What is Michael Bloomberg thinking?

[SwimExpert]

No, but any state delegation that votes against him would be primaried out of office.

You're a moron. How the hell do you come up with that? Oh, nevermind, I know how. Because you don't know what the **** you are talking about. The vote doesn't go by Congressional district. They vote by state.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, but any state delegation that votes against him would be primaried out of office.

You're a moron. How the hell do you come up with that? Oh, nevermind, I know how. Because you don't know what the **** you are talking about. The vote doesn't go by Congressional district. They vote by state.

Delegation, you dumb ****, that's all the Congressmen in a particular state. If the Republican Congressmen in Oklahoma, for example, voted for Bloomie, instead of the Republican, those Congressmen would get primary opponents next election.

 

[SwimExpert]

If it was between Trump with 40%, Sanders 40% and Bloomie with 20%, how does a Republican delegation vote for Bloomie? Or a Dem one?

1 - Nobody on Capital Hill wants Trump in the White House in the first place.

2 - You are picking numbers out of thin air with no foundation for your assumption. Why not Trump 15% / Sanders 40% / Bloomberg 35% ?

3 - Delegations are not "Republican" or "Democrat" you ******* moron. You keep confusing this with congressional districts. Delegations are made up of multiple individuals (except for the rare few states that only have one district), typically from both parties. Let's take Iowa. Three Republicans out of four districts. But Iowa is more likely to go Dem than GOP in the election. If that happened in the General, but the House had to pick the President, which do you think is the harder sell to make to the constituents? "Gee folks, we know you voted for Sanders, but we decided to go with Trump because he's in my party" isn't going to go over very well. It's much easier to sell people by saying "After careful consideration we decided to put the country ahead of partisan politics and gave our support to a candidate with a record of balancing budgets and proven leadership."

Now, I realize that in your world of make believe, you will simply believe something because you want it to be true. That's all fine and dandy. Do whatever you want with your own section of Mr. Rogers' neighborhood. But in doing so, you surrender the right to be regarded as anything more than an idiot.

 

[jasonnfree]

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.

There's a few of us left wing nut jobs that want Trump as prez also. Just the trade pacts alone, the dems always join with the repubs on shipping more American jobs to sweatshop low wage countries, as well as bringing low wage visa holders here, to drive Americans into the unemployment line. Then the unvetted, tens of thousands Muslim refugees that Obama wants to bring here, could be our trojan horse, like Trump says. Plus, there's not enough money in the till to even take care of Americans in need as it is.
I used to think the right wingers were nutty, saying Obama is trying to destroy this country. Now I'm not so sure if he's trying to destroy this country, or if he's just plain incompetent. Trump is the only one on either side who will try to do something about these issues.

 

[jasonnfree]

If it was between Trump with 40%, Sanders 40% and Bloomie with 20%, how does a Republican delegation vote for Bloomie? Or a Dem one?

1 - Nobody on Capital Hill wants Trump in the White House in the first place.

2 - You are picking numbers out of thin air with no foundation for your assumption. Why not Trump 15% / Sanders 40% / Bloomberg 35% ?

3 - Delegations are not "Republican" or "Democrat" you ******* moron. You keep confusing this with congressional districts. Delegations are made up of multiple individuals (except for the rare few states that only have one district), typically from both parties. Let's take Iowa. Three Republicans out of four districts. But Iowa is more likely to go Dem than GOP in the election. If that happened in the General, but the House had to pick the President, which do you think is the harder sell to make to the constituents? "Gee folks, we know you voted for Sanders, but we decided to go with Trump because he's in my party" isn't going to go over very well. It's much easier to sell people by saying "After careful consideration we decided to put the country ahead of partisan politics and gave our support to a candidate with a record of balancing budgets and proven leadership."

Now, I realize that in your world of make believe, you will simply believe something because you want it to be true. That's all fine and dandy. Do whatever you want with your own section of Mr. Rogers' neighborhood. But in doing so, you surrender the right to be regarded as anything more than an idiot.

