Michael-Bloomberg (courtesy telegraph.co.uk)

“Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire media owner and former New York mayor, has stated for the first time that he is considering a run for US president, a move that would dramatically reshape the 2016 race for the White House. Speaking to the Financial Times, the founder of the eponymous financial information group criticised the quality of the debate in the ​presidential ​race. He said ​that ​he was ‘looking at all the options’ when asked whether he was considering putting his name forward.” I’m not a political pundit, nor do I play one on the Internet. But I know that Bloomberg is The People of the Gun’s bête noire. The most powerful enemy of Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. So school me please. Given the the Democrats are as anti-gun as they wanna be (a lot), and the former Mayor’s even worse, would a Bloomberg bid for the White House be a good thing or a bad thing, gun rights-wise?

Recommended For You

90 Responses to Question of the Day: Bloomberg For President – Good Thing or Bad Thing for Gun Rights?

  1. Could it not be that the Democrats want to see a Republican in the White House in the coming years? As the economic doom that so many are predicting can then be allowed to proceed and this allows the Democrats to blame president Cruz and Vice President Dixon for everything?

    Trust any of these clowns, I do not.

  2. Sorry, Mr. Bloomberg, if by slimmest of slim chance you should be elected, there’s this Oath you have to take, and in it, you swear to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION.

  3. Run little fella’ run! Elect a repub-any repub is better than a dumbocrat/communist/”independent” dwarf-even the donald…

  4. Run Mikey Run… Please split the DNC voter base and hand two branches of government to the GOP.

    The best thing that could happen to the Republicans would be a Sanders DNC nomination and Mikey running as an independent.

    • The best thing that could happen to the Republicans would be a Sanders DNC nomination and Mikey running as an independent.
      Beat me to it.

      • Mark Levin just expanded on this.
        If enough votes are split and no candidate gets 270 electoral college votes, the decision then goes to the senate. There are 33 republican delegations and 14 demonrat delegations.
        Ergo, a republican is elected.

        Run little mikey!

        • No, it goes to the House. However, as you implied, each delegation gets one vote. The one congresscritter from Wyoming gets a vote. The eight hundred and forty seven* congresscritters from CA get, put together, one vote.

          *I know that’s not the right number, but it sure feels that way.

        • A scenario like this would be nuclear self-destruction for Democratic establishment. Hillary would be immediately accused of encouraging Bloomberg to run just to spite things, and regardless of her protestations, it’s how all of the Sanders crowd, and a significant chunk of her own former supporters, would see things (since it’s obvious in advance that this would all but guarantee a split and a Republican victory). So if Sanders lives to see the next electoral cycle, he’d be nominated again in a landslide, and overall things would get much more lively on the Dem side of things, with a local equivalent of Tea Party etc pushing away from establishment politics.

          And I think they know about this. And they’ll find a way to explain it to Bloomberg.

  5. He’d end up selling more guns than Obama.

    After all, he’s holding a Smith&Wesson 15-22 – A 22lr semi-automatic rifle…….. Listed as an ‘Assault Weapon’ in several states…..

    • It’s black, has a shoulder thingy that goes up, has a collapsible stock, rails, a pistol grip, it’s black, it accepts detachable box clips, and he doesn’t like it – yup, it meets all of the requirements of an assault weapon to gun-control advocates.

    • Does it make anyone else a little crazy that the front sight is backwards. Functionally I realize that it wont actually matter , but damn. Never new I was OCD until I saw that.

  6. Bloombastard will split the Demon vote. He will certainly siphon off some Republitard votes, but mostly he will draw from the Demons.

    Bloombastard is well aware that Hillary is a crusty old crank who is unlikable and unelectable. The blue party is headed for an epic shellacking in November and the Little Dictator would like to prevent that from happening. I don’t think he can save the Demons, but he won’t make things worse for them either.

    Ultimately, Bloombastard would be unelectable in a two way race, so he thinks he can sneak in through the back door. That’s unlikely. Most of America will not vote for a New York, Jewish billionaire.

    • Bloomers is more likely to pull votes from Trump than Cruz or Rubio. But no doubt he’d pull a lot more from Hildebeest or the Bern.

