The best chance of  preserving the planet is for him to run. The reason is so

    neobvious it would  be  insulting to repeat them . But  come down to there is nobody else more likely to be elected with the skills to  save us.


     The reason is so

    not obvious it would  be  insulting to repeat them

    Fixed your typo for you.

    You're welcome

    Are you available to do my thinking?

    I don't know if you need help thinking because you're so bad at expressing your thoughts. Or did you think you're so respected that simply stating "it's obvious" with no supporting evidence nor a single argument would affect anyone's opinion or thought process? If you expect people not to respond to senseless trivia with snark I'd suggest expressing your thoughts with a more convincing argument and some supporting evidence. I don't think anyone would be insulted by that.

    copying my last comment from the related news thread:

    I suspect he doesn't care much how he rates right now, but he cares very much that Trump loses and is worried the primary is turning too left for that to happen. Rather he has a savior complex, is watching how things go and if he and advisors think primary is going sour as to defeating Trump, then he will be more aggressive, offer an alternative. Meanwhile he will try to affect the race by turning the whole discussion more moderate and emphasize things that have majority support and which he thinks haven't gotten enough attention, like gun control.

    The public is ahead of Bloomberg on gun control, in Virginia, gun control was a major issue. National Democratic candidates support bans on assault weapons

    Democrats didn’t win either the House of Delegates or Senate seat for Virginia Beach, but across the state, gun control was the top issue for voters and for Democratic candidates, according to one poll, with several candidates running explicitly on vows to “take on the NRA” to pass gun control legislation. According to Everytown, that focus (and money) resulted in at least three flipped seats that helped Democrats take control of the legislature. Gov. Ralph Northam said Wednesday that he now hopes to be able to pass a slate of gun control measures, and “because of that Virginia will be safer.”

    Unanimous support for an assault weapons ban

    If it seems unremarkable that every Democratic presidential candidate wants to ban assault weapons, it’s worth looking back just a few years. In 2013, the last time such a ban received a floor vote in the Senate, nearly 30 percent of the Democratic caucus voted against it

    The Times survey adds to a pile of evidence that that segment of the Democratic Party is headed toward extinction. It is no longer politically tenable to be a Democratic presidential candidate and support the sale of the AR-15, which has become the weapon of choice for mass shooters.





    RM, thanks for printing an article with one of gun grabbers biggest lies already underlined. In fact over the last 35 years mass shooters have chosen pistols  at nearly a 3 to 1 rate over all types of rifles not just the cleverly mislabeled assault rifle. Even if you add shotguns to the tally the rate is almost 2 to 1.

    Goebbels would be proud of this continuing use of his Big Lie and the smaller lie that Virginia will be safer .because of the Big Lie.  

    Feel free to offer evidence for your statements any where along in the process of declaring facts.

    People who really want the facts will seek them not rely on being spoon fed by Marxists.

    I feel free when I watch a favorite youtuber named Dutch, an Iraq vet homesteader in OK, respond to a viewer who begged him to turn in his AR to make her feel safe. He was showing her and everyone else his new and third AR purchased for his 11 year old daughter a crack shot who just bagged her first deer. Her new tool and her skills will make her safe not just feel safe.

    RM's use of vaguely defined recent history is just another example of the Big LIe.


    Once again you confirm my opinion of the intelligence level of the Trump voter. My biggest worry is that you are a breeder.

    What could go wrong allowing a 9-year old to shoot a gun? One gun instructor found out.

    Millions of young people shoot and hunt safely every year and guns can't cure stupidity or perhaps they can.

    Another ignorant response. Handing an assault rifle to an untrained 9-year old is idiotic. If young people need assault rifles to hunt game, their instructors are incompetent at best. 

    People who really want the facts will seek them not rely on being spoon fed by Marxists.

    But you are not confident enough in your sources to expose them to a public forum.

    His "sources" would be open to immediate ridicule because they are likely manipulated by Russian hackers or Putin toadies.

    If you weren't  afraid of the facts about this data you would have already googled this issue and found the first source listed as

    If you have data that supports your position, post it. I'm not doing a snipe hunt for your benefit.

