Mayoral election

Bloomberg because no one else is running.

another brilliant rejoinder.

Bill Thompson???

mutombo, there is no hope. sadly.

i know so many people who have worked within the mike administration who are so disillusioned. but it matters not one bit. have you seen the banner ads that come up anti-Thompson? the taxation ones? assholes. like they don't know that their deficit has been largely postponed via government largesse (both large and small, direct and indirect), and without continued infusions we're likely to tank kind of like california next year.

Who's Bill Thompson?

dont care

ABB (anybody but Bloomberg; unfortunately not as catchy as it was with Cuomo).

AR,

I know wanted to get info from SE. How are you?

mutombo, doing well. not happy with the current admin.

would you consider showing up at the next SE meet? would love to meet.

very friendly, very down-to-earth gathering. you'd probably even have fun (we're pretty good at the social thing, really) if bjw showed up (and i hope he will).

Tonight Thompson actually said Espada is a better Senate leader than Bruno (the answer is neither is acceptable) and that Obama has done enough for gay people. Bloomberg said "no", Espada is not better and "no" Obama hasn't done enough. Screw Thompson. I wasn't sure until I saw the debate. I'd rather an independent rich guy than anyone in bed that close with NYS dems that they come out in support of Espada.

kw, not that i don't agree with your agenda. but bloomberg talks the talk but certainly doesn't walk the walk.

but post the links, please, because maybe i'm wrong.

Bloomberg. There is no one else.

aboutready, it's funny. I've never thought of myself as having an "agenda." I think I just have the views of any reasonable, sane person.

if you don't want Bloomberg or Thonpson, don't forget the Naked Cowboy is also running for mayor. Both os his supporters will be holding a convention tomorrow.

term limits?

aboutready, I will (hopefully) one of these days. Appreciate the thought.

As for the election, I'm one of the seemingly few who has no problem with the term limits issue. I've always found them un-democratic, and even though there were more ideal circumstances for changing the law, the reality is things seldom change until they become a major problem for someone with political clout. Bloomberg's far from perfect, but I think a lot of people take him for granted at this point.

why are term limits desirable for the president of the united states but not the mayor of new york? the whole thought that bloomberg is the only guy who can lead us in these terrible times is unfortunate. we are in love with the notion of the semi omnipotent father figure who can bring us through the dessert. perhaps its time for us to grow up?

Naked Cowboy for Mayor Excellent! The reality is, Bloomberg is going to run away with the race. I agree with bjw about term limits, they're unnecessary . If you dont like someone vote them out of office. If we didn;t have term limits we never would have had to suffer through 8 years of George Bush. With the city in dire straights financially, I'm kind of OK with a billionaire Mayor who takes no salary (well $1) and can keep the city financially sound, and he does take the subway to work too so props for that

"If we didn;t have term limits we never would have had to suffer through 8 years of George Bush."

how did term limits re-elect George Bush?

I actually don't care for term limits. But my opinion did not prevail in this matter.

columbiacounty, I don't find them particularly desirable for the President either. I don't know much of the history behind them, but I believe this all came about because of FDR. Frankly, given the way the media works these days, I have a hard time seeing too many candidates winning a third term, let alone one who's not doing a good job. Unfortunately, they made it an amendment, so I don't think we'll see that change. As for Bloomberg, I don't see him as the only person who can get us through these times, but I still think he's best equipped for the job. With other candidates, there's always going to be more worry over private interests.

AR,

When is the next SE meeting? I would love to meet and have a glass of wine.

mutombo, november 11th, i believe.

bjw, there was a tremendous amount of ill-will engendered during Mike's subversion of term limits. as i said, i don't agree with term limits. but that's what the people voted for. makes the process a joke.

Nov 11, I wil be out of town celebrating my Day of Birth which on the 13th of Nov.

aboutready, absolutely! I'm actually in favor of term limits for executive positions, but not for legislative positions. However, to vote for a change that affects sitting pols is absolutely outrageous, especially if you're the driving force behind it ... not to mention, of course, overriding a public referendum. Bloomberg has been a sleazy, ethically-challenged megalomaniac (with a highly-skilled, highly-paid PR machine) from the start.

kylewest, do you really think the two debate questions that you referred to are particularly relevant to a mayoral candidate? Are those (personal opinions as to how a Federal pol and a State pol are doing in their jobs) the ones that will determine how you vote? It sounds quite irrational, regardless of what issues you hold to be most important.

mutombonyc, I don't believe that you exist. I'll be watching to see if you claim "Day of Birth" again.

Bloomberg. He is just much better for business than Thompson could ever dream of being.
Despite NYC being the Financial capital of the world, we did not suffer in the extreme ways many people had envisioned during this economic recession.

Crime is at record lows, quality of life is at record highs. No huge reason to vote in an administration change. You have to give credit where credit is due.

aboutready, Nov 11th is set? In France, that's Armistice Day (Veterans' Day here, officially, right?), which is still kind of a big deal. Any chance the day's not 100%? Which watering hole are you thinking this time?

About the subversion of term limits, I get that gripe. I think it was an extremely poor moment and manner in which it was done, but it's something I really believe it, so call me Machiavellian, but I'm ultimately not holding it against him. I am dumbfounded as to why people would willfully vote to effectively reduce their choice.

"I am dumbfounded as to why people would willfully vote to effectively reduce their choice."

Only because you're not smart enough to understand that an election is not an effective term limit in many situations.... particularly in elections for parliaments.

nyc, the EPA is concerned: you're polluting every thread.

Yes, so sorry to ruin the perfect cleanliness of your inaccuracies.

Why don't you just write them in your journal with your love notes to boys? Then noone will notice all your mistakes....

lol

might help you with your problem of getting SO angry when you're wrong...

I enjoy that you can gauge my "anger" over the internets. It is to laugh.

"Only because you're not smart enough to understand that an election is not an effective term limit in many situations"

When did I say or even imply that it was? Solid work, as usual.

> I enjoy that you can gauge my "anger" over the internets.

Well, those 5th and 6th internets are 100% mental.

You take this stuff waaaaaaay too seriously.

> When did I say or even imply that it was?

Your "reducing choice" was painfully inaccurate.

> Solid work, as usual.

Its actually pretty easy.... you made some pretty lousy mistakes, pretty frequently... but its a simple pattern.

and, seriously, don't blow your top again. its just a message board.

try getting laid, it might help with your anger problems, and all your lashing out.

It's hilarious that you do exactly what you accuse me of. Angry? Angry? (said in Jim Mora's "Playoffs?" voice). This is just a message board, glad you finally recognize that.

"Well, those 5th and 6th internets are 100% mental."

Not doing so hot when even simple and well-known Bushisms go right over your head, huh?

"Your "reducing choice" was painfully inaccurate."

Ok, so explain to me how barring someone from running does not reduce choice. Because I think it does.

"try getting laid"

So, you're 15? Because that's the same stuff we used back in the day. Then we realized that it really just openly demonstrated we weren't getting any. See, this is fun!

I just can't vote for Emperor Bloomberg. He's like the banks -- too rich, too big to (you know the rest), etc. His wealth means no one can run against him. What a wonderful democracy we live in.

"Ok, so explain to me how barring someone from running does not reduce choice. Because I think it does"

If I thought you were smart enough to understand, I'd explain it to you. But you clearly don't understand fairly basic political theory in this area. Not saying its better or worse, but thinking it only limits choice means, you just don't understand the actual implications of terms limits.

"So, you're 15? Because that's the same stuff we used back in the day."

So now you're complaining about immature insults.

WOWZUH, this coming from YOU?

I love it.

Yes, its an old story, but just gets truer every day... all the things you complain about, you are most guilty of.

"I just can't vote for Emperor Bloomberg. He's like the banks -- too rich, too big to (you know the rest), etc. His wealth means no one can run against him."

His wealth + his overwhelming success at being mayor. (Rich candidates lose all the time.... rich candidates who have done impressive jobs rarely do)

"If I thought you were smart enough to understand, I'd explain it to you. But you clearly don't understand fairly basic political theory in this area."

You may actually have an answer or not, but if this doesn't demonstrate that you're a colossal d!ckhead... But seriously, you're an expert on "political theory" now too? If you can tell how "angry" I always am, can you hear how hard I'm laughing at you right now?

"So now you're complaining about immature insults."

Who said anything about complaining? I found it laughable. In your book, posting = complaining? Poor.

"but thinking it only limits choice"

The word "only" was yours and yours alone, btw. Not surprising, of course.

alanFART,

Wow your emotions got the best of you. You're right, I don't exist, all of my post are genereated by a computer, a top secret computer, stationed in The Pentagon. I don't owe you any explanations and did not know you wanted to meet me LOL. Do I sense jealousy from you?

still wondering about how term limits re-elected george w.

AR: curious as to your feelings about term limits.

Tying this a bit more to real estate:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/nyregion/15housing.html

Several ways to interpret this of course. In the end, I hope this (and future) administration(s) learn from this and consciously work towards the right balance. It's not easy, for sure, but it has to be done.

"I just can't vote for Emperor Bloomberg. He's like the banks -- too rich, too big to (you know the rest), etc. His wealth means no one can run against him. What a wonderful democracy we live in."

That's not true. One of the reasons Bloomberg never ran for president was because he knew he would get destroyed, even with his wealth.

cc, i don't think that they are effective, except at the executive level. i think that there are enormous disincentives to public service, and term limits are one of those. most career politicians rotate within the system anyway, you're often not getting new blood, just someone with less experience and knowledge in a particular area. vote them out, if you don't like them. and i really wish there were a way to eliminate mid-term elections. it seems to be just one more thing that prevents anything from actually getting done.

I accidentally ignored someone, how do I correct this?

Click "stop ignoring" in the same place you clicked "ignore"

Thnx alanFART.

Now I can read comments made from bjw2103.

The magic of phonics!

alanFART,

I did not know you wanted to meet me?

muto, EVERYONE wants to meet you.

wonderboy, would everyone like to meet him too, do you think, AH?

aboutready, depends which wonderboy we're talking about:

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Wonderboy-lyrics-Tenacious-D/3AC48C7CD93FF58A48256B720008C2C0

@scargo
I just can't vote for Emperor Bloomberg. He's like the banks -- too rich, too big to (you know the rest), etc. His wealth means no one can run against him. What a wonderful democracy we live in.

Here Here!

We fought for Democracy, against a King.

You think it's Bloomberg vs. Thompson, and so you have no other choices? We have no other choices because Bloomberg intimidated the City Counsel, intimidated other candidates like US Rep Anthony Weiner.

@kingdeka
Bloomberg. He is just much better for business than Thompson could ever dream of being.

Except this whole time Thompson was in charge of managing the entire budget of the City.

Previously he ran the Board of Ed, a pretty significant operation.

Everybody's met wonderbra. They just don't recall meeting him. It's a basic premise in Agatha Christie's novels that nobody actually looks at the servants, so they make the perfect criminals ... they're totally invisible.

At least servants have worth, unlike "Yet Another Worthless Nothing".

Not voting for Michael Bloomberg would be a disgrace.
See the video on Youtube: use keywords "Bloomberg" "disgrace"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojqf5PyuHcU

alanhart,

I'm so flattered (naive)