Bloomberg as an Independent in 2008??

[imported_Shivetya]

If he runs as an independant he will do what Perot did, put another Clinton into office. His appeal is more with the Conservatives than the Democrats, which is odd since he really is a Democrat. Simply put, without the (D) next to his name he will get hardly any if but a less than 10% cut of their voting.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: CrackRabbit

banned trans-fat from restaurants, endorses rights of illegal immigrants, supports gun control

Three reasons he would have a hard time getting elected.
The trans-fat ban is stupid, plain and simple nannyism.
Rights for the illegals wouldn't fly with many people including myself.
And gun control is a big no-no for winning the south.

According to the other thread it sounds like Americans vote for the personality and trustworthiness of the leader not minor issues.

All of his stances are very reasonable and defendable when push comes to shove.

Except gun control is not a minor issue for a lot of people. Its the reason that Fred Thompson is even in the picture.

And, holy crap.. I just hit the quote button and it actually worked. Hope they fixed it.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
If he runs as an independant he will do what Perot did, put another Clinton into office. His appeal is more with the Conservatives than the Democrats, which is odd since he really is a Democrat. Simply put, without the (D) next to his name he will get hardly any if but a less than 10% cut of their voting.

How so?

Fiscally he's a conservative... He's all about balancing budgets and common sense

But on social issues he's a liberal.
Pro gun control
Pro choice
Rabid liberal...

Blind conservatives will hate him as much as the blind liberals will. That's about 30/30. That leaves 40 who are sick of the status quo and who are very disappointed in their party. That's who he's after. See my above post for how he plans to do this.

His attack will be straight to the disenchanted middle.

He's not going to be another Perot. Perot ran out of money. He was underfunded from the beginning. This comparison of Perot to Bloomberg is based on the ignorance of how the super rich hold their money. Just because you're a billionaire doesn't mean you have a billion to spend.

Bloomberg is perpared to spend half of Ross Perot's entire worth on this campaign... something that Perot was unwilling... and UNABLE to do...

Bloomberg has, in his pocket ready to spend, as much money as was spent on the '04 election by every candidate, PAC and 527 group... combined.

This is the thing you all keep missing. He has already freed up ONE BILLION dollars to run with. This money didn't appear on accident. He cashed it out. Billionaires don't have a billion dollars in the bank. That's not why they are billionaires. They are billionaires because they control that much in resourses.

No sane billionaire (not running for president) has a billion dollars in the bank. Their money is always invested in something. Bill Gates couldn't write a check for $1 Billion if his life depended on it. He's worth $40+ billion... But if he lost a billion dollar bet to you he'd have to cash out some stock or give you a share of his silver mine. He doesn't have $1 billion in liquid cash.

Bloomberg has assembled $1 billion in liquid cash. No billionaire does that without a purpose. He's hoping nobody notices. And so far, very few reporters have. Must be nice to have your own media conglomerate. People freak out over what Murdoch is doing... Here's a guy who is quietly attempting to buy the presidency. It almost makes me think that the Murdoch WSJ takeover is a shadow play designed to distract from what Bloomie is getting set to do.

Cliffs: If I were the RNC or DNC... I'd be nervous.
Edit: Scratch nervous... Terrified. Wake up screaming in the middle of the night terrified.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: TallBill
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Stunt
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>banned trans-fat from restaurants, endorses rights of illegal immigrants, supports gun control</end quote></div>
Three reasons he would have a hard time getting elected.
The trans-fat ban is stupid, plain and simple nannyism.
Rights for the illegals wouldn't fly with many people including myself.
And gun control is a big no-no for winning the south.</end quote></div>
According to the other thread it sounds like Americans vote for the personality and trustworthiness of the leader not minor issues.

All of his stances are very reasonable and defendable when push comes to shove.</end quote></div>

Except gun control is not a minor issue for a lot of people. Its the reason that Fred Thompson is even in the picture.

And, holy crap.. I just hit the quote button and it actually worked. Hope they fixed it.

Exactly. It's the single biggest "single issue" vote in America. And if a hard core gun grabber gets in office, we'll end up having to vote from the rooftops.

 

[Hacp]

Allowing more disclosure of legal gun buyers once again doesn't help stop criminals who generally obtain weapons illegaly. The police having "a list" is kinda scary. Illinois State Police have already made visits to citizens trying to voice their opinions in a peaceful manner to state legislators.

Criminals do not typically use semi automatic rifles to commit crimes. I don't think I've ever read a story about street gangs using rifles for their killings. They use $100 pistols.