    Trump is the Biggest Liar of Big and Small Lies of all Liars in our history. Chill bro, you can unload your assault weapon, store the 100 round drum magazine, maybe even go unarmed to Wal-Mart, and be safe.

    I really appreciate the fact that you and Peter never provide links. You both make statements that are somehow supposed to make Liberal heads explode like linking Goebbels to gun control. Both of you confirm my position on the lack of intelligence of Trump supporters.

    The only person running for President who finds good people among Nazis is Trump. 

    .Semi-automatic rifles are under discussion because of their killing power

    The deadliest mass shootings in recent history have had one thing in common: the perpetrator used an assault rifle.

    Why it matters: These weapons possess an incredible amount of killing power, and amplify the destructive will of the person who carries out an attack. Nine people died and 27 were injured in a mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio in an attack that lasted 32 seconds. The killer used an AR-15 style assault rifle.

    • Since 1999, there have been 115 mass shootings (defined below) in which 941 people were killed and 1,431 were injured.
    • Of those 115 attacks, 32 — just over a quarter — involved semi-automatic rifles. But those attacks accounted for 40% of all deaths and 69% of all injuries.
    • Since 2017, 12 of the 31 mass shootings involved assault rifles — which caused 39% of the deaths and 92% of the injuries.
    • That includes the Las Vegas massacre — which alone accounts for almost 40% of all mass shooting injuries since 1999. The perpetrator of that shooting used over 20 assault rifles during that attack.



    Uh, this is Peter, isn't it? And while Anonymous, he does seem to be the Missing Link, no?

    The chimpanzee is insulted.

    Simians are resilient. To busy doin their own thang.

    I wonder how Bloomberg would be perceived in a national context.
    Trump has been floating on a kind of Bonnie and Clyde vibe where he steals from people but slips some of the proceeds to his pals.
    Bloomberg is more of a responsible owner type. The sort of establishment that Trump has promised to rob.

    well, doesn't say how he would be perceived but "according to a new Morning Consult/Politico poll":

    Bloomberg leads Trump by 6 points in 2020 election matchup

    @, NOV 10 2019 12:01 AM EST

    • Forty-three percent of likely voters would back Bloomberg if the election were held today, compared to 37% who would vote for Trump. 
    • Bloomberg is currently in sixth place, with just 4% of Democratic primary voters backing him.

    p.s. to know for sure, you've got to somehow filter out the huge mass of people who think like this guy: 



    Can we please have a sane adult in the White House?


    That's a flawed poll. Trump is getting about 43% in most polls against Biden, Sanders, and Warren. Suddenly when it's against Bloomberg he only gets 37%

    My guess is Bloomberg's name recognition is a lot less than us news junkies assume. But for OK Boomers it's prolly purty good.

    WaPo has these 3 related stories near the top of their home page right now:

    Billionaires push back with increasing ferocity against populist Democrats by Jeff Stein under "Economic Policy"

    Hostilities have spilled repeatedly into public view recently as liberal politicians have proposed to vastly reduce the fortunes and clout of the nation’s biggest wealth holders.

    Sanders blasts Bloomberg: ‘You ain’t gonna buy this election’ by Sean Sullivan from Coralville, IA, under "Politics"

    Analysis: Can Bloomberg’s unconventional strategy win a Democratic nomination? by Dan Balz from Concord, NH under "Politics"

    Politico tries to pimp Bloomberg's unlikeability, but 14% or 25%, whatever they call it at, doesn't seem so bad, after dealing with the Hyper Hillary Hate-a-thon last cycle. Liz & Bernie showed "sharp elbows"? Puh-leeze.

    from that piece, these quotes from his former aide Sheinkopf and strategist Strother is along the lines of what I was guessing:

    It was only recently that South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg “suddenly became a player,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a New York-based Democratic strategist who worked on Bloomberg’s last mayoral campaign.

    “Bloomberg is a very smart guy who calculates very clearly,” Scheinkopf said. “No one thought he would win the New York City mayoralty. He did. Nobody thought he could win a third term. He did.”

    Even a losing run could reshape the dynamics of the race. Bloomberg could claw moderate support from Biden if he becomes a serious contender. Or, if he runs but does not crack the top tier, his candidacy could help Biden by spending on messaging against causes championed by more progressive Democrats in the race.