      • I hear a lot of people make that claim, especially in the media. I just don’t see it though. I can’t imagine anyone who supports the ideals that Cruz does even wasting a nano-second thinking about voting for Bloomberg. The leftist of the Left leaning Trump supporters, maybe, but not anyone truly conservative.

        • Assuming Ted Cruz gets the nomination, not everyone who votes for him in the general election will be committed conservatives. There will be people who vote for Ted simply because he sounds so much like Dana Carvey doing his George H W Bush impression or they’ve seen the posters and didn’t realize they were photo shopped (http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ted_cruz_poster.jpg). These people are what Rush Limbaugh calls ‘low information voters’ and some of them can be persuaded into switching over to the Bloomers camp with the promise of a free 16 ounce sugared soda.

  7. Bloomers will only peel votes off of Chillery or the half dead hippy. He is a far left liberal. Nothing even close to centrist. Like all liberals, he believes that whatever he think is good should be mandated by law and anything he thinks is bad should be banned, and if not banned, taxed to extreme levels.

    • He is a far left liberal.

      He’s a New York City politician, which means that he is a pure, unadulterated statist. On crime and policing, he’s pretty far to what some would call the Right. He’s pro-business. On guns, he’s a screaming drag queen of a leftist. He also has an ego the size of the Louisiana Purchase and a wallet to match.

  8. Potentially good for gun rights.

    He will be so polarizing, the lines will be drawn even harder.

    The Left won’t have the lower House next cycle, so the chance of draconian legislation is effectively nil.

    There’s no way I see him winning, the youth vote wants ‘The Bern’, the HildaBeast has so much baggage to dig up that it’s a bona-fide ‘Target Rich Environment’.

    I see *zero* enthusiasm for Dirk’s girlfriend’s ‘Daddy’.

    He will, however, be a different phone and be a different pen holder…

  9. If history is any indication, it would be awesome for gun rights. Look at this administration and how much we have won as a result of having a POTUS who tries to dismantle the Constitution. The tyrants push…we push back harder.

  10. I was just in NYC and all of the people I met with (program managers in the media, tech, and financial sectors) LOVE him. They know he’s divisive on guns, but they don’t care since they’re not interested in guns. They think he’s made New York great. They really don’t have a clue as to how the rest of the country views him.

    • Most people in NYC don’t even remotely care about how the rest of the country views Bloomberg, nor do they care how the rest of the country thinks or operates. NYC people don’t even care about upstate NY. The rest of the nation is flyover country filled with uneducated bumpkins. Sure, there are a small amount that might be cognizant of the massive cultural differences, but the majority are far too arrogant to be concerned. The refrain I hear is “if you ain’t from New Yawk, you ain’t from nowhere.” Yes, there are people of the gun that live there and understand, but they are in the lion’s den and are statistically insignificant.

      Michael Bloomberg is NYC. Were this man to take the reigns as POTUS, he’d make Barack Obama look like Charlton Heston.

    • In his last run for NYC mayor, Bloombastic barely squeaked past a political hack by 51% to 46%.

      The reason that NYC loves Bloombat now can be summed up in two words: Bill DeBlasio.

  11. I always that it was idiotic when politicians hold guns with feigned disgust. They love guns. That’s where there political power comes from. Their protective details use standard capacity magazines and magazine realeases that aren’t neutered. The police that they consider their armed enforcers uses the best guns their departments can afford.

    What they hate is that you, the lowly taxpayer, have the gall to think that you can buy what the same guns that they want to control – the same guns that their protectors and enforcers use.

      • Wait…does that sign in the background say “NYPD”? I thought those big black scary things with the pistol grip and the thing that goes up were illegal in NYC. ARREST THAT MAN!!!

  12. He was (R) as New York mayor right? He’s a fiscal conservative as far as I know (which I like), but clearly no friend of the Constitution.

    As others have mentioned, gun rights have largely increased during the current administration, so I don’t fear an MB presidency, and can’t see how his presence in the race could be anything but disruptive to the (D)’s, so “Run, Michael, run”!

