View Full Version : Bloomberg might run as independent (for real this time)
And he is going to spend $2 billion. Not sure if that is good or bad for us. Also, McCain and Liberman may run together third party if McCain looses in NH.
Sounds like the powers that be are prepared to do anything to prevent Dr. Paul from winning.
http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2007/12/15/bloomberg-mayor-independent-oped-cx_daa_1215bloomberg.html
Matt Collins
12-17-2007, 02:01 AM
According to:
http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2007/12/15/bloomberg-mayor-independent-oped-cx_daa_1215bloomberg.html
"Folks close to New York City's twice-elected mayor suggest that he's made up his mind to end one of the city's long-running rumors and become an Independent candidate for president.
The date of his announcement? Pencilled in for right after Super Tuesday--Feb. 5. By then Bloomberg would have a pretty good idea of just who would be lining up against his third-party, self-financed billion-dollar campaign."
RoamZero
12-17-2007, 02:03 AM
Where exactly does he stand on the issues? Would he be the type to endorse Paul if he got the nomination or is he more of a Democrat?
bbachtung
12-17-2007, 02:05 AM
He's an unprincipled, big-city liberal.
jasonjasonjason1
12-17-2007, 02:06 AM
From what I'm reading this guy sounds like the democrat version of Bush. He knows what he believes and that's it: the end. That kind of thinking scares me to death.
jasonjasonjason1
12-17-2007, 02:07 AM
Economic conservative
Social liberal
I will never vote for this man.
Where exactly does he stand on the issues? Would he be the type to endorse Paul if he got the nomination or is he more of a Democrat?
Left of Obama.
So he will likely split the Dem vote more than the R. However if McCain and Liberman run independent, the neocons will jump the Republican ship and join them. One of the things we were counting on is the "traditional" Republicans to vote for Dr. Paul over Hillary. If they have McCain/Liberman as an option, they may just defect rather than vote Dr. Paul.
If we actually get 4 candidates in the general, this will be very interesting.
adwads
12-17-2007, 02:08 AM
This is GREAT news for us...Bloomberg will only siphon votes away from hillary or obama. If Ron paul runs as a repulbican or as an independent, its still all good! Imagine Rudy, Hillary, Paul, and Bloomberg all competing in the general election. Paul wins hands down!
aksmith
12-17-2007, 02:09 AM
I hope Bloomberg gets in. One more neocon pseudo-Republican Independent in the race to go along with whomever the Democrats push out of their hopper.
In fact, this could be very good news. Wouldn't it be a shame if NY doesn't get a trifecta? Hillary, Mikey and Rudy all running against each other would probably be Fox's wet dream. Sorry to tell them that no matter who it is, it will not be Rudy. The public has finally caught on that the "frontrunner" has no clothes. Yuck. I just tasted my own vomit.
Economic conservative
Social liberal
I will never vote for this man.
Are you sure you don't have that backwards? That describes Dr. Paul more than anyone. It basically means freedom in both areas.
angrydragon
12-17-2007, 02:11 AM
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mike_Bloomberg_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mike_Bloomberg_Tax_Reform.htm
Bloomberg is a strong advocate of gun control and made it a major issue of his administration in his second inaugural address. Bloomberg once said, "I don't know why people carry guns. Guns kill people." Bloomberg is also a co-chair and founder of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, an organization of 210 mayors who claim to work only towards eradicating the use of illegal firearms by criminals.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mike_Bloomberg_Gun_Control.htm
pikerz
12-17-2007, 02:11 AM
Bloomberg is dangerous.
This is being done to split the vote.
This is GREAT news for us...Bloomberg will only siphon votes away from hillary or obama. If Ron paul runs as a repulbican or as an independent, its still all good! Imagine Rudy, Hillary, Paul, and Bloomberg all competing in the general election. Paul wins hands down!
It wouldn't be Rudy. It would be McCain.
angrydragon
12-17-2007, 02:11 AM
oops
hard@work
12-17-2007, 02:12 AM
It will be easy to discredit big money with little money. We'll need to go on the offensive a-s-a-p though. If we do we can make his "entry" sour like Fred's did.
Another thing to consider is that if he is vehemently anti-war, he will siphon off some recently converted Dems from our camp.
hard@work
12-17-2007, 02:15 AM
Well, at least we know for certain what Lou Dobbs has been working on. Bummer.
But, we'll need to get working on stopping yet another billionaire from influencing the little people. That has got to end and we should get this message out right away.