Because everybody on Capitol Hill wants business as usual.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If it was between Trump with 40%, Sanders 40% and Bloomie with 20%, how does a Republican delegation vote for Bloomie? Or a Dem one?

1 - Nobody on Capital Hill wants Trump in the White House in the first place.

2 - You are picking numbers out of thin air with no foundation for your assumption. Why not Trump 15% / Sanders 40% / Bloomberg 35% ?

3 - Delegations are not "Republican" or "Democrat" you ******* moron. You keep confusing this with congressional districts. Delegations are made up of multiple individuals (except for the rare few states that only have one district), typically from both parties. Let's take Iowa. Three Republicans out of four districts. But Iowa is more likely to go Dem than GOP in the election. If that happened in the General, but the House had to pick the President, which do you think is the harder sell to make to the constituents? "Gee folks, we know you voted for Sanders, but we decided to go with Trump because he's in my party" isn't going to go over very well. It's much easier to sell people by saying "After careful consideration we decided to put the country ahead of partisan politics and gave our support to a candidate with a record of balancing budgets and proven leadership."

Now, I realize that in your world of make believe, you will simply believe something because you want it to be true. That's all fine and dandy. Do whatever you want with your own section of Mr. Rogers' neighborhood. But in doing so, you surrender the right to be regarded as anything more than an idiot.

3 - Delegations are not "Republican" or "Democrat"

and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote;

Oklahoma has 5 Reps, all Republican. That's a Republican delegation. Moron.
Do you feel they'll decide to vote for Bloomie, instead of the Republican? Why?

Ohio has 12 Republicans, 4 Dems. That's a Republican delegation. Moron.
Will they vote for Bloomie? Why?

Illinois has 10 Dems, 8 Republicans. Are some of the Dems going to vote for Bloomie, allowing the state to vote for the Republican? Why would they?

New York is 18 Dems, 9 Republicans. That's a Dem delegation.
Are the Dems going to vote for Bloomie, instead of Hillary? Really?

Let's take Iowa. Three Republicans out of four districts. But Iowa is more likely to go Dem than GOP in the election. If that happened in the General, but the House had to pick the President, which do you think is the harder sell to make to the constituents? "Gee folks, we know you voted for Sanders, but we decided to go with Trump because he's in my party" isn't going to go over very well.

Since the Republican Representatives were sent to Congress by Republicans, it will definitely go over better if they vote for the Republican candidate.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Bloomberg is not a centrist. He is very much a leftist.

No, Bloomberg is fairly centrist. On social issues he's pretty progressive, but he's a strong pro-business fiscal conservative.

If Bloomberg is what you consider to be fairly centrist then this country's political center has moved far to the left. Being a corporatist does not make him a centrist. His record is very much left wing.

Mike Bloomberg on the Issues

Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat before he ran for mayor and he only switched to the Republican Party to avoid an eight person primary on the Dem side.

Furthermore, if the Republican House were to select Bloomberg as president over Trump there would be a massive backlash among Republicans they have never seen and it would be political suicide for them.

How do you figure? You have to remember that if it were to come to the House making the decision, that would mean that the people as a whole were not very hot on Trump. It would mean that alot of Republicans themselves turned their backs on Trump.

If there is not a majority then it means the electorate was not decisive on anybody. It makes no sense in that scenario for a Republican or Democratic Congressman to vote to select someone outside of their party. The grassroots would obliterate them at their next election with primary challengers.

In any case, this scenario is unlikely even if he runs.

If Bloomberg runs, I think that a possible victory is not so unlikely. I mean, do you really think that in a general election the public will be so keen to choose Trump or Sanders over someone who isn't batshit crazy? Remember, there's no way that he even bothers to run if someone other than Trump or Cruz gets the nomination, and possibly not even then unless Sanders also gets the nomination on the other side. Bloomberg would be the natural least-of-three-evils for about 80% of the population under such circumstances.

