Bloomberg is going to be a huge threat when he's done being mayor of NY


PDA






usmarine0352_2005
March 23, 2013, 11:34 PM
.


I said earlier Bloomberg would be trouble when he is done as Mayor of NY. He'll be able to give his full attention to tearing down the 2nd Amendment.



He isn't done being mayor yet but he's starting to make his mark.






http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/23/17433482-bloomberg-mayor-group-behind-12-million-gun-control-campaign?lite




.
Bloomberg, mayor group behind $12 million gun control campaign


By Becky Bratu, Staff Writer, NBC News
A $12 million television ad campaign paid for by Mayors Against Illegal Guns hopes to push gun control efforts including comprehensive background checks.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the group's co-chair, announced the ad buy Saturday. The New York Times reported Bloomberg is financing the campaign.

“I don’t think there’s ever been an issue where the public has spoken so clearly, where Congress hasn’t eventually understood and done the right thing," Bloomberg told NBC News' David Gregory in an interview that will be broadcast Sunday on “Meet the Press.”
.

.

If you enjoyed reading about "Bloomberg is going to be a huge threat when he's done being mayor of NY" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
SigSour
March 24, 2013, 12:13 AM
He's recently talked about moving to London after he's done being Mayor in NYC. They get rid of Piers Morgan and we give them Bloomberg - I just hope the NRA can match this campaign.

Ehtereon11B
March 24, 2013, 01:02 AM
His money will always give him influence, mayor or not. He is a dangerous man who has tunnel vision when it comes to the Second. He refuses to see facts that have been perpetuated over the last 50 years that more guns means less crime. The NRA cannot match him in money. Only in voices. Bloomberg has $27 Billion and the NRA has only spent a few million (6?) in the last few years to fight gun control bills in Washington. The only difference is the NRA speaks for its millions of members and Bloomberg only thinks that the 8 million people of NYC are on his side.

Texshooter
March 24, 2013, 01:23 AM
with his anti 2nd Mayor's group, that they will spend $12 mill on TV ads in certain states to push, mainly, for the background check bill.

We all have been writing and talking to our Reps.

How best can we communicate to our neighbors, co-workers and local media about the real truth IYO?

P.S. I think Bloomberg is a criminal. He sent NYC undercover agents to my state (not in NY) to try and buy guns illegally. He should be in jail. Because they did not go through with the transaction does not mean they lacked the intent to break the law.

We now must fight harder than ever.

joeschmoe
March 24, 2013, 01:44 AM
I feel sorry for NY'ers, but I don't fear him or his money. He still can't buy votes. He has billions but has only given $12 million? Not too committed is he? He's spent more of NY's money on his personal protection than his own money on this.

nathan
March 24, 2013, 01:49 AM
His money cannot win here in Texas thats for sure.

-v-
March 24, 2013, 01:58 AM
Agreed on he will be a pain, but money can't buy votes. Also, latest events show that gun owners are a very vocal group with long memories. Plus, from prior behavior he's probably focusing on keeping the traditionally anti- states in the anti fold. If he tried to run any of his drivel in say Tennessee or Texas or Utah, his anointed candidate would be laughed out of the state.

HorseSoldier
March 24, 2013, 03:42 AM
“I don’t think there’s ever been an issue where the public I, Mayor Bloomberg, has spoken so clearly, where Congress hasn’t eventually understood and done the right thing," Bloomberg told NBC News' David Gregory in an interview that will be broadcast Sunday on “Meet the Press.”

Fixed the quote for him. Bloomberg seems to think "the public" is rhetorically his version of the royal "we."

Ignition Override
March 24, 2013, 03:42 AM
nathan:
I certainly hope that continues to be the case in Austin, DFW, and Houston.

Maybe Bloomberg has no 'understudy'. Hopefully not George Soros.

usmarine0352_2005
March 24, 2013, 05:10 AM
.

Didn't Bloomberg's money buy money buy him that recent election in Illinois?
.

kwguy
March 24, 2013, 05:29 AM
Don't be fooled. He is dangerous. Politicians can be, and are bought all the time. He has a lot of money, and the will to use it. That's the purpose of his money: power.

He couldn't care less about the 2nd Amendment, nor could he care less about what WE think at all. We don't matter to him. It's all about him and his grabs for power.

