Bloomberg might run as independent (for real this time)

[Adamsa]

Bloomberg has a real chance depending on who is running.

 

[Delivered4000]

He's too much of an authoritarian

 

[RPFTW!]

is he a zionist anyone know?

 

[Midnight77]

is he a zionist anyone know?

How did you guess?

He certainly is. Yes, he is Jewish.

 

[JDeVriese]

Wow, if Rudy, Hillary, and Bloomberg all make the general election, I think this country will lead a secession movement against NY!

 

[Thomas Paine]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

This could make things VERY interesting.

 

[DirectDemocracy]

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]

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?

 

[Nyte]

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...

 

[thisisgiparti]

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.