Democratic Primaries

thesquanderer

(12,026 posts)

26. The people of NYC were still deprived of a different alternative to Thompson... moreover...

Sun Feb 16, 2020, 09:46 AM

Feb 2020

...the Dems were deprived of an opportunity to run against someone who did NOT have the inherent advantage of running as an incumbent.

It doesn't matter that he won. His pursuit of a third term was bad for Democrats, and bad for the rule of law.

And you know, people voted for Trump without anyone holding a gun to their heads, too.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

124 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Would a President Bloomberg use his wealth to seek a third term if he wanted it? [View all] Tom Rinaldo Feb 2020 OP

Bloomburg bullied the City Council until they changed the Bylaws to allow him no_hypocrisy Feb 2020 #1

Right, he didn't even have to put all that money into it! (n/t) thesquanderer Feb 2020 #14

How did he bully the City Council? N/T lapucelle Feb 2020 #37

A lot of behind-the-scenes pressure on certain Council members. no_hypocrisy Feb 2020 #43

That article doesn't say anything about Bloomberg bullying the City Council. lapucelle Feb 2020 #47

the city council did it in there own self-interest Fresh_Start Feb 2020 #51

New Yorkers are well aware of that fact. The talking point that Bloomberg "bullied" lapucelle Feb 2020 #56

I assume that everyone on DU is not a New Yorker Fresh_Start Feb 2020 #57

Thank you for setting the record straight. lapucelle Feb 2020 #58

The Charter was restored to limiting Mayors to two terms after Bloomberg left office. n/t Tom Rinaldo Feb 2020 #63

I can't imagine he would even try for a second term. Remember patricia92243 Feb 2020 #2

There have been aged Presidents returned to office elsewhere in the world Tom Rinaldo Feb 2020 #18

Personal wealth. patricia92243 Feb 2020 #21

He's not spending as much, and he can't promote a record of political accomplishments, and Tom Rinaldo Feb 2020 #28

You do realize you are complimenting Bloomberg? patricia92243 Feb 2020 #31

I generally think Bloomberg is an honorable man and I've said so here before Tom Rinaldo Feb 2020 #64

Your own post argues against the point. former9thward Feb 2020 #102

Really? madaboutharry Feb 2020 #3

He DID manipulate his way into what should have been an unlawful third term as Mayor. thesquanderer Feb 2020 #17

So many things about Bloomberg should help us... dchill Feb 2020 #24

Wow wow wow Bendim Feb 2020 #39

What we're dealing with here is... dchill Feb 2020 #44

Welcome to DU. If you are not terrified, above all else, of a second Squinch Feb 2020 #45

Oh but I am. Bendim Feb 2020 #49

Well good for you. ETA: Where does Sanders's support of Squinch Feb 2020 #55

Big big difference Bendim Feb 2020 #87

Bloomberg also reduced the numbers of murders of young black men in the neighborhoods by Squinch Feb 2020 #89

Really? Bendim Feb 2020 #91

No, actually, I did nothing of the sort. But I doubt you can be convinced of that. Squinch Feb 2020 #92

You wrote: Bendim Feb 2020 #94

Ahh! The old favorite bro answer that economic policies solve all minority issues. Kay. Squinch Feb 2020 #96

Putting words into my mouth I never wrote. Bendim Feb 2020 #98

Oh, god. Not this shit again. Bernie in college marching with Martin Luther King. Got it. Squinch Feb 2020 #99

My question. Bendim Feb 2020 #100

If voters coalesce around another candidate other than BS very soon, I will vote for that candidate. Squinch Feb 2020 #101

I guess that's something. Bendim Feb 2020 #103

And yours as long as it's not BS. Squinch Feb 2020 #104

you're not alone.... Locrian Feb 2020 #77

Yep. marble falls Feb 2020 #20

He needs to win a first term philf99 Feb 2020 #4

Mommy, there's a billionaire under my bed! betsuni Feb 2020 #5

OMG! ROFLMAO! Amimnoch Feb 2020 #9

. Squinch Feb 2020 #16

Yes to this. Let's win the day folks. IADEMO2004 Feb 2020 #53

I'm more concerned about billionaires in the Whitehouse than ones under my bed Devil Child Feb 2020 #62

The Bernie misinformation campaign continues calguy Feb 2020 #6

I especially like the spin that Sanders' supporters are criticizing Bloomberg's stop and frisk. floppyboo Feb 2020 #50

How about the crime bill that Sanders supported? Squinch Feb 2020 #61

You've seen Sanders on the floor re. his vote on that, right? If not, let me know floppyboo Feb 2020 #95

You mean where he says, "Yes I voted for it because reasons" That one? Squinch Feb 2020 #97

Ya. That one. You don't think reasons count? floppyboo Feb 2020 #106

Do those reasons justify the unwarranted incarceration of thousands of young black men? Squinch Feb 2020 #109

That 50% drop was after he discontinued the program at the very end of his 3rd term. floppyboo Feb 2020 #111

The 50% drop was occurring throughout his administration and, by all accounts had nothing to do Squinch Feb 2020 #112

The people of NYC were free to vote against him for that 3rd term. Squinch Feb 2020 #7

The people of NYC were still deprived of a different alternative to Thompson... moreover... thesquanderer Feb 2020 #26

With essentially token opposition his margin of victory shrank dramatically for his third victory Tom Rinaldo Feb 2020 #27

Lots of reasons why that win was not acceptable to some here, Squinch Feb 2020 #34

Which is exactly the tactic Bernie Sanders uses in Vermont. He runs in the Democratic primary so catbyte Feb 2020 #60