    • He was an independent and most of his success was riding the coat tails of Julliani. You know, an actual conservative. (By NYC standards anyway.)

      • Giuliani was what masquerades as a “conservative” in a nanny-state metropolis. He was a Republican, but a big government, totalitarian Republican. He was the Benito Mussolini to Bill DeBlasio’s Hugo Chavez. Bloomberg is an unholy mix of the two.

        • Like most east coast Republicans, you really don’t know where Rudy stood on the political spectrum. Typically, east coast Republicans run as far to right as they can and still manage to get elected. Romney was lot more conservative than his record in Massachusetts would indicate. Rudy probably is moderately conservative if running in any jurisdiction outside of the Northeast.

      • “He was an independent ” — Nope. Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat. After Giuliani was term-limited out of office, Bloomberg switched parties to Republican and ran and won two terms as mayor as a Republican.

        He then lobbied to have the term limits removed; he switched to being an Independent and ran and won a third term as mayor. So yes he’s an independent now, but he won two terms as mayor as a republican.

  13. Trump will inevitably implode; sooner or later he will go too far. And his ego will not allow him to lose. After calling Cruz the “p” word, do we really think Trump will endorse Cruz as the nominee?

    So here’s your 2016 landscape as it will actually play out:
    Hillary will be indicted by the FBI, and her shaky support will continue to tank. Sanders wins the Democratic nomination.
    Trump imlodes, Rubio implodes, Jeb! implodes, handing the R nomination to Cruz. Donald cannot stand it, and chooses to run as an independent.
    Bloomberg cannot allow The Donald to be the only bombastic, dishonest, democrat-turned-republican-turned-independent billionaire in the race, so he runs.

    Cruz vs Sanders vs Bloomberg vs Trump. For the first time in American history, you have four candidates on the general election ballot that could potentially win. Who WILL win? I cannot say. In that split miasma, I’m tempted to say it comes down to Sanders’ social media organization, but his candidacy looks a lot like Ron Paul’s — huge rallies, huge momentum, little actual voter turnout. Trump’s followers at some point will wake up to the fact that he doesn’t want to be “president,” he wants to be dictator, and they’ll have to gain some self respect and punt him. Cruz has pissed so many people off, but he will lock up the evangelical vote — are there enough to put him in the white house, especially with Trump still in the race? And what of “16-oz soda” Bloomberg? Nobody in the general populace cares for gun control as an issue, yet that’s the only real issue that he has a lock on.

    Then there’s this: Trump’s made huge momentum based on his claims and promises of “winning”, even though he’s basically been a disaster at every business he’s tried other than real estate. Failed Trump Airlines, failed casinos, failed board game, failed cologne, failed vodka, failed football league, failed magazine, failed steakhouse, failed Trump University, failed mortgage business… whereas Bloomberg, on the other hand, has been far, far, far more successful; Bloomberg’s net worth is 10x what independent assessors list Trump’s net worth at (41 billion vs 4.5 billion). Unlike Trump, Bloomberg HAS been elected to public office… three times, in fact, as both a Republican and as an Independent.

    It would probably not be wise to underestimate Bloomberg. If Hillary implodes/is arrested and Trump loses the nomination to Cruz, Bloomberg would undoubtedly carry NY and California — those states aren’t going for Cruz under any circumstance, and they wouldn’t go for Trump, and it’s doubtful Sanders could carry them against Bloomberg. He would be a threat.

    • I pretty much agree with what you said except for the Hillary indictment part. For one, I think it is only the DOJ that can indict, second, Hillary cannot be prosecuted for what other people sent her, and third, there is an open question as to whether the materials sent to her were top secret at the time or were later reclassified. This is separate and apart from the fact that no one has shown that an actual security breach occurred, and the fact that State did not have a policy with respect to the use of private e-mail accounts (although they probably should have). I saw recently that both Rice and Powell had private e-mail accounts, and that Kerry communicated with Clinton through the server in question. In short, her aides are at far greater risk of prosecution than she is. Finally, without an actual security breach, i.e., only a technical violation with no harm, her supporters will not care.