    “Thus far in the primary we’ve seen really a race to the fringe — who could be the most progressive, almost a game of one-upmanship,” said Colin Strother, a veteran Democratic strategist. “What we haven’t talked a lot about is electability … That basically seems to be his rationale for even entertaining this idea.”

    “This is a big boon for the Joe Bidens of the world,” Strother said. “This is good for the Amy Klobuchars of the world. It’s going to be bad for the Bernies and the Warrens.”

    One Democratic manager of Senate and House campaigns said of Bloomberg’s entry into the race, “He’s basically Biden’s Super PAC.”

    Just from knowing him as one of his constituents for 3 terms. Not saying anything pro or agin, saying he doesn't have passion that he wants to win this more than anything in the world. As I said, he's got a savior complex. And he hires the best. And what he's being told makes him worry that the way things are going, it might turn out a situation where Trump might win. So it's like an insurance policy attitude. He won't try to destroy any of the moderates and will try not to be a spoiler for them if they are doing what he thinks will win.  As it implies elsewhere, he'll basically wait to until Super Tuesday to go full bore if he thinks it's needed.

    Basically the thing I want to say is that he wouldn't purposely be a spoiler. The problem is whether he will be judging correctly about being a spoiler.

    What we haven’t talked a lot about is electability

    That's ridiculous. We're talking about electability constantly. It's most of the argument that comes out of Biden's mouth and the mouths of his supporters. Very few even like him and it's well established that he's in first place only because his supporters see him as the most electable.

    Even Warren has often addressed electability. Her argument is in one quick sentence is we don't win when we're timid, we win with bold ideas. You can accept or reject that argument but she and other's are clearly talking about it.

    I think: related:

    An interesting line from Pete Buttigieg: “The failures of the Obama era help explain how we got Trump. I am running on building a future that is going to have a lot of differences.”

    — Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) November 11, 2019

    Edit to add: And I see other reporters are thinking the same. They are all tweeting this quote. I.E., I go back to twitter after posting the above and first thing I see is Maggie Haberman retweeted this one by Yashar Ali:


    It's not a choice between Jam today or Jam tomorrow.

    Everyone here, or at least everyone whose views are worth bothering with , is in  this general  agreement with Bernie and Elizabeth Warren: our health system is in a disgrace , could be fixed , should be fixed , and they would have a go at doing that.

    I doubt if Bloomberg would.  Not that  he disagrees with the goal but it is one of many things he wants. And the chief of which is  to make sure that some high tide in a "named" hurricane ten years from now only floods Maiden Lane, not  Central Park. . 

    We don't get to  bite several times at a cherry when the cherry is choosing a President, As we are all observing.

    My position is  the wisest choice is the guy who wants the most important goal  rather than  one  who wants several good things .One of which might be the most important one.

    A rifle is more useful than a shot gun when you've identified a target,

    Added later.

    Although it's long overdue  to finally provide all Americans  with the level of  medical care is considered a right by the people we defeated in 1945 , it's  even more important they have a world worth living in.

    And  even Trump' s voters could get it that ,if they think we have too many immigrants now,they aint seen nothin yet. Wait  till  they try "securing  the border" when  the crops fail in Mexico.


    Obama got largely blown out of the water in 2010 trying to run on his healthcare program - it was an albatross around most Democrats' necks, who unlike him weren't so appealing & charismatic. So how any times are we gonna run on this healthcare travesty that keeps biting us in the ass? Yeah, it makes those on the left happy for some reason. For those who want to win elections, however, running campaign slogans for your opposition is bad news.

    Get elected, then talk about it.

    Charles Blow of the NYT on Bloomberg

    Let me plant the stake now: No black person — or Hispanic person or ally of people of color — should ever even consider voting for Michael Bloomberg in the primary. His expansion of the notoriously racist stop-and-frisk program in New York, which swept up millions of innocent New Yorkers, primarily young black and Hispanic men, is a complete and nonnegotiable deal killer.

    Stop-and-frisk, pushed as a way to get guns and other contraband off the streets, became nothing short of a massive, enduring, city-sanctioned system of racial terror.