Very dangerous...

kwguy
March 24, 2013, 05:31 AM
Bloomberg is very dangerous. He has a lot of money, and is power hungry. He will do whatever it takes to accomplish his goals...

ol' scratch
March 24, 2013, 07:11 AM
We can fight this man. Look at what happened to his soda ban. He ignores the law and legal precident and instead just seems to hope that his crazy ideas will become law. I do think he is one of the most dangerous foes we have to face, but people are starting to look at him sideways. He is just too goofy.

bikerdoc
March 24, 2013, 07:53 AM
Essentially Bloomberg is a rich, evil, crazy man.
We must expose his intentions at every level.

DoubleMag
March 24, 2013, 08:07 AM
How best can we communicate to our neighbors, co-workers and local media about the real truth IYO?

Actually I'm taking cues from your post! 1st, tell them it's Bloomberg pushing it....soda man, cigarette man;loves to rule over HIS people. Now, he wants to rule over them (speaking to your intended audience). Changed his own laws so he could run another term..then changed it back..... these are the types that want this?

Turn about is fair play...the left always wants to appeal to masses with the ''lets be reasonable'' argument; is it reasonable for an out-of-stater,who overlords his people, to DICTATE a bad law in your locale??

Finisher... (speaking to your intended audience)Mayor B believes it's a state issue..LOOKIE... he's trying to apply NY thinking to your state! Add high crime, extra high taxes etc. Your area will be a little-NY molded by Mayor B...who can't run his own town?!

The 'sell' (speaking to your intended audience) Isn't it a state's issue to add 'reasonable' restrictions to laws, and...isn't DC powerful enough already??

Let what's good for the goose is good for the gander become...sauce for the goose

In this argument, not necessary to bring up statistics, UBC check history, efficacy of new law/enforcement, etc

just a few thoughts:cool:!!

foghornl
March 24, 2013, 08:09 AM
"Bloom(ing Idiot)berg today said....."

There are not enough words and phrases of contempt in all the world's languages combined for what I would say to Bloom(ing Idiot)berg , Goobernator Commo and their ilk.

He merits thorough, intense watching..... and many calls to the 'turn in people with guns' calls.

sansone
March 24, 2013, 08:27 AM
what troubles me most about bloomberg is folks elected this crazy man :barf:

JFtheGR8
March 24, 2013, 09:00 AM
So people move out of New York to try to get away from this man's tyranny but he continues to pursue them.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

76shuvlinoff
March 24, 2013, 09:56 AM
If he put his money into school security we'd all be better served.

19-3Ben
March 24, 2013, 10:01 AM
as I pointed out in another thread, these politically charged names and really getting ridiculous.

"Mayors Against Illegal Guns"

So I assume their mission must the enforcement of existing laws so that they can do something about the very real problem of the black market arms trade? Nooooo of course not. They want to come after the LEGALLY owned guns, while doing nothing to actual criminals.

Aside from that, the name implies that anyone who stands against "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" is someone who supports "illegal guns." And might I ad that a gun is an object. It can be neither legal nor illegal. It is possession and/or transfer of that object that is illegal.

I can't believe how many people are sucked in by the propaganda.

Pilot
March 24, 2013, 10:06 AM
Bloomberg, and George Soros are both threats to what remains of the 2A. Add to them CEO elitists like Brian Roberts who is a personal friend of Obama and we have huge financial backing against us. Average citizens, legally possessing firearms is a thorn in the side of statists and elitists that seek ultimate power and control over the populace. They think they know better, and they think they are smarter, and therefore believe what they are doing is RIGHT. The end justifies the means.

carbine85
March 24, 2013, 10:07 AM
Bloomberg is a very dangerous man when it comes to freedom. He fits the classic mold of a person who has nothing more to gain but power. He has displayed this power hunger for years. I can't believe that New Yorkers put up with it. Do they ever leave the city to see what this country is really about.
Bloomberg is a megalomaniac and this makes him dangerous since he doesn't care about the opinions of others.

Gottahaveone
March 24, 2013, 10:30 AM
“I don’t think there’s ever been an issue where the public has spoken so clearly, where Congress hasn’t eventually understood and done the right thing," Bloomberg told NBC News' David Gregory....

I've made one simple statement about this for years. The public HAS spoken clearly of their feelings about gun control and it's clearly "no". If that were not the case, it wouldn't be political suicide to vote for a ban.