    • I see your knowledge of history is deficient.

      1948: Truman vs Dewey vs Thurmond vs Wallace.
      1860: Lincoln vs Douglas vs Breckenridge vs Bell.
      1824: Adams vs Jackson vs Crawford vs Clay.

    • >> but his candidacy looks a lot like Ron Paul’s — huge rallies, huge momentum, little actual voter turnout.

      In Iowa and NH so far, he did great precisely because he did manage to rally that crucial turnout. We’ll see how it goes from here – it’s going to be a tougher job – but I don’t see any evidence to back “little” at this point.

  14. I don’t see how he’d be worse than any of the other (D) candidates. He’s basically a lefty Donald Trump in my mind. :p

  15. He would split the leftist voter base, and the Progressives know that. They will do whatever it take to stop him.

    • Are you sure about that? The leftist/progressive base is all about “income inequality”. Bernie is “the 99%”. Bloomberg *IS* Wall Street. He started his career at Solomon Brothers. He supplies news and finance machines. He is the exact opposite in every way from what Bernie and Hillary represent.

      Sorry, I can’t see any scenario where a Sanders supporter says “well, hold on a minute, let me consider voting for the 8th-richest billionaire in the world instead.”

      Bloomberg will play to the “fiscal conservative, social liberal” base. You know, the one Trump was, before Trump decided to become pro-life/pro-2A. Bloomberg is an authoritarian statist, a capitalist, and an extreme liberal when it comes to abortion and gun control. He could indeed be the very “moderate” candidate the press is always harping about.

      Problem is — does that work this year? Trump and Bernie are riding a wave of “anger”. Bloomberg isn’t “angry” and doesn’t appeal to either base in that respect. So who does he pull votes from? Hillary, most definitely; he’s exactly what the Democrats wish they’d have run instead of her. And Trump, definitely; he’s a more-successful Trump; anyone who’s choking down the Trump blather on hopes that they’ll get a successful businessman, will see Bloomberg as a viable choice. Christie, sure — he’s cut from the same Romney/Christie northeastern RINO cloth. Cruz? Not a chance. Jeb!? Definitely. Kasich? Definitely. Sanders? Not one vote; he won’t take a single vote from any Sanders supporter.

      If Hillary is indicted or loses the nomination, and Sanders is the nominee, then Bloomberg will not split the Sanders vote by one iota. But he would do tremendous damage to the R nominee among “Reagan Democrats” (if there are any), and among non-Socialist democrats, and among pro-choice republicans, and among Fudds. Again — if he runs a competent campaign, he could indeed be a threat.

      • Sanders base will not vote for Bloomberg, of course. But Democrats are not all Sanders base. There are plenty people who aren’t comfortable with his rhetoric, or want “experience” or something else like that.

        When we get to the general election, if the choice is between Sanders and some Republican candidate, the vast majority of these other people will vote along party lines, just because they dislike Sanders far less than Trump/Cruz/Rubio/…

        But if they have a choice between Sanders, Bloomberg and some Republican candidate, it’s not a given that they’d vote for Sanders. Many probably still will, tactically, as an anti-vote (i.e. “against GOP”, not “for Sanders”). But a few might decide to stick it to Sanders. The question is whether there would be enough of them to cost him the election.

        Personally, I don’t think so, because, while Sanders crowd is very motivated and idealistic, the Hillary crowd (i.e. the potential Bloomberg supporters if she loses and he runs) is not. I mean, seriously, I’ve yet to meet any real person who would be excited about Hillary. I’ve met her supporters, but they all offer rather bland pragmatic reasons – experience, more moderate positions, electability, better to go on the defensive and “keep what you have” (i.e. ACA) etc. I don’t see that crowd going sour and/or mad if Hillary doesn’t get nominated, the way Sanders crowd will for sure if he doesn’t get nominated. And so they will more likely do strategic voting along party lines than try to send a message by protest-voting. Especially since Bloomberg inspires even less personal trust and affection, and just oozes this whole wealthy elitist “fuck you peons” fumes from every pore, even just on the photos.