Bloomberg is utterly worthless. Even many democrats will hate his anti-2nd ammendment stances.
He is a CFR member too. Another red flag. A billionaire globalist CFR member.
American's aren't as dumb as they may seem at times. He does't stand a chance in hell at even splitting the republican vote. Too late bloomturd.
JDeVriese
12-17-2007, 02:19 AM
Hey, if it dilutes the pro-state vote, I'm all for it!!
Well, at least we know for certain what Lou Dobbs has been working on. Bummer.
But, we'll need to get working on stopping yet another billionaire from influencing the little people. That has got to end and we should get this message out right away.
Working on pushing an anti-2nd ammendment billionaire? lol i doubt it. Would love to see your proof though.
JDeVriese
12-17-2007, 02:20 AM
On another note, this could be the election that finally dismantles the two party dynasty.
JosephTheLibertarian
12-17-2007, 02:20 AM
Economic conservative
Social liberal
I will never vote for this man.
economic conservative? he's BIG, HUGE, on taxes and regulations. Socially liberal? uh no
I think he's socially conservative, fiscally liberal
Matt Collins
12-17-2007, 02:23 AM
Imagine Rudy, Hillary, Paul, and Bloomberg all competing in the general election. Paul wins hands down!Don't bet on it but damn it would be interesting.
economic conservative? he's BIG, HUGE, on taxes and regulations. Socially liberal? uh no
I think he's socially conservative, fiscally liberal
That's what I ws thinking (See post above). Economic conservative and social liberal is usually how people describe Libertarians.
Matt Collins
12-17-2007, 02:26 AM
On another note, this could be the election that finally dismantles the two party dynasty.I would cream my pants if that happened! :D
I would cream my pants if that happened! :D
I hope I never hear that again :D
thisisgiparti
12-17-2007, 02:35 AM
economically conservative / socially liberal is libertarian. that is * not * Bloomberg. That smoking ban / gun control thing should tell you something. I would investigate his ideas about education, too. When he ran for office in New York, he had young campaign staff with clipboards conducting polls. One of them expounded on Bloomberg's ideas regarding education, and it sounded like communism to me. The results have been non-spectacular from most accounts.
Fox McCloud
12-17-2007, 02:53 AM
this is rather strange....though, I don't see the point. If he doesn't have delegates, how is he going to do well after super-Tuesday? This would, in essence, destroy him; it's just be an effort to leech the popular vote away from everyone else, and not much more than that.
Either way, this is really really strange, and something is amok here, that's all I'm going to say....something is amok (my only guess is that the CFR sees Ron as an authentic threat that could become unstoppable, and thus, they'll try this junk).
Adamsa
12-17-2007, 03:07 AM
Strange, I thought he alwasy denied it, and even gave a Sherman pledge?
After RP wins the GOP nom, if we face Hillary I hope we can count on the neocon base to vote for RP. If Bloomberg is in doesn't that change?
Second_Tier_My_Ass
12-17-2007, 03:18 AM
yet another piece of stupid news to distract the media's attention from what they should REALLY be reporting on monday. damn.
jorlowitz
12-17-2007, 03:23 AM
Are you sure you don't have that backwards? That describes Dr. Paul more than anyone. It basically means freedom in both areas.
People use "liberal" in different ways. Its classical definition is hands-off governance or more or less libertarianism. Its modern manifestation, on the other hand, is big L Liberalism--the Democratic party kind.
Bloomberg is fiscally conservative meaning he favors lower taxes, business friendly policies, and free trade...He is socially liberal for both reasons: one, he is open and welcoming of "alternative lifestyles" and two, he thinks guns and cigarettes are really bad and should be done away with. That's the Liberal side of why he's a liberal. It's an interesting mix of policy approaches.
It will be easy to discredit big money with little money. We'll need to go on the offensive a-s-a-p though. If we do we can make his "entry" sour like Fred's did.
Hmmm, I wonder if those crazy FredHeads might just switch to Bloomberg and start another forum... :D
Man from La Mancha
12-17-2007, 03:54 AM
He would drive up the prices for prime time ads, but how many people like pushy billionaires compared to hard working common folk men like Ron?
.
Second_Tier_My_Ass
12-17-2007, 03:58 AM
Hmmm, I wonder if those crazy FredHeads might just switch to Bloomberg and start another forum... :D
yes, one of us should get to work on that ASAP.