These fools get up on their soapbox and in one breath acknowledge that they'll pay a price in the elections if they vote for it, and in the next breath say that it's what the majority want. Both of those statements can't be true :scrutiny:

Creature
March 24, 2013, 10:32 AM
Tell Bloomberg my he can have my guns when he sends me a $27 Billion cashier's check.

nathan
March 24, 2013, 10:32 AM
He is the proxy of the British Imperialist who wants to disarm their subjects so to monopolize their hegemony in the past, present and future.

GlowinPontiac
March 24, 2013, 10:52 AM
Bloomberg is simply buying laws. He dumps millions into every efort. I can only wonder how much he has spent on campaign donations to keep his friends in office.

Sent from my C5120 using Tapatalk 2

danez71
March 24, 2013, 10:53 AM
And might I ad that a gun is an object. It can be neither legal nor illegal. It is possession and/or transfer of that object that is illegal.


Not true.

Meth is an illegal object.

Possessing or using it gets that person in trouble and the meth is destroyed.

THAT is what they want to do to guns.

Fortunately, the 2A protects guns and not meth

Shanghai McCoy
March 24, 2013, 11:15 AM
Bloomberg is pushy, rich and obnoxious .
I rate him right up with Fred Phelps on my list of people (Insert non-The High Road comment here...)

Queen_of_Thunder
March 24, 2013, 11:20 AM
This is a man who forced through a change in how many terms a Mayor of New York City can serve.

clutch
March 24, 2013, 11:30 AM
He is always going to be a threat. Mikey and his paid bloombots will be causing trouble on a continuing basis.

Mikey has a GOD complex and resources. If he wasn't rich, he would just be a nut.

19-3Ben
March 24, 2013, 11:34 AM
Not true.

Meth is an illegal object.

Possessing or using it gets that person in trouble and the meth is destroyed.

No. Meth is a controlled substance. Looking to CT General Statutes §21a-277 (my home state, but I'm sure other states have similar wording):

Any person who manufactures, distributes, sells, prescribes, dispenses, compounds, transports with the intent to sell or dispense, possesses with the intent to sell or dispense, offers, gives or administers to another person any controlled substance...

It's those actions that are illegal. The object itself is a "controlled substance," which means it is subject to those restrictions. And might I add, those are the restrictions that I'm sure the likes of Bloomberg and Feinstein would like to eventually see applied to all firearms. Black powder guns will be the last to go, but rest assured, they want those too.

kwguy
March 24, 2013, 11:34 AM
^^^ He's no different than some other nut job with a complex, except he has the money to act out his idiocracy.

Old Fuff
March 24, 2013, 11:54 AM
Didn't Bloomberg's money buy money buy him that recent election in Illinois?

Maybe yes, and maybe no. He didn't have to spend a dime because the district in question was in the Chicago inter-city. The outcome was never in doubt.

In states where firearm ownership is wide spread I don't think his money will have much impact. Looking at gun and ammunition sales it's obvious that people are not about to vote against their own gun rights. The largest impact will be in urban areas where voters are on his side already. If he was really effective Sen. Reed wouldn't have found that only 30 to 40 votes out of 100 in the Senate were ready to back a new AWB and outlaw large capacity magazines.

bikerdoc
March 24, 2013, 12:12 PM
Who elected him? I will tell you.

So I am at my grand daughters little league practice and talking to a young man who admired my cane, I make them to give away to vets. Seems this young man was injured in the Stan by and IED. Cool I get one from the truck for him. We talk and share experiences from different wars-- WHEN THE TEAM MOTHER, comes around collecting money for whatever---
Guys

- She was a bad imitation of Camila Soprano, hair, nails, accent the whole deal. We tease her about her accent and find out she is from Queens and down here for year with her contractor husband. I welcome her to the free world and she launches into a big rant about how she hates it here and cant wait to go back to civilization.

"Seriously" I taunt her, "you like bloomietown"

So she launches into a rant about how he cares and is doing good.

Me, I just said OK and walked away. Don't think I made a friend.

That is who voted for him.

hso
March 24, 2013, 12:20 PM
$12 million sounds like a lot, but it isn't big political money. It is more of an attention getting number to get colluding assistance from media and other groups.