        In the end, it will depend on who the Republican nominee is. Sanders will steamroll Trump, but it would be a tough fight with Cruz, and may very well lose to an “establishment” candidate. Obviously, the thinner the margin, the more effect Bloomberg’s vote siphoning would have.

  16. Whether he runs or not, this will be a very interesting November.
    I don’t think it would be good for this country if he ran. And very bad for our gun rights.

  17. That depends. If he’s sitting on the throne, is he still allowed to use his money for astroturfing to push his political agenda? If not, I’d say President Bloomberg with a Democrat minority in Congress would give us 4-8 years of reprieve.

        • Roberts voted for us and 2A in both Heller and McDonald, without which we would be dead meat. He also assigned Scalia and Alito to write the opinions, which could never have worked out better for us.

          As for gay marriage and the Affordable Care Act, I don’t give a rat’s ass how he voted.

  18. Definitely GOOD for gun rights if he runs. I would rather he throw his money done the bottomless hole that is campaigning for president, than to put it directly towards anti-gun initiatives.

    • His net worth is $41 billion. If he was to invest that at a relatively paltry rate of 6% return, he’d get $2.46 billion in interest alone. That means he makes $47 million per WEEK.

      The $50 million he pledged to MAIG/Everytown/MDA? One week’s interest on his savings account. INTEREST. If he spent a hundred million on his campaign (a reasonable figure), that’d amount to two week’s interest on his fortune. It is, literally, pocket change to him. So even if he ran, don’t expect that to put even the slightest microscopic dent in his ability to fund more anti-gun initiatives and astroturf.

    • His whole agenda is antigun, he will put all resources into running that issue and probably only issue. What is it about guns that makes rich old white guys so stark raving mad?
      I know what he needs, the Zen of the gun range, Shootin 22 sport rifle he’s holding for a couple of hours and all be right in the world.

      • Why do you think his whole agenda would be anti-gun? Sure, that’s what’s talked about on this site, but — that’s this site. We’re hardly representative of the entire scope of issues here, we’re a single-issue site here!

        Bloomberg put up $50 million for anti-gun purposes, yes. Again, that represents one week’s interest on his checking account. The rest of his $47 billion fortune is in business. So is it really that high of a priority to him?

        You can read up on Bloomberg’s position on the issues here:
        http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Bloomberg.htm

        He’s all for abortion rights, gay marriage, higher property taxes, wall street financiers, cracking down on domestic violence, eliminating the death penalty, outlawing drugs, public schools, climate change, banning smoking, the World Bank, Israel, free trade, gun control, banning trans fats, banning sodas, building a mosque at 9/11 Ground Zero, legalization/citizenship pathway for illegal immigrants, cutting entitlements (privatizing Social Security), raising taxes, affirmative action, Obamacare, school vouchers, “fiscal stimulus”, and exterminating religion from government.

        • I have not read up on his opinions and I don’t intend to. But I thank you for the work you did in listing them. Many of them are inconsistent if not in complete conflict. And of course he supports Wall Street but also higher taxes and privatizing Social Security. That says he is utterly against the interests of the middle class idiots who might vote for him. Just like Hillary. Just like Obama. Just like Mitt Romney, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, and a host of others. Mostly, he is for his own ego and opinions. I certainly would never vote for him. And I suspect he would take the most votes in the Northeast and on the Left Coast, the heart of Hillary country. He, like Ralph Nader, could siphon D votes right where it would count against them in the electoral vote count. I cannot imagine a single vote for him in flyover country including for that matter upstate NY.

  19. What if he’s using the Democrats’ fear of him running independent to pressure them for VP or some other high position? Cheaper, easier, and lots of power…

    • Close. He’s using democrat’s fears of a Republican victory to blackmail them into nominating Shrillery instead of Sanders. Clinton’s the safe choice for the Wall street guys. Sanders frightens them. If Clinton is the nominee, Bloomberg won’t run.