I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that 80% of the population would be keen on an independent candidate who has a far left record on social issues, a very authoritarian record on personal issues, and is also a major gun grabber (that issue alone will destroy him). Trump and Sanders are lining up huge crowds of people. Yes, people will defect to Bloomberg from both sides. Your limousine liberals in both parties with the big money will get behind Bloomberg, but the grassroots of each party will stick with their guy. Bloomberg might win a couple of states, but for the most part I don't see him winning enough electoral votes to deprive either Sanders or Trump of the 270 votes needed to win. I think he'll get a lot of second place finishes and likely pull more from Sanders than Trump throwing some traditional blue states in Trump's direction, much like Perot did with Clinton, only throwing some red ones to blue.

 

[SwimExpert]

Because everybody on Capitol Hill wants business as usual.

Exactly. The last thing they want is a Trump or a Sanders in the White House.

 

[SwimExpert]

If Bloomberg is what you consider to be fairly centrist then this country's political center has moved far to the left. Being a corporatist does not make him a centrist. His record is very much left wing.

Really? So balancing a budget and being pro-business is "very left wing"? You haven't said anything that isn't subjective to your own bias. Another person could just as easily claim that Bloomberg is right wing and say "being pro-choice doesn't make him a centrist."

Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat before he ran for mayor and he only switched to the Republican Party to avoid an eight person primary on the Dem side.

Yeah, and Strom Thurmond was a Democrat until they decided to support the Civil Rights Act, which made him decide that red was his favorite color.

Are you trying to say a person cannot be a centrist if they are, or once were, a Democrat? Because that's pretty ridiculous. There are centrists on both sides. If you can't realize that, then your perspective has migrated your own concept of the center far too much to the right.

If there is not a majority then it means the electorate was not decisive on anybody. It makes no sense in that scenario for a Republican or Democratic Congressman to vote to select someone outside of their party.

That's nice. But it has nothing to do with this. Individual Congresspersons will not be voting.

The grassroots would obliterate them at their next election with primary challengers.

Now you're contradicting yourself. How/why would the "grassroots" obliterate bipartisan state delegations over a selection on something where, according to your own words, the people at large were not decisive about?

I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that 80% of the population would be keen on an independent candidate who has a far left record on social issues, a very authoritarian record on personal issues, and is also a major gun grabber (that issue alone will destroy him).

Because the truth of the matter is that that describes the average American at the moment. And even where many people, such as myself, disagree with him on certain things, these are at best minor and low priority matters on the federal level. If my choice is otherwise between Sanders and Trump, you're damn right I'd take Bloomberg. He might have been a "gun grabber" in New York, but it's simply not possible for him to do that as President. And despite all the saber rattling on both sides of the aisle by morons, a reasonable person like myself knows that petty bickering over the extent of gun control laws, or the particulars about how to do it is small potatoes in comparison to Donald "ban the Muslims" Trump and Bernie "free shit for everyone and no idea how to pay for it" Sanders.

Trump and Sanders are extremists. Ex-*******-stremists! Truth is that even if Bloomberg is a leftists, he's still centrist as **** when slapped between those two morons.

Trump and Sanders are lining up huge crowds of people. Yes, people will defect to Bloomberg from both sides. Your limousine liberals in both parties with the big money will get behind Bloomberg, but the grassroots of each party will stick with their guy.

The "grassroots" of a party is next to nothing in a general election. General elections are won by rational people in the middle, with most of them holding their noses most of the time when they vote.

Bloomberg might win a couple of states, but for the most part I don't see him winning enough electoral votes to deprive either Sanders or Trump of the 270 votes needed to win. I think he'll get a lot of second place finishes and likely pull more from Sanders than Trump throwing some traditional blue states in Trump's direction, much like Perot did with Clinton, only throwing some red ones to blue.

You really, actually, think that Trump would win any but the hardest of masturbatory deep red states? Trump would drive alot of otherwise committed Republicans away. One thing I know for certain is that there's absolutely no way in Hell I vote for Trump. Never. Ever. Period. I'd vote for Clinton before I vote for Trump, and I hate that *****. And I'd hate voting for her, but I'd be all to happy to take her over Trump. And that is exactly why Bloomberg would be a welcomed independent candidate. Because Bloomberg isn't the kind of person most reasonably minded Americans, regardless of political affiliation, will hate. I may disagree with him on alot of things, but I also know that he has the ability to do a decent job. Better than Trump, better than Cruz, better than Clinton, and better than Sanders.