His promise to spend that money can be used to our advantage whenever we point out that outside money from oligarchs is poisoning local representation of the people.

OilyPablo
March 24, 2013, 12:21 PM
So why not do what the libs do? Play his money against him.

Rich evil white dude should not influence our elections. We can play that to the hilt.

GlowinPontiac
March 24, 2013, 12:55 PM
Are his children rabidly anti-gun like him? They stand to inherit a MASSIVE amount of money when he kicks the bucket.

I really hope we don't get another generation of bloomberg family control of NYC...

wingman
March 24, 2013, 01:09 PM
Bloomberg is very dangerous. He has a lot of money, and is power hungry. He will do whatever it takes to accomplish his goals...

Can't argue with that, IMO, he is a unhappy little man who wishes to impose
his beliefs on others, sad folks really but dangerous.

Shanghai McCoy
March 24, 2013, 01:22 PM
So why not do what the libs do? Play his money against him.

Rich evil white dude should not influence our elections. We can play that to the hilt.
Rich white dude who was also a draft dodger. At least I sure don't see any Service time on his public CV...:scrutiny:
He and his ilk are going to be a major problem for what remains of America...

usmarine0352_2005
March 24, 2013, 01:30 PM
.

For those who say we can use it against him and point out that he's buying elections, he's still doing it and we haven't been able to stop him yet.
.

bogon48
March 24, 2013, 01:43 PM
There are a lot of gun owners in this country, and if we're in the contest for the long haul, we will beat these attacks back. Say what you will about the NRA, but they are our loudest, best known voice. They play a key role in representing our interests and fighting paranoia with facts.

Bloomberg disturbs me for several reasons. The chief one is that he believes he knows exactly what everyone needs and is willing to impose it. Left wing or right wing, I don't like people who force their views on others.

His approach to problems may appeal to people looking for high profile, quick fix. Yet they don't really change things at a causal level. His large soda ban or desire to hide tobacco products underscore the fact that he doesn't understand any of problems he is trying to fix, let alone that of gun violence. He is not invincible.

loose noose
March 24, 2013, 01:44 PM
I would like to know where did Bloomberg get all his wealth from? I doubt seriously that it was legitimate business deals!:confused:

Certaindeaf
March 24, 2013, 01:50 PM
I think he put it all on 666 like Soros.

Dframe
March 24, 2013, 02:49 PM
I suspect he'll continue buying elections for anti-gun candidates, like he did in Chicago recently.

lemaymiami
March 24, 2013, 03:55 PM
Yes, folks like Mr. Bloomberg are a problem - but not as great as you think, money and all.... In his case he had a ready made constituency in New York. I can think of a few other places where his ideas might have found fertile ground (here's a hint -they're all in states where their fiscal policies have them in deep, deep money trouble....). Outside of those places his money will be a problem but most, if they know where the money came from, will be pretty hard to influence, period.

Yes, we need to keep a close eye on his activities and oppose them at every turn (instead of going up against him directly I'd simply advise that our side speak up clearly about "New York influence" or "New York style politics". Most outside the big apple will not think that's the way to go. I'd consider constant vigilance and opposition at every turn... a form of PEST CONTROL, nothing more...

SharpsDressedMan
March 24, 2013, 04:36 PM
Maybe we need a federal law stating that no one man can donate more than $100,000 to any election, campaign, or item up for a public vote. This would limit the influence in the same manner that each has only one vote. Not perfect, but not a bad start.

HKGuns
March 24, 2013, 04:39 PM
Mayor Soda-Pop scares me not.

SigSour
March 24, 2013, 05:08 PM
Bloomberg doesn't scare me at all... the PEOPLE however, they scare me. I was visiting family in NY last week and watching NY1, a 24-hour news channel - they were asking NYers about the sugary drink ban (that was going to fail).. they supported it without having ANY idea it affected them as well... jaws were dropping left and right when they were told sugary drinks also meant their COFFEE... those blanks looks scared me. It told me all I needed to know, they let the media make up their minds for them. A talking head says "do this" and they do it, without even thinking. They supported it blindly.

I'm afraid the same might go for these "anti-gun" efforts. Bloomberg pays a talking head to say "guns are bad, most people hate guns" and the average citizen will think "wow, guns are bad and I should hate them" - and that would be one more vote his money bought, as sickening as it sounds.