  20. If I owned an arms and/or munitions manufacturer, I’d be pumping $ into any of the Dem’s campaigns. Let’s see if any of them would give it back! Look what Obama has done for gun sales without really doing anything to affect our ownership of weapons. Of course, I live in a “free” state. So I can buy a 15 round mag (my Glock 19 came with three). But I believe that given time, the district courts and SCOTUS will strike down anti-A2 laws, as we’ve just seen in Maryland. All this anti-gun hysteria is just making people like me flock to the LGS and buy our first (and second, third, etc…) guns. Makes me wonder if Hillary and the others aren’t already silently taking money from PAC’s and private donors that represent the firearm industry.

  21. If he runs, I predict nobody gets the requirement of 270 electorates. It would be a mess because because whomever would eventually be elected by Congress would not be considered legit regardless of what the Constitution says.

    • Congress? Congress doesn’t elect anyone. The Electoral College does all the electing. In point of fact, this situation has arisen in the past where no one candidate had enough votes (but it’s been so long I don’t remember which election it was) and it was multiple votes and lots of politicking before the President was ultimately elected.

      • Oops. my bad. I haven’t looked at this stuff in over 40 years. “If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.”

        When this system was put in place, the president and the vice president ran separately, not as one ticket, and it was possible for the President and the Vice President to be from different parties. I wonder how they would deal with this issue today?

      • If no candidate wins a majority of delegates, then yes Congress does indeed select the president and vice president. See the 12th Amendment to the US Constitution.

        The House of Representatives chooses the President, and the Senate would choose the Vice President.

        It’s happened twice: in 1801, and 1825.

        However, the choice has to come from the candidates receiving the most electoral votes. So you can’t have a case where Trump, Cruz, and Sanders all got 70 votes each, so the House turns around and elects Paul Ryan; that couldn’t happen. They would choose among Trump, Cruz and Sanders in that case.

  22. I see Bloomberg as too smart to take the plunge. His candidacy would be good for gun rights in that Bloomberg has no appeal to Republicans other than to few as protest. He will take lots of votes from the Democrats thus ensuring the election of a Republican.

  23. Jihaddam. With all them rotten apples in the apple cart it looks like it’s time to upset said cart. Trump looks better everyday.

  24. If Bloomberg runs he has several vulnerabilities:
    1. His anti-gun rights activism may galvanize many gun owners against him. He’s the “gun grabber in chief”.
    2 His $41 billion fortune makes him unacceptable to the Millennials who could be made to see him as a :fat cat” buying the Presidency and ruining Bernie Sanders chances. He’s the antithesis of “redistribution of wealth”.
    3.He can be accused of wanting to institute National “Stop and Frisk” which the Blacks and Hispanics hated in New York. He’s a racist to them
    4. He’s a New York Jew, which makes him unacceptable to many, many people on one, or the other, or both counts.
    5. His propensity to dictate what people can do is anathema to anyone who prizes individual liberty and self-determination.
    6. By even contemplating this run for President, he reveals that he’s an even more incredibly self-deluded egotist than Barak Obama and far more stupid than anyone ever realized.
    7. Americans have no appetite for sending U.S.Troops to be stationed in Israel, which is another ugly specter that could be used against him.

    If Bloomberg was to be elected, he cannot simply dismiss the Second Amendment, but he could make being a gun owner so regulated and unpleasant that your guns will never see the light of day. No ammunition, no legal place to shoot, mandatory expensive permits and insurances, no imports allowed at all, impossible transport of firearms rules…the possibilities are terrible to contemplate.

    He’s rich enough and egotistical enough to do it simply because he very well can. Hold onto your butts!

    • “If Bloomberg was to be elected, he cannot simply dismiss the Second Amendment, but he could make being a gun owner so regulated and unpleasant that your guns will never see the light of day. No ammunition, no legal place to shoot, mandatory expensive permits and insurances, no imports allowed at all, impossible transport of firearms rules…the possibilities are terrible to contemplate.”
      Doubtful. to do that, he’d have to get authority from Congress, which will not likely happen. Barry has gone as far as anyone can go under current statutes.

      • I agree basically, but Bloomberg might get Blue States to pass laws affecting gun rights and use an EO like Clinton did to disrupt imports of guns and ammunition. He might come up with some unforeseen EO’s. The Executive branch has lots of arms to twist, and, if stymied by Congress Bloomberg might surprise us all,,,unpleasantly. There’s a lot more fight in that little man than we/ve had from Obama. I would not underestimate Michael Bloomberg.