    Jonathan Capehart of the WaPo on Bloomberg and Stop and Frisk

    • “52% of all stops were followed by a protective frisk for weapons. A weapon was found after 1.5% of these frisks. In other words, in 98.5% of the 2.3 million frisks, no weapon was found.”
    • “In 52% of the 4.4 million stops, the person stopped was black, in 31% the person was Hispanic, and in 10% the person was white.”
    • “In 23% of the stops of blacks, and 24% of the stops of Hispanics, the officer recorded using force. The number for whites was 17%.”
    • “Weapons were seized in 1.0% of the stops of blacks, 1.1% of the stops of Hispanics, and 1.4% of the stops of whites.”
    • “Contraband other than weapons was seized in 1.8% of the stops of blacks, 1.7% of the stops of Hispanics, and 2.3% of the stops of whites.” 

    “Targeting young black and Hispanic men for stops based on the alleged criminal conduct of other young black or Hispanic men violates bedrock principles of equality,” ruled Scheindlin.

    The argument that Bloomberg and others made — that getting rid of “stop and frisk” would lead to a spike in crime — isn’t supported by the NYPD’s own data. “Recent police data shows little to no correlation between a decline in police stops and a surge in major crime,” reported Politico late last year. “The number of reported police stops have dropped by a total of 98 percent since their peak in 2011. In that time, homicides have decreased 43 percent, while major index crimes have declined 9 percent.”

    For African Americans, “stop and frisk” was not some one-off police policy. It was a new technique in an old system of racial oppression that criminalized black and brown people, men in particular. To argue in favor of it despite the innocent lives upended by it is to ignore the collective angst and anger that ripples through the overwhelming majority of the community that hasn’t done anything wrong.





    Fine. Let's accept every word. And then assume that electing Mike , President is the only action that would  save from drowning the 1021 inhabitants of South No Where Island. And prevent Brazil from turning into Sahara West. Should that sort of influence our decision.?

    Just asking.

    Revised because I got smarter.

    Anyone can assume anything. But to get people to consider them they need some sort of convincing evidence.

    Let us assume that if we elect Warren president Jesus Christ will come down from heaven and smite all the evil doers, which by coincidence include all televangelists. He will then cause all nuclear weapons to disappear. He will give us the secret of fusion energy, a clean carbon free unlimited supply.

    Should that sort of influence our decision? Or perhaps before we make any of these assumptions we actually offer supporting evidence that our assumptions have some basis in reality.

    I'll be nice and help Flav out a little here, as he's not good with the links and such

    Block that metaphor department.

    Is it better to have several irons in the fire; or to put all your eggs in one basket-and watch that basket?

    Next let's nod to the Brits and bring in  "horses for courses."

    If Bloomberg were running again for Mayor I'd certainly vote against him . For Governor, ditto . Certainly if  Tom DiNapoli threw his hat in the ring.

    But accepting God doesn't play dice with the universe .what makes us  think we should .

    When someone get's stop and frisked  wrong as his NYPD certainly did,  mayors are like street cars. There's another one every five minutes

    Going on to Global Warming ,. next November's  Presidential choice is going to have hit the ground running . Or there ain't gonna be

    A second  Ac

    Dropping  the tiresome metaphor schtick I'm reminded of the election in CP Snow's  " The Masters". Reflecting afterwards the narrator realizes  the winner wasn't the most popular candidate, nor the smartest , nor the most qualified. The one who wanted it the most.

    Like Bloomberg!



    If we ignore his racist policies and his misogyny Bloomberg has a few position I agree with, like gun control and climate change. But I see no evidence his climate policy is any better than some of the other candidates nor that he's the only one who can save the earth. I don't need another, "I alone can fix it" Trump like candidate.

    And let us remember, he's not running on climate change nor thinking about entering the race because he feels the other candidates  won't work on it. He's running because he's worried that Warren will beat Biden and take too much of his 52 billion dollars. 

    Taxing him and using that money to work on climate change will do more than not taxing him and electing him president.


    If he'd supported Hillary in 2016 rather than again mulling his walk-on role as Hamlet, maybe we wouldn't be here. Then again, Biden did the same goddamn thing.

    To quote Hagbard Celine, not only does God play dice - he cheats.

    Remember what assuming does to you and me.