HorseSoldier
March 24, 2013, 08:55 PM
In actuarial/demographic terms, Bloomberg is near enough to shuffiling off this mortal coil that he probably isn't a threat in more than the short to medium term. If he's still bankrolling anti-gun activism ten years from now I'll be surprised. Of course, a lot of harm can be done in ten years.

Billll
March 24, 2013, 09:12 PM
That many $B can buy a lot of health care. Yes, he bought a primary election in Chicago, and another in CA. He bought the CO Dems without spending a dime by threatening to fund primarys against anyone who voted against his bills, and offering to help fund anyone facing backlash for voting for them.

We have the cheapest Dem legislators in the country.

kwguy
March 24, 2013, 09:29 PM
That's the deal with Bloomberg. Aside from using his money to buy votes and influence politicians, he can buy advertising that brainwashes people. It's worked the last two elections for president. Brainwashing people, especially those who don't actually take the time to think for themselves, or ask any questions about anything, is easy. And they vote.

Old Fuff
March 24, 2013, 10:13 PM
That many $B can buy a lot of health care. Yes, he bought a primary election in Chicago, and another in CA. He bought the CO Dems without spending a dime by threatening to fund primary's against anyone who voted against his bills, and offering to help fund anyone facing backlash for voting for them.

That's the deal with Bloomberg. Aside from using his money to buy votes and influence politicians, he can buy advertising that brainwashes people. It's worked the last two elections for president. Brainwashing people, especially those who don't actually take the time to think for themselves, or ask any questions about anything, is easy. And they vote.

But Colorado is not New York City, Chicago or California. He is going to find that they're a awful lot of gun owners in Colorado that can't be bought, won't change their minds, and won't back off. :uhoh:

Deaf Smith
March 24, 2013, 10:35 PM
The man has $ 27 Billion and he loathes fireams. Of.course he'll.spend billions to get rid of those evil weapons. At 71, the clock is ticking faster for Mikey.
Yea he hates firearms but gets his special NYPD bodyguard detail in to Bermuda with their guns.

See.. he is special and you are not.

Deaf

ApacheCoTodd
March 24, 2013, 10:47 PM
...his guff doesn't play well outside of NYC and locales of like extreme mindedness. I figure it's a poorly decided attempt at setting up a national legacy to keep from fading from view as past NYC mayors have into the tar pit of national level irrelevancy.

I don't know why he can't resign himself to a failed federal level run and then the obligatory SNL appearances. Seems to be the standard route for them.

Bartholomew Roberts
March 24, 2013, 10:59 PM
Bloomberg is trying to create the impression that he is some kind of unstoppable political juggernaut; but he is mostly manipulating media to create a false impression.

In 2012, the NRA spent $20-24 million (depending on what you call a campaign expense) to elect 220 NRA A-rated House members and 40-something Senators. By contrast, Bloomberg CLAIMS to have spent $12 million on six House races to unseat three NRA B and C rated Reps. That is not a winning strategy and unless Bloomberg has a significant amount of his $27 billion in cash, rather than assets, it isn't a strategy he can afford to pursue.

In the election for Jesse Jackson Jr.'s seat, Bloomberg campaigned against a candidate who already faced a series of significant obstacles to getting elected. She was opposed by the Chicago machine and she was the only white candidate running for Jackson's Cook County district - which many thought a potential problem for her.

Depending on which source you believe, Bloomberg claimed to have spent $1.4 million, $2.1 million, or $3 million (I'd also note that as the story got older and bigger, the money claimed spent went steadily up) to make sure a candidate who was at best an underdog lost - and this wasn't a super pro-gun candidate, Halvorson supported registration and several burdensome gun laws. She simply opposed bans on guns and magazines. And for the record, Halvorson actually picked up a bounce in the polls after Bloomberg's big ad campaign.

It seems to me that whatever Bloomberg did spend to make sure Halvorson didn't win was more about creating a false narrative that he has millions and millions of dollars he will spend to defeat those who oppose him. Same with this announcement... Bloomberg can spend $500,000... Blanket the airwaves for a few days so that people actually see his commercial and then claim he spent whatever he thinks will scare the pee out of politicians and make them more pliable to hs will.