  25. Very bad thing.

    Trump isn’t President material for the following reasons:

    1) He keeps claiming he can fix the economy. He’s a businessman with 3 bankruptcies in his businesses and almost filed for his own self. He’s not an economist. He is making false claims.

    2) He says things I can’t repeat in church (which makes the endorsement of anyone who’s a Christian very hypocritical, if not ironic). You should be able to repeat what your President says, even to your kids. You can say something without saying it that way.

    3) You can learn a lot about someone’s character by how they treat those they disagree with. Based on this, he has no character. As such, he’s not President material. Trump doesn’t prove anyone wrong, he insults and demeans.

    4) He can’t go telling other countries, or his Democratic opponents, they’re fired. That’s not how politics works. That’s not how friendship or even human relationships work. That’s not how life works.

    The worst thing that could happen is Trump gets the Republican nomination. Then it will be too easy for the following to happen:

    A) Conservatives unhappy with Trump will jump ship, taking votes away from the Republicans.
    B) An independent with clout will win enough of the popular vote to undermine both parties.

    In that situation, no one will know if this means that the Independent will win (doubtful) or if Democrats will win only because of the Republican split.

    Hopefully, in an ironic twist of fate, a Libertarian who doesn’t come across as insane will win. Republicans are resting on their laurels.

    • I can’t agree with your first point since the simple fact of the matter is that government is not a business, and does not run on business principles. It produces nothing, it earns nothing; instead it is in the “business” of spending other people’s money for the services it decides to render. Neither the President nor the Congress “control” the economy; rather they simply try to manage its swings through spending, something it used to be able to do through banking controls (now a thing of the past), and the private sector of military spending. (Its former control over domestic spending through control of the federal interest rates is no longer a tool as banks borrow money for nothing and loan it out at usurious interest rates.)

  26. Bloomer thinking about running shows desperation of Dems or not. It’s rare same party gets more than two terms. Saying that FDR, and JFK are rolling in their graves at the prospect of a socialist and megalomaniac woman is the best the DNC can muster. Hillary support is sinking and the only thing Bern brings to the table is free college. Sad Sad state of America and if the GOP squanders this opportunity, I’m done with voting and politics.

    • You may well be done with voting and politics, my friend. Alas, the GOP still doesn’t get it, even after the last 16 years. There are too many people on the other side who love the idea of getting stuff for free. And too many people in the middle who gag at the thought of Bible Belt Christian ideals running the country. Most of us know and respect at least one gay person, and a vast majority of us don’t think it’s a sin. Along those same lines, the Pro Life vote hurts Repubs much more than it helps in national elections. I don’t know many who are strongly Pro Choice in that they actually advocate for more abortions. A few, but not many. But I do know a ton who are sick of seeing it on the national platform, who believe that the morality of what a woman does with her unborn child is ultimately between her and God (if there is one). There is a huge chunk of the successful middle class that is consistently alienated by both parties. We hold our noses every four years and vote for the least offensive candidate. Or we don’t vote. Or we vote for a 3rd party even though we know it isn’t making much difference. I can’t tell you who my peers are going to vote for, but I can tell you it won’t be Ted Cruz or Ben Carson. It won’t be the same shite the GOP churns out every four years. We all learned our lesson during the Bush years. And as for me, I’m voting Libertarian like I did in the last election. Government no longer exists to serve the people. It exists to feed itself, and it has for most of my lifetime.

      • Truth. All of it.
        If there were a Republican candidate who actually believed in small government- ie: one that stayed OUT of the marriage and abortion nonsense, ended the surveillance/police state and returned the fed’s usurped powers back to the states, I’d be ecstatic. No such candidate exists.

        • >> If there were a Republican candidate who actually believed in small government- ie: one that stayed OUT of the marriage and abortion nonsense, ended the surveillance/police state and returned the fed’s usurped powers back to the states, I’d be ecstatic. No such candidate exists.