RoyalTenenbaum
12-17-2007, 04:01 AM
I floated this question the last time there was a lot of Bloomberg attention, but let's see if anyone's got a new take on it (especially in light of the Libertarian Party's recent overtures to Paul).
- Say the Dems nominate Obama or Clinton (I think it'll be Obama), and
- The Republicans end up not nominating Paul - they nominate Romney, or Huckabee (it doesn't really matter who), and
- Bloomberg runs as an Independant.
Should and/or could Paul run as a Libertarian? Could he be convinced to do it? Would he be on all the states' ballots? Would it help if the Constitution party also nominated him?
The best case for Paul in a situation like that is the Dems nominate Hilary, and the Reps. nominate Huckabee. Hilary will not be able to hold onto people, and you might get a lot of fiscal conservative Reps. who don't like Huckabee, but don't go for Paul, switching to Bloomberg.
How exciting would a four way race - with four real contenders - be?
Thoughts?
I floated this question the last time there was a lot of Bloomberg attention, but let's see if anyone's got a new take on it (especially in light of the Libertarian Party's recent overtures to Paul).
- Say the Dems nominate Obama or Clinton (I think it'll be Obama), and
- The Republicans end up not nominating Paul - they nominate Romney, or Huckabee (it doesn't really matter who), and
- Bloomberg runs as an Independant.
Should and/or could Paul run as a Libertarian? Could he be convinced to do it? Would he be on all the states' ballots? Would it help if the Constitution party also nominated him?
The best case for Paul in a situation like that is the Dems nominate Hilary, and the Reps. nominate Huckabee. Hilary will not be able to hold onto people, and you might get a lot of fiscal conservative Reps. who don't like Huckabee, but don't go for Paul, switching to Bloomberg.
How exciting would a four way race - with four real contenders - be?
Thoughts?
I still think Hillary vs. Paul with no Bloomberg is the best scenario. Hillary is so polarizing that we should get some extra votes, even if they don't agree with RP on everything.
As for a four-way race, after hearing him recently I'm not sure RP would do it. Then if it's Hillary, Huckabee, and Bloomberg, Bloomberg could have a real shot because of how much the right hates Hillary and the left would hate Huckabee.
wisconsinite
12-17-2007, 04:24 AM
It's also very possible Ralph Nader will throw his hat in the ring again if Bloomberg enters and messes up the 2 party dynamics.
wisconsinite
12-17-2007, 04:27 AM
this is rather strange....though, I don't see the point. If he doesn't have delegates, how is he going to do well after super-Tuesday? This would, in essence, destroy him; it's just be an effort to leech the popular vote away from everyone else, and not much more than that.
Either way, this is really really strange, and something is amok here, that's all I'm going to say....something is amok (my only guess is that the CFR sees Ron as an authentic threat that could become unstoppable, and thus, they'll try this junk).
He doesn't need delegates because he wouldn't be running for the Democrat or Republican nomination. He'd be outside the system like Ross Perot in '92.
Midnight77
12-17-2007, 05:09 AM
I still think Hillary vs. Paul with no Bloomberg is the best scenario. Hillary is so polarizing that we should get some extra votes, even if they don't agree with RP on everything.
As for a four-way race, after hearing him recently I'm not sure RP would do it. Then if it's Hillary, Huckabee, and Bloomberg, Bloomberg could have a real shot because of how much the right hates Hillary and the left would hate Huckabee.
Agreed with Hillary vs Paul. I think Obama would actually be more difficult to defeat than Hillary. So that would be our best chance.
If it comes down to Huckabee, Bloomberg, and Hillary or Obama ... Dr. Paul is getting written in on the ballot by myself. Nothing is going to stop me from voting for Dr. Paul in both elections.
Adamsa
12-17-2007, 05:17 AM
Bloomberg has a real chance depending on who is running.
Delivered4000
12-17-2007, 05:21 AM
He's too much of an authoritarian
RPFTW!
12-17-2007, 08:18 AM
is he a zionist anyone know?
Midnight77
12-17-2007, 08:26 AM
is he a zionist anyone know?
How did you guess?
He certainly is. Yes, he is Jewish.
JDeVriese
12-17-2007, 08:28 AM
Wow, if Rudy, Hillary, and Bloomberg all make the general election, I think this country will lead a secession movement against NY!
Thomas Paine
12-17-2007, 08:36 AM
Bloomberg has no appeal outside of New York. Since New York is heavily democratic and liberal, his candidacy will take votes away from the Democrats. This is probably why Barack Hussein Obama met with Bloomberg; Obama can't afford to lose votes to Bloomberg.