I don't think it is going to work; because ultimately Bloomberg can't buy votes - and his commercial isn't going to stir up some silent majority that supports gun control, by and large, it will anger and motivate gun owners to get involved and write. Whoever makes the mistake of listening to Bloomberg won't get a second chance to make it after 2014.

toivo
March 25, 2013, 12:14 AM
Gun control has a history of being popular with political progressives. Bloomberg has several vulnerabilities with that constituency. First of all, he's a billionaire -- a "1%er" -- and has very close ties to Wall Street. Second, he's strongly anti-union, especially against the NYC teachers' union, which he publicly compared to the NRA. Third, he's a really big advocate of stop-and-frisk tactics, which he claims address gun violence but usually just end up as weed busts.

The next time you hear progressives touting Mayor Mike as a big hero, remind them of those facts. They tend to get red in the face. Anything that undermines the credibility of Bloomberg and his efforts is OK in my book.

HorseSoldier
March 25, 2013, 02:16 AM
^^^^^^

"Cryptofascist" seems more apt than "progressive" for Bloomberg, though the same can be said of a lot of so called progressive politicians through the years.

BigBore44
March 25, 2013, 03:22 AM
Money DOES buy votes. That's not even a viable argument. Money is how candidates get air time. Money pays for campaign trips. Money pays for smear campaigns. And that guy has a lot of money/assets. But he is an idiot. And people are seeing that. Let him spend his money. We need to stop spending money defending our 2A and spend more promoting it. You can never gain ground defending. Notice how the left is always on the attack? They are trying to gain ground against us. We need to put them on the defensive for a change. Let our 80,000,000 vioces be heard. And they are starting to be heard more every day. I cannot wait to see the 2014 elections.

Tom from WNY
March 25, 2013, 07:01 AM
The danger with Dictator Bloomberg is that only his opinion counts. Yours does not.

The media appearances after the courts struck down the soda size restriction indicated a pouty person who was mad that the world did not see things his way. Imagine a 3 year old with unlimited cash, a national media market and political approval by the current administration.

Do not underestimate the danger of Bloomberg's campaign. We need to get the truth out.

beatledog7
March 25, 2013, 08:03 AM
Bloomberg will be a continuing threat to gun ownership, but it's worse than that. Bloomberg, like any megalomaniac (think Lex Luthor), seeks to force others to bend to his will across a broad range of activities. Most of us consider most of what he wants to do in the interest of "helping" us to be gross violations of our personal liberty. But a megalomaniac sees the average person's liberty as utterly unimportant. The only value of people to such a person is that he can add them to his list of those he controls.

Sure, Bloomberg is free in this country to do what he's doing (part of it, anyway). He has the right to use his billions in many ways that freedom-loving people won't like. That's just proof that liberty is not without risk, nor was it ever thought to be.

Pilot
March 25, 2013, 08:10 AM
It seems that people like Bloomberg are going to force us to earn our liberty every day (through legal, and civil means) to fight his type of manipulation, and control.

kwguy
March 25, 2013, 10:31 AM
As though to prove the point, I saw this article this morning. All you have to do is listen to what he says himself to see that he is a dangerous fascist:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/25/nyc-mayor-bloomberg-government-has-right-infringe-/

There are always those who want to tyrannize, even within our own country. He doesn't even see anything wrong with it.

hnk45acp
March 25, 2013, 12:35 PM
You have to take Bloomberg very seriously, as a new Yorker I know. He is the NRA's new foil in the media. Anytime the NRA is on TV the media will go to Bloomberg for a response. Free airtime for his message. The media knows the same old gun control fanatics (DiFi, McCarthy, the Brady Bunch) are boring and stale. Here's a guy that the media feels can actually do something due to his money and it is in their interest to make it an antagonistic storyline.

He may not be able to buy votes but he can affect elections by lobbying and contributions to one or two key votes and that's all he will need in these tight races. He is a business mogul, he knows to put his money where it will do the most good. He is by far the biggest threat to the 2A in our time. He's like the W R Hearst of our time

kwguy
March 25, 2013, 12:43 PM
^^Yup! History is rife with individual jerks imposing their will on the people...

toivo
March 25, 2013, 12:46 PM
That's why it's important to take every opportunity to discredit Bloomberg and his initiatives. Hammer him where he's vulnerable. The constituency that loves gun control hates his other positions: he's anti-union, pro-Wall Street, and in favor of aggressive stop-and-frisk policing in minority communities.