 

[my2¢]

What's he thinking? Can only guess:

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If Bloomberg is what you consider to be fairly centrist then this country's political center has moved far to the left. Being a corporatist does not make him a centrist. His record is very much left wing.

Really? So balancing a budget and being pro-business is "very left wing"? You haven't said anything that isn't subjective to your own bias. Another person could just as easily claim that Bloomberg is right wing and say "being pro-choice doesn't make him a centrist."

Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat before he ran for mayor and he only switched to the Republican Party to avoid an eight person primary on the Dem side.

Yeah, and Strom Thurmond was a Democrat until they decided to support the Civil Rights Act, which made him decide that red was his favorite color.

Are you trying to say a person cannot be a centrist if they are, or once were, a Democrat? Because that's pretty ridiculous. There are centrists on both sides. If you can't realize that, then your perspective has migrated your own concept of the center far too much to the right.

If there is not a majority then it means the electorate was not decisive on anybody. It makes no sense in that scenario for a Republican or Democratic Congressman to vote to select someone outside of their party.

That's nice. But it has nothing to do with this. Individual Congresspersons will not be voting.

The grassroots would obliterate them at their next election with primary challengers.

Now you're contradicting yourself. How/why would the "grassroots" obliterate bipartisan state delegations over a selection on something where, according to your own words, the people at large were not decisive about?

I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that 80% of the population would be keen on an independent candidate who has a far left record on social issues, a very authoritarian record on personal issues, and is also a major gun grabber (that issue alone will destroy him).

Because the truth of the matter is that that describes the average American at the moment. And even where many people, such as myself, disagree with him on certain things, these are at best minor and low priority matters on the federal level. If my choice is otherwise between Sanders and Trump, you're damn right I'd take Bloomberg. He might have been a "gun grabber" in New York, but it's simply not possible for him to do that as President. And despite all the saber rattling on both sides of the aisle by morons, a reasonable person like myself knows that petty bickering over the extent of gun control laws, or the particulars about how to do it is small potatoes in comparison to Donald "ban the Muslims" Trump and Bernie "free shit for everyone and no idea how to pay for it" Sanders.

Trump and Sanders are extremists. Ex-*******-stremists! Truth is that even if Bloomberg is a leftists, he's still centrist as **** when slapped between those two morons.

Trump and Sanders are lining up huge crowds of people. Yes, people will defect to Bloomberg from both sides. Your limousine liberals in both parties with the big money will get behind Bloomberg, but the grassroots of each party will stick with their guy.

The "grassroots" of a party is next to nothing in a general election. General elections are won by rational people in the middle, with most of them holding their noses most of the time when they vote.

Bloomberg might win a couple of states, but for the most part I don't see him winning enough electoral votes to deprive either Sanders or Trump of the 270 votes needed to win. I think he'll get a lot of second place finishes and likely pull more from Sanders than Trump throwing some traditional blue states in Trump's direction, much like Perot did with Clinton, only throwing some red ones to blue.

You really, actually, think that Trump would win any but the hardest of masturbatory deep red states? Trump would drive alot of otherwise committed Republicans away. One thing I know for certain is that there's absolutely no way in Hell I vote for Trump. Never. Ever. Period. I'd vote for Clinton before I vote for Trump, and I hate that *****. And I'd hate voting for her, but I'd be all to happy to take her over Trump. And that is exactly why Bloomberg would be a welcomed independent candidate. Because Bloomberg isn't the kind of person most reasonably minded Americans, regardless of political affiliation, will hate. I may disagree with him on alot of things, but I also know that he has the ability to do a decent job. Better than Trump, better than Cruz, better than Clinton, and better than Sanders.

That's nice. But it has nothing to do with this. Individual Congresspersons will not be voting.

They will be voting. How do you think they determine who gets the single vote of each state?

