bern light platform. She still has a substantial lead over the Bern in nearly all national polls, but as you point out, she also has an indictment hanging over her head. Bernie wins the nomination if she is indicted, otherwise, IMO, Hillary will carry enough of the primary vote outside the far left regions to win the nomination.
We'll see how this plays out. Bloomberg is no fan of Sanders, in fact a Sanders nomination might be enough to get him in the race. If both Trump and Sanders are the nominees, I'd say it's a near certainty that Bloomberg throws his hat in the ring. He'd have a damn good chance at winning in a general election under those circumstances and I'm sure he finds that appealing.