http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/02/...house-run/

Quote:“I find the level of discourse and discussion distressingly banal and an outrage and an insult to the voters,” Bloomberg said according to FT, and added that the American people deserve “a lot better.”

Here comes a split democrat vote.

He'll only jump in if Hillary isn't the nominee.

A better choice than Hillary or Bernie, imo.

Not a better choice than Sanders IMO, but if Clinton wins nomination I'll probably vote Bloomberg. He seems saner than the current crop of GOP frontrunners for the nomination.

Edit: Not that it will make one whit of difference in the grand scheme of things, but I feel if I don't vote I've given away something a lot of folks fought very hard to give me.

(02-09-2016 08:40 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  Not a better choice than Sanders IMO, but if Clinton wins nomination I'll probably vote Bloomberg. He seems saner than the current crop of GOP frontrunners for the nomination.

The guy is the ultimate nanny state candidate..

The more notable things he did in NYC

Tried to ban large sodas
tried to regulate sodium used in restaurants
successfully passed a law saying stores could not display cigarettes behind the counter
Forced all menu's in the city to include calorie informaiton

He's better than Sanders, that's about it though.

(02-09-2016 09:19 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 08:40 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  Not a better choice than Sanders IMO, but if Clinton wins nomination I'll probably vote Bloomberg. He seems saner than the current crop of GOP frontrunners for the nomination.

The guy is the ultimate nanny state candidate..

The more notable things he did in NYC

Tried to ban large sodas
tried to regulate sodium used in restaurants
successfully passed a law saying stores could not display cigarettes behind the counter
Forced all menu's in the city to include calorie informaiton

I don't have a problem with any of that, to be honest. If I were selling smokes or had a restaurant I might feel differently, but at the same time I might not.

Besides, mayors usually can't rule by fiat. Some council member somewhere agreed, right?

Better Bloomberg than Clinton, Trump, Cruz or Rubio. I'm not sure about Christie, (I think he's more moderate than some) uneasy with another Bush ...

(02-09-2016 09:19 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 08:40 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  Not a better choice than Sanders IMO, but if Clinton wins nomination I'll probably vote Bloomberg. He seems saner than the current crop of GOP frontrunners for the nomination.

The guy is the ultimate nanny state candidate..

The more notable things he did in NYC

Tried to ban large sodas
tried to regulate sodium used in restaurants
successfully passed a law saying stores could not display cigarettes behind the counter
Forced all menu's in the city to include calorie informaiton

Was the city better off when he left. Most would say yes.

(02-09-2016 09:27 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 09:19 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 08:40 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  Not a better choice than Sanders IMO, but if Clinton wins nomination I'll probably vote Bloomberg. He seems saner than the current crop of GOP frontrunners for the nomination.

The guy is the ultimate nanny state candidate..

The more notable things he did in NYC

Tried to ban large sodas
tried to regulate sodium used in restaurants
successfully passed a law saying stores could not display cigarettes behind the counter
Forced all menu's in the city to include calorie informaiton

I don't have a problem with any of that, to be honest. If I were selling smokes or had a restaurant I might feel differently, but at the same time I might not.

That's the practical definition of "nanny state"...

"Well it does not bother me so restricting the liberties of others, for their own health and welfare, is ok".

Quote:Besides, mayors usually can't rule by fiat. Some council member somewhere agreed, right?

Bloomberg drove the agenda.

Quote:Better Bloomberg than Clinton, Trump, Cruz or Rubio. I'm not sure about Christie, (I think he's more moderate than some) uneasy with another Bush ...

I see no difference between Bloomberg and Clinton other then Bloomberg is more apt to take what he wants and ram it down your throat.

(02-09-2016 09:27 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 09:19 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 08:40 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  Not a better choice than Sanders IMO, but if Clinton wins nomination I'll probably vote Bloomberg. He seems saner than the current crop of GOP frontrunners for the nomination.

The guy is the ultimate nanny state candidate..

The more notable things he did in NYC

Tried to ban large sodas
tried to regulate sodium used in restaurants
successfully passed a law saying stores could not display cigarettes behind the counter
Forced all menu's in the city to include calorie informaiton

Was the city better off when he left. Most would say yes.

I know a lot of folks in New York who would say no. Bloomberg was handed a great city by Rudy.