Now you're contradicting yourself. How/why would the "grassroots" obliterate bipartisan state delegations over a selection on something where, according to your own words, the people at large were not decisive about?

Because the bipartisan voters of the state at large won't be voting in the next Congressional primary.
It'll be the pissed off partisan voters in each district who make up the largest chunk of primary voters.

 

[xotoxi]

Bloomberg running would **** with shit, but he wouldn't win any EC votes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If Bloomberg is what you consider to be fairly centrist then this country's political center has moved far to the left. Being a corporatist does not make him a centrist. His record is very much left wing.

Really? So balancing a budget and being pro-business is "very left wing"? You haven't said anything that isn't subjective to your own bias. Another person could just as easily claim that Bloomberg is right wing and say "being pro-choice doesn't make him a centrist."

Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat before he ran for mayor and he only switched to the Republican Party to avoid an eight person primary on the Dem side.

Yeah, and Strom Thurmond was a Democrat until they decided to support the Civil Rights Act, which made him decide that red was his favorite color.

Are you trying to say a person cannot be a centrist if they are, or once were, a Democrat? Because that's pretty ridiculous. There are centrists on both sides. If you can't realize that, then your perspective has migrated your own concept of the center far too much to the right.

If there is not a majority then it means the electorate was not decisive on anybody. It makes no sense in that scenario for a Republican or Democratic Congressman to vote to select someone outside of their party.

That's nice. But it has nothing to do with this. Individual Congresspersons will not be voting.

The grassroots would obliterate them at their next election with primary challengers.

Now you're contradicting yourself. How/why would the "grassroots" obliterate bipartisan state delegations over a selection on something where, according to your own words, the people at large were not decisive about?

I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that 80% of the population would be keen on an independent candidate who has a far left record on social issues, a very authoritarian record on personal issues, and is also a major gun grabber (that issue alone will destroy him).

Because the truth of the matter is that that describes the average American at the moment. And even where many people, such as myself, disagree with him on certain things, these are at best minor and low priority matters on the federal level. If my choice is otherwise between Sanders and Trump, you're damn right I'd take Bloomberg. He might have been a "gun grabber" in New York, but it's simply not possible for him to do that as President. And despite all the saber rattling on both sides of the aisle by morons, a reasonable person like myself knows that petty bickering over the extent of gun control laws, or the particulars about how to do it is small potatoes in comparison to Donald "ban the Muslims" Trump and Bernie "free shit for everyone and no idea how to pay for it" Sanders.

Trump and Sanders are extremists. Ex-*******-stremists! Truth is that even if Bloomberg is a leftists, he's still centrist as **** when slapped between those two morons.

Trump and Sanders are lining up huge crowds of people. Yes, people will defect to Bloomberg from both sides. Your limousine liberals in both parties with the big money will get behind Bloomberg, but the grassroots of each party will stick with their guy.

The "grassroots" of a party is next to nothing in a general election. General elections are won by rational people in the middle, with most of them holding their noses most of the time when they vote.

Bloomberg might win a couple of states, but for the most part I don't see him winning enough electoral votes to deprive either Sanders or Trump of the 270 votes needed to win. I think he'll get a lot of second place finishes and likely pull more from Sanders than Trump throwing some traditional blue states in Trump's direction, much like Perot did with Clinton, only throwing some red ones to blue.

You really, actually, think that Trump would win any but the hardest of masturbatory deep red states? Trump would drive alot of otherwise committed Republicans away. One thing I know for certain is that there's absolutely no way in Hell I vote for Trump. Never. Ever. Period. I'd vote for Clinton before I vote for Trump, and I hate that *****. And I'd hate voting for her, but I'd be all to happy to take her over Trump. And that is exactly why Bloomberg would be a welcomed independent candidate. Because Bloomberg isn't the kind of person most reasonably minded Americans, regardless of political affiliation, will hate. I may disagree with him on alot of things, but I also know that he has the ability to do a decent job. Better than Trump, better than Cruz, better than Clinton, and better than Sanders.

Yeah, and Strom Thurmond was a Democrat until they decided to support the Civil Rights Act, which made him decide that red was his favorite color.