          Why would you expect such a candidate to be a Republican? GOP was never a small government party (well, not since this term would first be used in the modern sense, anyway). Low taxes, yes, but also constant military spending increases and foreign interventions, “tough on crime” (= more police and more prisons, neither of which is free) etc. Look up how high of a budget deficit that persistent GOP icon, Reagan, has run in his term in office.

          If you want a candidate who actually believes in small government, period, you’ll have to go ask Libertarians.

  27. From a practical point of view, I think Bloomberg running can only help whoever is the Republican nominee. He may siphon some moderate GOP voters, but such people only exist in large numbers in already-blue states. If he does win any electoral votes, it’ll be from what was a blue state in 2012 (New York, maybe some other state in the Northeast). This may prevent any candidate from reaching the required 270 electoral votes, which would mean the election is thrown to the House of Representatives, who would undoubtedly elect the Republican.

    • He’ll never even get on the ballot. You either go through an existing party, or you conduct massive petition drives everywhere. The party window is closing and the petition option is so difficult as to be virtually closed.

  28. It’s fun to speculate, like with potentially winning the lottery, but it has no serious import.

    The voting for delegates has already begun. He has no organization to get into states and start campaigning. He’d have to rely on star power he doesn’t have or massive media buys that nobody will care about.

    His other option might be contesting the nomination at the convention, maybe sway some super delegates his way. That’s not realistic with the Dems, and even less so among the GOP. There’s absolutely no groundswell of support for Bloomie or any generic none-of-the-above candidate he could embody.

    He combines Trump’s arrogance and sense of entitlement, with Hillary’s warmth and likability. If he wants to blow his money on a vanity candidacy, making a mockery of democracy and a fool of himself, then so be it. He’ll go nowhere, achieve nothing and impact no one else.

  29. I suspect most people stocking up on guns and ammo have no intent of following anti-gun laws that would violate constitutional rights should they be passed. Just a thought.

  30. The world’s wealthiest dwarf is vainglorious enough to believe that he might become President. And, there’s a band of leeches in the media who hope that he’ll run, because that would mean that Bloomberg would spend a small fraction of his $ 38 billion buying ads during what are hard times for Democrat hacks. I doubt anyone thinks old Mikey has the faintest chance of winning, but, it would be silly to speak the truth about this when there’s money to be made. Disinforming, deceiving, deflecting, and lying, are, after all, the hallmark of the media. Why shouldn’t a few more lies go out, if they fill newspaper and television owners’ coffers, eh?

  31. If Cruz wins the nomination, Bloomberg running would be a great for are 2A rights as it would pretty much hand the presidency to Cruz. If it’s Trump however, It’s at absolute best irrelevant, or much more likely the worst thing that could happen to are 2A rights. Trump becoming president highly liable to do more damage to the 2A than Hillary, Sanders, or Bloomberg could even hope to actually accomplish during their term as president, and that’s only the beginning. He’d also destroy the Republican party ruining the chances of getting a true conservative president for 12-20 years following, and hand the Supreme Court fully to the Left, and long run the 2A is pretty much ruled out of existence. Hell I would not be surprised if the reason Bloomberg is considering to run is because they know long term it’s a huge victory for the left.

  32. Well, suppose the Republicans have an open convention, and he runs there. If he gets the nod (I’m rich, like Trump, but I’m electable!), I’m thinking most people here would rather vote for Clinton than Bloomberg, and Sanders looks downright good.

    Mostly, it’s just talk. We shall see.

  33. Last I checked, Rights weren’t subject to who sits in the Oval Office. At least according to the Constitution. If we are going to have this conversation, maybe we need to first admit the Constitution has been ignored or worse for many years.

  34. Bloomberg could split some of the Sanders/Clinton vote leading to a Trump victory
    Trump will send 11 million illegal Mexicans back and build a wall
    82% of Mexican migrants support gun bans

    Net result: millions of anti-gun people can’t birth anti-gun voters

    Let’s not beat around the bush here. The pro-gun voters are overwhelmingly white. Non-whites are overwhelmingly anti-gun. If we want to keep gun rights we need to keep America white. End of story.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *