What he did with the NYPD scares me a bit but I think overall he was truly responsible for cleaning up that city (physically). He also implemented the first "Data science" team for a city, which was used to prevent building fires and sewage pipe bursts, among other things [1].
When Trump started gaining momentum I realized how poetic his success was. Democrats couldn't say he was in it for the money and Republicans who thought it was ok to have unlimited campaign spending couldn't complain either.
Plutocrat candidacies are the legacy of Citizens United.
This doesn't make any sense. Citizebs United had nothing to do with self-funding a campaign. If anything a reversal on Citizens United would incentivize more self-funded campaigns, as political speech by third parties is what would be limited.
The concern with big money in politics isn't about the spending of the money itself anyway, it's the alleged connontation of what that money is buying for the other party. A self-funded candidate would be more insulated from such influence, as such a candidate cannot exactly buy their own influence.
That is simplistic explanation, how would you explain Bernie's raise on the Left. People have a feeling of being used and cheated, same talk about women's rights or Pro life, same debates over and over, but the rhetoric has never translated to action on the Left or Right. So, people are flat out hungry for the "unconventional", whether it is Cruz, Trump or Sanders, that is the state of affairs. Citizens united is one in the many in this tapestry. If Citizens United was really the thing, Ted Cruz has no chance in winning in TX, but he won, because of his timely and very strategic attack on Republican establishment, especially when he was outspent by a lot.
The system is rigged enough that the third party candidate can at best come second. Getting on to the ballot is a massive exercise and both parties have armies of lawyers to delay or deny certain privileges. Even Bloomberg cannot mount a winning campaign says a lot about the state of affairs.
But many Democrats would and many Republicans appreciate his pro-NSA stance, his calling for the prosecution of Edward Snowden, and finally his pro Israel government stance. Ultimately he is pretty right wing and his anti-guns thing is consistent with all of the above.
Yes, I do think so: When Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Donald Trump, Scott Walker, Arguably Ted Cruz endorse NSA meta data collection, yeah, it's a safe bet that it is a Republican position.
It seems like there are way more interesting candidates this election than in the last few.
I wouldn't mind if either Trump, Rand Paul, or Bernie Sanders win. A glance at his stance on the issues shows I probably wouldn't mind Bloomberg winning, either.
I'd love to see how well Trump, Sanders, and now Bloomberg, could do as independents against the official candidates of the two parties in a 5-way race.
33 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 75.4 ms ] thread[1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/nyregion/mayor-bloombergs-...
Trump $4.5b [2]
Clinton (household) $111m [3]
Bush $21m [4]
Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presiden...
Sources:
[1] http://www.forbes.com/profile/michael-bloomberg
[2] http://www.forbes.com/profile/donald-trump
[3] http://moneynation.com/hillary-clinton-net-worth
[4] http://moneynation.com/jeb-bushs-net-worth
Source: http://moneynation.com/bernie-sanders-net-worth/
- I would LOVE to see a significant voice in politics outside of the two parties.
- He would only be capable of mounting a campaign outside the two-party system due to his billions of dollars, which is exactly the problem.
Plutocrat candidacies are the legacy of Citizens United.
Wouldn't he be able to self-fund his campaign even without Citizen United?
The concern with big money in politics isn't about the spending of the money itself anyway, it's the alleged connontation of what that money is buying for the other party. A self-funded candidate would be more insulated from such influence, as such a candidate cannot exactly buy their own influence.
People run for president for the money?
http://mashable.com/2015/05/20/nsa-2016-candidates/#5BXfYekf...
Donald Trump Stance here: http://truthinmedia.com/trump-supports-reauthorizing-patriot...
I wouldn't mind if either Trump, Rand Paul, or Bernie Sanders win. A glance at his stance on the issues shows I probably wouldn't mind Bloomberg winning, either.