What is Michael Bloomberg thinking?

[JimH52]

What is Michael Bloomberg thinking?

WOW! He is playing a dangerous game of chicken. Would the House vote to make Trump the President, if neither candidate receive a plurality of electoral votes? Yes, there are enough RW wing nuts there to do that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We need an Independent run by a big nanny State Anti-gun Progressive billionaire who wants to control what you eat

 

[buckeye45_73]

Go Bloomberg, take your message of banning guns and big gulps to the people directly!!!!! Statists would love his message!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What is Michael Bloomberg thinking?

WOW! He is playing a dangerous game of chicken. Would the House vote to make Trump the President, if neither candidate receive a plurality of electoral votes? Yes, there are enough RW wing nuts there to do that.

Would the House vote to make Trump the President, if neither candidate receive a plurality of electoral votes?

If no candidate receives a plurality (the number of votes cast for a candidate who receives more than any other but does not receive an absolute majority), that would mean they were tied.
Yes, in case of a tie, the House elects the President and the Senate selects the VP.

 

[Eaglewings]

We need an Independent run by a big nanny State Anti-gun Progressive billionaire who wants to control what you eat

they are already controlling what you eat with the most lethal crap of GMOs ..unless if you grow your own or buy from a organic local farmer your eating a GMO... The government voted it in ..all of them

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bloomberg is going to start the Big Gulp Party

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We need an Independent run by a big nanny State Anti-gun Progressive billionaire who wants to control what you eat

they are already controlling what you eat with the most lethal crap of GMOs ..unless if you grow your own or buy from a organic local farmer your eating a GMO... The government voted it in ..all of them

The government voted for GMOs?
Why are GMOs lethal?

 

[whitehall]

He is thinking that Hillary might get indicted or lose the nomination and desperate democrats would be stuck with an old commie.

 

[JimH52]

His fortune makes Trump look like a pauper.

What is Michael Bloomberg thinking?

WOW! He is playing a dangerous game of chicken. Would the House vote to make Trump the President, if neither candidate receive a plurality of electoral votes? Yes, there are enough RW wing nuts there to do that.

Would the House vote to make Trump the President, if neither candidate receive a plurality of electoral votes?

If no candidate receives a plurality (the number of votes cast for a candidate who receives more than any other but does not receive an absolute majority), that would mean they were tied.
Yes, in case of a tie, the House elects the President and the Senate selects the VP.

Apparently, at one time Bloomberg though the Republican members of the House would not vote for Trump. That seems to have changed in the last couple weeks. Bloomberg's chest game is interesting, but I really doubt he will do it. the GOP is stuck with Donald, the Liberal in Conservative clothing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

His fortune makes Trump look like a pauper.

What is Michael Bloomberg thinking?

WOW! He is playing a dangerous game of chicken. Would the House vote to make Trump the President, if neither candidate receive a plurality of electoral votes? Yes, there are enough RW wing nuts there to do that.

Would the House vote to make Trump the President, if neither candidate receive a plurality of electoral votes?

If no candidate receives a plurality (the number of votes cast for a candidate who receives more than any other but does not receive an absolute majority), that would mean they were tied.
Yes, in case of a tie, the House elects the President and the Senate selects the VP.

Apparently, at one time Bloomberg though the Republican members of the House would not vote for Trump. That seems to have changed in the last couple weeks. Bloomberg's chest game is interesting, but I really doubt he will do it.

His fortune makes Trump look like a pauper.

In that case, we should make him King.

Apparently, at one time Bloomberg though the Republican members of the House would not vote for Trump.

If the choice is between Hillary! or Sanders and Trump, they would clearly vote for Trump.

 

[SwimExpert]

Would the House vote to make Trump the President, if neither candidate receive a plurality of electoral votes? Yes, there are enough RW wing nuts there to do that.

First of all, if the choosing of the President devolves to the House the members do not vote individually. Votes are cast by the representation of the several states, with each state having one vote.

Second, exactly how many "RW wing nuts" do you think are in the House? They elected Ryan as Speaker, didn't they? Seems pretty clear that the lunatic tea party fringe remains little more than a vocal obstructionist minority.

Third, you do realize that the Republican party establishment loathes Trump, right? And that they don't trust him for a second to do anything good for the country, nor be even at least be a useful party pawn, right?

If the choosing of the President devolves to the House, with the options being Trump, Bloomberg, or the Democratic candidate, I have no doubt that Bloomberg would easily be selected. He would be embraced by elements on both sides of the aisle. House Republicans would prefer him over Trump. Many House Democrats would prefer him over the risk of Trump. And many on both sides would love the chance to play a heroic role to not be bound to partisanship to support someone who is capable of governing.