Owning multiple guns does not increase your chance of protection. You can only shoot one at a time.

Concealed carry owners account for roughly .3% of crime involving a firearm. The typical law abiding CCW is not a criminal and doesn't just break out in random violence. Once again, criminals do not follow the laws anyways, so they wont be the type of person that obtains a carry permit.

You sound like you bought into the last assault weapon ban which other then the 10-round magazine limit only banned cosmetic changes to rifles!

The goal isn't to arm 100% of the population, but instead offer American citizens the choice to responsibly and legally carry a firearm in public and own whatever type of firearm.

Once again, banning handguns in large cities simply hasn't worked. How do you explain Chicago? One of the highest murder rates in the US. Since handguns are banned entirely at this point, every single handgun murder is committed with an illegal firearm. A recent alderman was caught (and let off) with a revolver in her bedroom closet, for guess what, home protection!

I'm not really familiar with crime in Chicago. However, there are many variables that contribute to crime. If your city officials and police officers are corrupt for example, it is going to be hard to stop criminals. The same is true about the tactics used by police to stop crime. You can't attribute Chicago's high crime rate to just a lack of availible fire arms for civilians.

That said, a tougher stance on guns does not mean a ban on guns. Efforts to make sure gun dealers are responsible make us safter by keeping guns out of the wrong hands. Tougher and more extensive background checks also keep guns out of the wrong hands.

Guns are dangerous. We just need to be cautious when we issue gum permits. We should similarly just as cautious when we sell guns to people with these permits. Having a tough stance on guns just means that you advocate more caution when dealing with guns.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Guns are dangerous. We just need to be cautious when we issue gum permits. We should similarly just as cautious when we sell guns to people with these permits. Having a tough stance on guns just means that you advocate more caution when dealing with guns.

There should be no gun permits, as no one "permits" me to have a gun. It's my innate, inalienable right. The government has no rightful power to decide who can or cannot own anything (guns, cars, DVDs, etc.) Thankfully where I live, there are no permits to own guns. Permits are de facto registration anyway.

I do advocate a lot of caution when dealing with guns. Here are the only needed gun control "laws":
1. Treat all firearms as if they were loaded
2. Never point a firearm at something you're not willing to destroy
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot
4. Be sure of your target and what's beyond it

If they taught those in elementary schools, with refreshers all through middle school and high school, I'd have no problem with an 18 year old walking into any gun store in America and buying a handgun, an assault rifle, a fully automatic grenade launcher or anything else. Because those rules ensure safety. I've spent my entire life surrounded by loaded handguns, assault rifles, fully automatic weapons, suppressors and silencers, and I've never been injured by a gun. And I've used guns to defend myself on several occasions.

Hacp, you need to get over the idea that the government is here to protect you. It's not. It's no one's job to protect you but yours. Your fear of guns is no reason to try to disarm everyone else.

And you never responded to my other posts.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Shivetya
If he runs as an independant he will do what Perot did, put another Clinton into office. His appeal is more with the Conservatives than the Democrats, which is odd since he really is a Democrat. Simply put, without the (D) next to his name he will get hardly any if but a less than 10% cut of their voting.</end quote></div>

How so?

Fiscally he's a conservative... He's all about balancing budgets and common sense

Fiscally "conservative"?
If by fiscally "conservative" you mean another Reaganite or a Bush who doesn't care about debt or balancing the budget and is all about spend, spend, spend; then he's the opposite of whatever fiscally "conservative" is.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Nebor
Fred Thompson is the only candidate who's good on guns. The rest range from bad (Mit Romney, Rudy Guliani) to worse (Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama.)

You haven't heard of Bill Richardson?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Shivetya
If he runs as an independant he will do what Perot did, put another Clinton into office. His appeal is more with the Conservatives than the Democrats, which is odd since he really is a Democrat. Simply put, without the (D) next to his name he will get hardly any if but a less than 10% cut of their voting.

How so?

Fiscally he's a conservative... He's all about balancing budgets and common sense

Fiscally "conservative"?
If by fiscally "conservative" you mean another Reaganite or a Bush who doesn't care about debt or balancing the budget and is all about spend, spend, spend; then he's the opposite of whatever fiscally "conservative" is.

WTF are you talking about? Where did I compare him to anyone? Fiscally conservative is what it is. Dubbya ain't that. I never said he was. Fiscally conservative means you balance your budgets and lower taxes. And you need to put quotes around BOTH words... like this: "Fiscally Conservative"

Oh wait... My troll detector needed new batteries. There... fixed. Yup... It's off the chart.