Bingo! patricia92243 Feb 2020 #33

US Constituition is clear. Amimnoch Feb 2020 #8

So was the New York City Charter. It got "amended". n/t Tom Rinaldo Feb 2020 #22

Yeah.. that's the same. Amimnoch Feb 2020 #36

Are you against "amendments"? Why the scare quotes? N/T lapucelle Feb 2020 #42

It got amended right back to the way it was after Bloomberg left office Tom Rinaldo Feb 2020 #65

No, he would be above 90 then...and it would be impossible to get through congress...however, Demsrule86 Feb 2020 #10

+1000 NT Fresh_Start Feb 2020 #105

Not true Polybius Feb 2020 #108

And that's different? Such nonsense...we have an amendment you couldn't just enact a law...all this Demsrule86 Feb 2020 #115

"No, he would be above 90 then" Polybius Feb 2020 #116

You think he wants to be President until he's 90? bluedigger Feb 2020 #11

I think it highly unlikely... Tom Rinaldo Feb 2020 #25

I think it's more likely Sanders would try to extend to a third term. honest.abe Feb 2020 #12

What is this whack ball conspiracy day? Botany Feb 2020 #13

This isn't a conspiracy theory. Look up "conspiracy" in a dictionary Tom Rinaldo Feb 2020 #19

One man's conspiracy theory is another man's political speculation. marble falls Feb 2020 #23

Is it conspiracy theory or political speculation that the Big Foot Caucus in New Hampshire are ... Botany Feb 2020 #32

He also spent a ton in 2018 to help take back the House redstateblues Feb 2020 #52

Wouldn't THAT make republican's heads explode. democratisphere Feb 2020 #15

LOL. Great response. Hoyt Feb 2020 #82

OFFS! Zolorp Feb 2020 #29

I disparage the power of concentrated super wealth over our American Democracy Tom Rinaldo Feb 2020 #67

Sanders is the only viable candidate that terrifies me. Zolorp Feb 2020 #68

I won't fault you for being terrified by what terrifies you Tom Rinaldo Feb 2020 #70

I am troubled by the consequences of nominating Sanders Zolorp Feb 2020 #71

If he could pull that off, could he also buy treestar Feb 2020 #30

Or Citizens United? Squinch Feb 2020 #41

really is pure fantasy as no way the admendment would be changed beachbumbob Feb 2020 #35

I'm sure he would calculate the costs and would proceed if feasible Devil Child Feb 2020 #38

Would a President Sanders solve the farm crisis by OnDoutside Feb 2020 #40

Yawn... brooklynite Feb 2020 #46

True. It would probably take one of the world's richest individuals to finance an effort like that Tom Rinaldo Feb 2020 #73

This post reminds me of Sanders chances of becoming president Renew Deal Feb 2020 #48

Sunday morning DU Kabooki Theatre. NoMoreRepugs Feb 2020 #54

Too early Duckerington Feb 2020 #59

YES !!! uponit7771 Feb 2020 #66

Ten Friggin' Years Is The Only Thing That Makes This Scenario Implausible Tom Rinaldo Feb 2020 #69

I don't know but I am positive Trump will. nt doc03 Feb 2020 #72

He'd be 86 at that point Recursion Feb 2020 #74

Understood. I used this to make a point which I explain more in post #69 above n/t Tom Rinaldo Feb 2020 #76

Oh for Pete's sake! nt. BlueIdaho Feb 2020 #75

The fact that Buttigieg would likely benefit by a decline in Bloomberg's fortunes Tom Rinaldo Feb 2020 #79

Bloomberg would be going on 86 at the end of his second term lol Drunken Irishman Feb 2020 #78

You miss the point. Read post #69 n/t Tom Rinaldo Feb 2020 #80

You think he could *buy* a Constitutional amendment? Seriously? The Velveteen Ocelot Feb 2020 #81

+1000000 Pachamama Feb 2020 #83

Hypothetically, yes. But only if he was a popular President during troubled times Tom Rinaldo Feb 2020 #85

Really, the attacks against other dems aren't working. Bloomberg is gaining because he attacks 33taw Feb 2020 #84

Honestly I am not so much attacking Bloomberg as the role of money in politics Tom Rinaldo Feb 2020 #86

I think it is his approach rather than money. 33taw Feb 2020 #113

No BlueJac Feb 2020 #88

We fully agree on your closing sentiment n/t Tom Rinaldo Feb 2020 #90

I don't support him but I doubt it. If he got the Constitution amended and ran for a third totodeinhere Feb 2020 #93

The 22nd Amendment needs to be repealed anyway Polybius Feb 2020 #107

3 years ago I agreed with you democrattotheend Feb 2020 #117

I doubt we would have to worry about Trump again Polybius Feb 2020 #122

Reagan almost certainly would have run and won in 1988. tritsofme Feb 2020 #118

Even if he ran in 1988, it wouldn't have been any worse than under Poppy Bush Polybius Feb 2020 #121

Bloomberg has said in times of necessity we might have to "change our laws or our interpretation emmaverybo Feb 2020 #110

This really wasn't a trick question. Most responders blew right past the obvious answer. Tom Rinaldo Feb 2020 #114

He'd be 90 at least. applegrove Feb 2020 #119

Actually 86. But that misses the point again. See the post above yours n/t Tom Rinaldo Feb 2020 #120

I see no objective evidence he would. LanternWaste Feb 2020 #123

Read post 114, for example, to see evidence supporting the validity of the literal question I posed Tom Rinaldo Feb 2020 #124