Heck my FIL and MIL left the city in no small part because of him.

what is it with the embarrassing grammar fail in our thread subjects lately? no one is prefect. I get that. especially me.

but our current list of active threads features the following hits:

Bloomberg confirms he is eyes 2016 run, which sounds painful. and then Cruz is P****!, which I assume was intended to compare cruz to a gavina, but it's definitely missing something in the middle.

Gun-grabbing, abortion-loving, nanny-statist, gated-community open borderist, Wall Street money-changer myrmidon. Can't stand him. Would vote for Trump or Bernie before him.

bloomberg only seems like a viable presidential candidate to bloomberg and the MSM, who all live in NYC and think that the world ends at the city limits.

this is the whackjob that outlawed the big gulp. no way that flies anywhere that reality has asserted itself.

(02-09-2016 09:47 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Gun-grabbing, abortion-loving, nanny-statist, gated-community open borderist, Wall Street money-changer myrmidon. Can't stand him. Would vote for Trump or Bernie before him.

there is a lot of real estate between those two. just saying.

(02-09-2016 09:39 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 09:27 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 09:19 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 08:40 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  Not a better choice than Sanders IMO, but if Clinton wins nomination I'll probably vote Bloomberg. He seems saner than the current crop of GOP frontrunners for the nomination.

The guy is the ultimate nanny state candidate..

The more notable things he did in NYC

Tried to ban large sodas
tried to regulate sodium used in restaurants
successfully passed a law saying stores could not display cigarettes behind the counter
Forced all menu's in the city to include calorie informaiton

I don't have a problem with any of that, to be honest. If I were selling smokes or had a restaurant I might feel differently, but at the same time I might not.

That's the practical definition of "nanny state"...

"Well it does not bother me so restricting the liberties of others, for their own health and welfare, is ok".

It's for greater good, no? Or at least, I think that's the idea.

And no, it doesn't bother me if restaurants are required to inform consumers of the salt content in their food, or limit it, or if cigarettes are to be kept out of the view of minors, or if large cokes are no longer for sale, etc. Yes, were I in the business of selling smokes or 48 ounce cokes or hamburgers, it might be bothersome, but I suppose no trade is unrestricted in some way, shape or form. The state regulates a lot of stuff. Is it just because it can or because there's a demonstrated need for regulation?

I'd also say there are already limits on our liberty for our health and welfare, and for the safety of others. Your reference to a 'nanny state' makes me think of kids and the myriad laws out there to protect them, so ...
Children under a certain age have to ride in car seats, and even those parents who think it is a BS law have to obey or face fines. Is that government overreach? What about seatbelts? There's a law for that, and you can get ticketed for not being buckled up. Is that too much government?

Where do you think the line should be drawn?

I'm not really sure on all this myself. I tend to think like stinkfist that most of this opinion really doesn't matter much and we're all doomed and the only good thing is the rich folks can't eat us ... yet.

(02-09-2016 09:49 AM)EagleX Wrote:  

(02-09-2016 09:47 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  Gun-grabbing, abortion-loving, nanny-statist, gated-community open borderist, Wall Street money-changer myrmidon. Can't stand him. Would vote for Trump or Bernie before him.

there is a lot of real estate between those two. just saying.

Sounds like the typical NH voter I've seen on TV this morning, who still can't make their mind up between any number of Republicans and Bernie.

It'll be nice once we can put these two-bit states in our rear view, and can get down to real business.

Iowa and New Hampshire sure do love their 15 minutes......I mean.....how in TF do you still not know who you will vote for.....

(02-09-2016 10:24 AM)gsu95 Wrote:  It's for greater good, no? Or at least, I think that's the idea.

God save us from those that would restrict our liberties "for our own good".

Quote:And no, it doesn't bother me if restaurants are required to inform consumers of the salt content in their food, or limit it, or if cigarettes are to be kept out of the view of minors, or if large cokes are no longer for sale, etc.

I don't give a fat rats a55 if it bothers you. I actually don't care myself. But I do understand that if you let a nanny state fester then eventually they will set their sights on something I do care about.

Your attitude that anything which can be justified "for the common good" is ok for the government to do is exactly the problem with leftism.

Quote:Where do you think the line should be drawn?

It's like pornography and art. You know it when you see it but you need to be on the side of liberty first.