 

[Eaglewings]

We need an Independent run by a big nanny State Anti-gun Progressive billionaire who wants to control what you eat

they are already controlling what you eat with the most lethal crap of GMOs ..unless if you grow your own or buy from a organic local farmer your eating a GMO... The government voted it in ..all of them

The government voted for GMOs?
Why are GMOs lethal?

Here is a documentary..and the fact that GMO's are poison is not a myth..it took me to get cancer to see what the ******* government is allowing in our food and animal food.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressive thought for the Day

Trump money bad, Bloomberg money gooooddddd

 

[JimH52]

Trump already has his first nomination to the Supreme Court. He will nominate. Howard Stern.....you people are nuts!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Would the House vote to make Trump the President, if neither candidate receive a plurality of electoral votes? Yes, there are enough RW wing nuts there to do that.

First of all, if the choosing of the President devolves to the House the members do not vote individually. Votes are cast by the representation of the several states, with each state having one vote.

Second, exactly how many "RW wing nuts" do you think are in the House? They elected Ryan as Speaker, didn't they? Seems pretty clear that the lunatic tea party fringe remains little more than a vocal obstructionist minority.

Third, you do realize that the Republican party establishment loathes Trump, right? And that they don't trust him for a second to do anything good for the country, nor be even at least be a useful party pawn, right?

If the choosing of the President devolves to the House, with the options being Trump, Bloomberg, or the Democratic candidate, I have no doubt that Bloomberg would easily be selected. He would be embraced by elements on both sides of the aisle. House Republicans would prefer him over Trump. Many House Democrats would prefer him over the risk of Trump. And many on both sides would love the chance to play a heroic role to not be bound to partisanship to support someone who is capable of governing.

I have no doubt that Bloomberg would easily be selected.

Which state delegations would vote for Bloomberg over Trump, among the Republicans?
Which state delegations would vote for Bloomberg over Clinton/Sanders, among the Dems?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We need an Independent run by a big nanny State Anti-gun Progressive billionaire who wants to control what you eat

they are already controlling what you eat with the most lethal crap of GMOs ..unless if you grow your own or buy from a organic local farmer your eating a GMO... The government voted it in ..all of them

The government voted for GMOs?
Why are GMOs lethal?

Here is a documentary..and the fact that GMO's are poison is not a myth..it took me to get cancer to see what the ******* government is allowing in our food and animal food.

You have any non-fiction sources?

 

[SwimExpert]

We need an Independent run by a big nanny State Anti-gun Progressive billionaire who wants to control what you eat

I disagree with Bloomberg on alot of things. But he's one of those rare breed of politicians who I feel I can trust. I know where he stands. He's straight forward. He knows how to lead. He's level headed and smart. I know that he's not going to be fueled by pigheaded or stubborn ideological daydreams. He's a damn good alternative to the slop we've been seeing otherwise from both sides.

I can tolerate disagreeing with a candidate when I know that at least he has solid reasons behind his decisions and his views, as opposed to the moronic crop we have who are primarily guided by tally marks.

 

[nat4900]

If no candidate receives a plurality (the number of votes cast for a candidate who receives more than any other but does not receive an absolute majority), that would mean they were tied.
Yes, in case of a tie, the House elects the President and the Senate selects the VP.

...OR, you always have the Bush v Gore precedent....

 

[JimH52]

Would the House vote to make Trump the President, if neither candidate receive a plurality of electoral votes? Yes, there are enough RW wing nuts there to do that.

First of all, if the choosing of the President devolves to the House the members do not vote individually. Votes are cast by the representation of the several states, with each state having one vote.

Second, exactly how many "RW wing nuts" do you think are in the House? They elected Ryan as Speaker, didn't they? Seems pretty clear that the lunatic tea party fringe remains little more than a vocal obstructionist minority.

Third, you do realize that the Republican party establishment loathes Trump, right? And that they don't trust him for a second to do anything good for the country, nor be even at least be a useful party pawn, right?

If the choosing of the President devolves to the House, with the options being Trump, Bloomberg, or the Democratic candidate, I have no doubt that Bloomberg would easily be selected. He would be embraced by elements on both sides of the aisle. House Republicans would prefer him over Trump. Many House Democrats would prefer him over the risk of Trump. And many on both sides would love the chance to play a heroic role to not be bound to partisanship to support someone who is capable of governing.

I respectfully disagree. As much as many House GOP member hate Trump, they will choose party over thought. They will be sorry when he turns left. But they will go with Trump.

But it will never get to that point. Bloomberg is talking, like he did in 2008.

 

[paulitician]

We need an Independent run by a big nanny State Anti-gun Progressive billionaire who wants to control what you eat

Ha yeah, let's do this. Gawd, Bloomberg's such an asshole.