RoyalTenenbaum
12-17-2007, 10:16 AM
I think that with $2 billion, Bloomberg could drum up some support. His whole platform would be, "Look. The rest of these chumps are amateurs. What has Obama ever done? Hilary? Huckabee? I pulled myself up by my bootstraps, built a media and business empire, made myself $6 billion. C'mon, people. Elect an adult for president."
That would undoubtedly (and justifiably) hold some sway with voters. This would be especially true if the Republicans put up Huckabee - the fiscal republicans would shift to Bloomberg. Democrats might shift towards a guy who has actually done something, instead of any of the three front runners they have.
Paul would be poised to do well in this environment because he is an idea guy saying, "Let's return to the first principles, and not cynically elect a rich businessman." I'm just curious, as I asked above, whether Paul could be convinced to go 3rd (4th) party if he didn't get the Republican nod, and whether running as the Libertarian candidate would get him on the ballot in 50 states.
paulka
12-17-2007, 10:35 AM
Two other strong third-party candidates? IF Paul runs as Libertarian, I think that could be good news. Just like in the current GOP race, the more the vote is split, the easier it becomes for us to win.
RoyalTenenbaum
12-17-2007, 10:50 AM
Two other strong third-party candidates? IF Paul runs as Libertarian, I think that could be good news. Just like in the current GOP race, the more the vote is split, the easier it becomes for us to win.
That's what I think.
A scenario like this might give Paul his best shot at the White House. I believe him when he says he currently has no plans to run 3rd party, but a situation like this drastically changes the landscape, and greatly improves his chances. First, to the extent he is running out of time to get the message out, it resets the clock and buys him more time. Next, if Bloomberg jumps in, and then Paul jumps in with his millions of dollars, the theme the media would adopt in discussing the election would be "The Multitude of Candidates" or "The Year the Two Major Parties Lost Their Grip." Including Ron Paul as a serious contender with support helps them tell that story. Finally, he'd be talked about as one of four, as opposed to his odds now.
Plus, it would be a real wild election cycle - four viable candidates!?! A political junkie's dream.
jmdrake
12-17-2007, 11:25 AM
Left of Obama.
So he will likely split the Dem vote more than the R. However if McCain and Liberman run independent, the neocons will jump the Republican ship and join them. One of the things we were counting on is the "traditional" Republicans to vote for Dr. Paul over Hillary. If they have McCain/Liberman as an option, they may just defect rather than vote Dr. Paul.
If we actually get 4 candidates in the general, this will be very interesting.
McCain's not going to run as an independent and if there was a big interest in that among "traditional republicans" he'd be doing better in the polls and in fundraising than he is now. McCain and Liberman are war hawks who support open borders. They do not at all represent the demographic we're going after. Besides if they ran as independents that would only be after the primaries are over (since McCain is still allegedly seeking the republican nomination.) At that point is RP has secured the nomination its a non issue.
Regards,
John M. Drake
Matt Collins
12-17-2007, 12:13 PM
This could make things VERY interesting.
DirectDemocracy
12-17-2007, 12:30 PM
Just so you guys know, Daniel Estulin on the same interview where he discussed Ron Paul being assassinated he said that Giuliani is not the guy that the elites want in the White House, rather Bloomberg is. This totally now fits with the fact that Bloomberg says he will run for president. We must destroy him now!!!!
Fox McCloud
12-17-2007, 12:47 PM
I think Hillary is the one they want in the White House....what with Bush grooming her for the position.
Still Bloomberg, no doubt, would make a better nominee for the Globalists than Romney or Guiliani...he would, no doubt, support the NAU, less sovereignty, more immigration, and continued destruction of traditional American policies (not to mention our currency).
I have my doubts if he could win or not, but, then again, who knows?
Jeez... if this isn't the most blatant CFR power-play I've ever seen...
Pretty shrewd. We're definitely playing in the big leagues... :rolleyes:
thisisgiparti
12-17-2007, 04:28 PM
I posted this on another Bloomberg thread. Where do they all go? Anyways, here is the link for a piece written by him recently that ran in the Financial Times:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/60452ee4-a7f3-11dc-9485-0000779fd2ac.html
"Embrace globaization although it will be tempting to revert to an isolationist stance." Remember, this guy took over after Giuliani and ran NYC, so he "knows about" foreign policy. A billionaire, he's supposedly knowledgeable about trade, too. We all know from health, education and tax hikes that he is a big government kind of politician.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.