The original House version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[21]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, based on the 80-82% Republican support for the Civil Rights Act, versus 61-69% support from the Dems, Strom decided to switch parties.

 

[FA_Q2]

The assertion that Boomberg would win some states is based on practically nothing. It is unlikely that he would take any of EC at all. The only thing that he would accomplish is giving the right a leg up as he will take more votes from the left than the right no matter who takes the primaries.

The idea that the parties would vote for the independent over their nominee is just silly. It is not going to happen. no matter how much they might not like Trump, they are NOT going to jump ship on the selected nominee. It would be political suicide for the party as a whole. If you think that the base is pissed off now, wait and see what happens when the party itself rejects who they selected in their primary. Should the GOP do so, it will go the way of the wigs and I am confident that they understand this.

 

[SwimExpert]

The assertion that Boomberg would win some states is based on practically nothing.

It's based on the reality that the public generally does not like extreme candidates and will aim closer toward the middle when faced with two extremes.

The idea that the parties would vote for the independent over their nominee is just silly.

You know what's even more silly: The idea that the two parties would both end up nominating extreme candidates that each "establishment" within the party dislikes. Nevertheless, that "silly" idea has a good chance to become reality in the next few months.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The assertion that Boomberg would win some states is based on practically nothing.

It's based on the reality that the public generally does not like extreme candidates and will aim closer toward the middle when faced with two extremes.

The idea that the parties would vote for the independent over their nominee is just silly.

You know what's even more silly: The idea that the two parties would both end up nominating extreme candidates that each "establishment" within the party dislikes. Nevertheless, that "silly" idea has a good chance to become reality in the next few months.

It's based on the reality that the public generally does not like extreme candidates and will aim closer toward the middle when faced with two extremes.

Your idea that Bloomie, with his extreme gun control, sodium control and soda control ideas, is closer to the middle just highlights how far left your viewpoint has become.

 

[Zander]

Run Mike Run!!

He'd win ZERO states but siphon enough votes from hiLIARy (or the crackpot) to guarantee a GOP victory. The GOP might even carry New York for the first time in a generation.

Run Mike Run!!

 

[JimH52]

The assertion that Boomberg would win some states is based on practically nothing.

It's based on the reality that the public generally does not like extreme candidates and will aim closer toward the middle when faced with two extremes.

The idea that the parties would vote for the independent over their nominee is just silly.

You know what's even more silly: The idea that the two parties would both end up nominating extreme candidates that each "establishment" within the party dislikes. Nevertheless, that "silly" idea has a good chance to become reality in the next few months.

It's based on the reality that the public generally does not like extreme candidates and will aim closer toward the middle when faced with two extremes.

Your idea that Bloomie, with his extreme gun control, sodium control and soda control ideas, is closer to the middle just highlights how far left your viewpoint has become.

Trump is in the middle?l

 

[FA_Q2]

The assertion that Boomberg would win some states is based on practically nothing.

It's based on the reality that the public generally does not like extreme candidates and will aim closer toward the middle when faced with two extremes.

Without considering party politics that might be a valid point.

In the end, people vote for one of the big 2 almost every time. This is no different and you just saying i9t is so certainly does not make a strong argument.

How many independent presets have we had? Considering the history, your assertion that it has a good chance of occurring this time is really without merit.

The idea that the parties would vote for the independent over their nominee is just silly.

You know what's even more silly: The idea that the two parties would both end up nominating extreme candidates that each "establishment" within the party dislikes. Nevertheless, that "silly" idea has a good chance to become reality in the next few months.

Not really. That pot has been boiling for the last 15 years. We have seen this progression for awhile. What we have NOT seen is the people willingly leaning to independents for the presidency. We have actually observed the opposite - people are more politically entrenched now than any time I can really remember. It is rather ironic that such seems to be the case from my POV while, at the same time, party affiliation is decreasing.

 

[Likkmee]

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?

Because they cause brain malfunction and attention deficit disorder. You're living proof.
Go watch Miley and please, no voting.