    The Democratic field is fine. Issues are being discussed. Democrats made advancements in the midterms and in the 2019:elections. There is no great white savior. The next president will have to work to reverse the damage done by Trump. Bloomberg is dodging South Carolina. He has to gain black support. He will have to explain Stop and Frisk, just as Buttigieg has to explain police abuse in South Bend and Kamala Harris has to explain her tenure as DA and AG. Why should black voters trust Bloomberg?

    If the current roster of Democrats cannot defeat Trump, the country is already lost. The current Democratic roster has environmental agendas. Why would I want the Stop and Frisk guy in charge of federal law enforcement?

    Remember what assuming does to you and me.

    It does nothing, absolutely nothing. Of all the stupid word games people play it's the most stupid I've ever heard. Yet people say it in all seriousness like their making some real and important point. When people say it I usually see it as an example of how superficial and ignorant they are. Like couldn't they come up with something meaningful and intelligent to say. But if you want to think it makes an ass out of you, go ahead.

    Yet people say it in all seriousness like their making some real and important point.

    Thanks for your input and opinion.

    Along with Stop and Frisk, Bloomberg is going to have answer questions about sexist behavior 

    Now that Michael Bloomberg has entered the Democratic presidential primary, it’s worth imagining the 2020 general election that could come to pass: the Republican who said into a hot mic that he liked to grab women “by the pussy” versus the Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Democrat who reportedly admitted he’d said, of multiple female employees, “I’d do her.”

    Read Bloomberg’s collected comments about women and you’ll marvel at how presidential they sound by the standards of the 45th president. Like Donald Trump, the former New York City mayor has made repeated remarks about the physical appearance and sexual desirability of women in his workplace. Like Trump, Bloomberg has allegedly complained about employees getting pregnant. Like Trump, he’s bragged about his sexual escapades and dismissed women who’ve accused him of harassment as money-grubbing liars.





    NEWS: @DevalPatrick is considering a last-minute entry into the presidential race

    And his Mass allies are already putting out feelers in early states.

    Decision imminent: NH filing deadline is Friday

    — Jonathan Martin (@jmartNYT) November 11, 2019

    Is this gonna be as

    First recorded in the 14th-century poem Pearl, line 850.


    the more the merrier

    1. Something is more fun with more people.
    2. A greater amount of something is better



    I'm thinking I might run for president too. Just considering it, we'll have to see. Anyway, you heard it here first.

    eta: I know I'm a bit young to be running for president. I really should wait 15 years and run when I'm 77. But this is the year when running for president seems to be the thing. Sometimes I just go along with the crowd.

    It's ok, you *sound* old - should be able to pass.

    [jes tryin' ta help & be suhpotive the way mah hart leads me 2]

    More whining, FFS - people need to learn how to make a splash. Even the idiot man-child Don Jr has figured out that much. You get eyeballs for what's interesting, and yes, that includes the gatekeepers to media. Got some bucks for social media? use it well - things that go viral are in general what people want to share - Beluga whales playing soccer and the like, unless you have the Russian Dark Army behind you - good luck with that.

    Just keeping y'all up with the latest gossip, not vouching for it:


    They all laughed at Christopher Columbus
    When he said the world was round                                                                                                                             They all laughed when Edison recorded sound

    They all laughed at Wilbur and his brother
    When they said that man could fly


    But ho, ho, ho,                                                                                                                                                             Ha,ha ha ,                                                                                                                                                                 Who's had the last laugh  now?


         not Auden

    The Greeks knew that the world was round. No one laughed at Columbus.

    Edison was a successful inventor, so people were impressed by the phonograph. No laughter.

    Bloomberg is toast. Giuliani tried to win by avoiding Iowa and New Hampshire. Bloomberg will be Giuliani campaign 2.0.

    Oh well George always wrote good tunes even though not everyone likes Ira's lyric,

    Never Trumper Charlie Sykes retweeted this:

    The tweets can list candidates who apologized for political reasons but all of them are different in context. Bloomberg actually supported the racist policy of stop and frisk. Biden really did treat Anita Hill in a sexist way. Warren took a DNA test to attempt to fight back against a bogus political attack. We can all form our opinions whether they are all equally bad or which is worse, but they are different.

    Latest Comments