It's important that his target audience for gun control knows where he stands on all these.

Jeff White
March 25, 2013, 12:53 PM
Didn't Bloomberg's money buy money buy him that recent election in Illinois?

No, he didn't buy the election. That election was never in doubt. The Chicago machine had decided the winner months ago. There are no contested elections in Chicagoland. Mike Madigan (speaker of the Illinois House and the most powerful man in Illinois) and the machine picks the winners and losers in all the elections there (often even in the republican primaries) and have for years.

What Bloomberg bought was the national news coverage to make people think he beat the NRA. That is the real story.

X-Rap
March 25, 2013, 01:05 PM
Bloomberg by himself is a formidable foe but when you couple him with a willing media and the celebrity/political cause of the day they are as big a danger to the Union as I have seen.
Popular television, news shows, printed/internet media, some clergy, education and many others are combining under the same jugernaught that won the last national election. This is the fight of our lives and probably the last chance for peaceful resolution.

mljdeckard
March 25, 2013, 01:10 PM
I don't know that he is. I don't see him getting much of a toehold with either party. He is a Ross Perot or Ralph Nader. He has managed to make just about everyone mad.

gfanikf
March 25, 2013, 01:27 PM
I don't know that he is. I don't see him getting much of a toehold with either party. He is a Ross Perot or Ralph Nader. He has managed to make just about everyone mad.
Which is why his Presidential exploratory committees never went far. He's generally despised by some very disparate and powerful groups across the nation, on numerous issues that appeal to both parties. You'll never have to worry about Senator Bloomberg...or even Governor Bloomberg (granted that's more NY vs NYC (and large parts of even NYC doesn't like him)...and certainly never President Bloomberg.

His ability to throw money around, use backdoor connections and use the media is the problem. I mean people tied to him pretty much wrote the SAFE ACT (Cuomo, being an idiot, had no involvement and thought it didn't apply to handguns).

X-Rap
March 25, 2013, 01:38 PM
I don't worry about him gaining further office either but he can bankroll plenty of those who are like minded.
BHO was pretty much a nobody who could read a pretty speach until he got some money behind him.
I don't want to think of more like that.

gym
March 25, 2013, 04:57 PM
He's too evil to live long. I give him a couple of years until the stress kills him. Anyone who lets things like soft drinks bother them enough to make laws about them, is destined to have a heart attack or a stroke.
His money won't keep him alive, unless it's in a coma.
Can you imagine living around this guy, his own family doesn't like him.

DonP
March 25, 2013, 05:28 PM
Jeff White has it right. The Illinois 2nd district congressional election (Jesse Jackson Jr.s seat) was decided long before he ever wrote a check

Bloomberg paid that $2.1 million so he could hold a press event and claim he beat the NRA in Illinois.

But keep reminding all your liberal friends of how that hero Bloomie:

1. Crushed Occupy Wall Street with cops using military hardware and OC spray.

2. Crushed the teachers union and is dong the same to the firemen and cops in NYC.

3. Continues to support a minority focused stop and frisk law, ostensibly searching for guns.

4. Used his wealth to buy a 3rd term as mayor.

5. Is a huge supporter of Wall Street, the fount of his "obscene" wealth.

6. Ask how hyprocritical they are willing to be for more gun control?

SharpsDressedMan
March 25, 2013, 07:12 PM
Does anyone know where he vacations?

hnk45acp
March 26, 2013, 11:04 AM
do a search on "where was Bloomberg this weekend?" some fun reading

PabloJ
March 26, 2013, 11:33 AM
When he becomes president we will have no gun violence and will only be able to eat and drink what will keep us healthy. Heaven on earth. Oh boy.

GambJoe
March 26, 2013, 11:07 PM
He is neither a nut, evil or a crypto-fascist but he is running for president. He is someone I disagree with on many things, guns included. A New Yorker born and raised who doesn't let the facts or his personal lifestyle affect his philosophy. His beliefs fit into what upper class New Yorkers think and feel about guns and the powers of our government. Dangerous is not a word I look to use in political discourse. He has a right to his opinion no mater how wrong he is.

By the way he won't make it past the New Hampshire primaries.

If you enjoyed reading about "Bloomberg is going to be a huge threat when he's done being mayor of NY" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!