IS bloomberg serious?

---

Posted by Kris0703

I understand the whole thing that he fought for the 2 year term and now it looks bad that he's going against it but I also think he is one of (if not THE) best mayor we have had in a long time. I would love to see him stick around.

---

I agree. His track record is also amazing and I feel like he really cares for NYC. I would love for him to have another term if those were the rules.

I am listening to i now.

---

Posted by florezpeeps

there have been 3 mayors that in history have had third terms, so it is possible however all used extrenuating circumstances and he has none, that is where i am stumped on him.

---

he is using the economy as an excuse and saying theres alot more work to be done.

If Giuliani couldn't do it then i dont think he should.

---

Posted by Espo22

---

Posted by florezpeeps

there have been 3 mayors that in history have had third terms, so it is possible however all used extrenuating circumstances and he has none, that is where i am stumped on him.

---

he is using the economy as an excuse and saying theres alot more work to be done.

If Giuliani couldn't do it then i dont think he should.

---

i just told rebs that yesterday, that since it has been possible, 9/11 was a time when i would have felt it appropriate to allow guilani a go at 3rd term, and he was not bc bloomberg opposed and said he could handle, now he has to taste his own medicine and another candidate should tell him the same

---

Posted by florezpeeps

---

Posted by Espo22

---

Posted by florezpeeps

there have been 3 mayors that in history have had third terms, so it is possible however all used extrenuating circumstances and he has none, that is where i am stumped on him.

---

he is using the economy as an excuse and saying theres alot more work to be done.

If Giuliani couldn't do it then i dont think he should.

---

i just told rebs that yesterday, that since it has been possible, 9/11 was a time when i would have felt it appropriate to allow guilani a go at 3rd term, and he was not bc bloomberg opposed and said he could handle, now he has to taste his own medicine and another candidate should tell him the same

---

EXACTLY!!!! he was against it, and for giuliani i wouldve considered the 3rd term

---

Posted by Espo22

---

Posted by jcslady

---

Posted by futuremrsfab

---

Posted by jcslady

this would keep my dad employed for another year he is the CEO of the Dept of Ed..

sorry.... this is good for some people

---

ohh sorry- I hope it works out for your dad I just thought it was hypocritical of Bloomberg to lobby against extra terms & now be for it

---

i dont' care for hypocrits myself, but I guess since he has a sucessful financial backround it would help....my dad was at bear stearns for 20 years and lost a lot so i have selfish reasons! you understand!

---

its definitely understandable you would feel this way.

They wouldn't keep him on if theres another mayor?

---

it all depends if they keep joel klein, cause he hired him...it is not a sure bet because whoever takes over hires a new cabinet

---

Posted by jcslady

---

Posted by Espo22

---

Posted by jcslady

---

Posted by futuremrsfab

---

Posted by jcslady

this would keep my dad employed for another year he is the CEO of the Dept of Ed..

sorry.... this is good for some people

---

ohh sorry- I hope it works out for your dad I just thought it was hypocritical of Bloomberg to lobby against extra terms & now be for it

---

i dont' care for hypocrits myself, but I guess since he has a sucessful financial backround it would help....my dad was at bear stearns for 20 years and lost a lot so i have selfish reasons! you understand!

---

its definitely understandable you would feel this way.

They wouldn't keep him on if theres another mayor?

---

it all depends if they keep joel klein, cause he hired him...it is not a sure bet because whoever takes over hires a new cabinet

---

well either outcome, i wish your dad luck

I dont remember Giuliani going for another term, I thought he just wanted to extend his time by a few months so the transition process would occur later. Bllomberg doesnt want to overturn the two term limit, he just wants an exception to be made. Interestingly enough, the last two three term mayors have had HORRENDOUS third terms!

Not sure if I agree or disagree with what he is doing bc I am not sure who our other options are. I kind of DO see the point of having him in office during a financial crisis BUT not sure I like him 'bending the rules'

Here's the thing, fundamentally, NYC residents are opposed to unlimited terms, you're going down a slippery slope if you allow it and that's why it's voted against and people still feel strongly about it now. You don't want someone like David Dinkins being able to keep running and running and running and winning, god forbid he has no formidable opponents.

That said, Bloomberg's popularity right now is at it's highest since 2002 and he's done an incredible job with this city. And, none of the other potential candidates right now would even come close to beating him....like it wouldn't even be a contest. Wiener, Thompson, I forget the other one right now.....oh, Quinn.....none of them would be any competition for him.

People are angry he wants to go back on his issue of challenging Giuliani's quest for an additional term ETA: or extension of his term (which in hindsight was the best thing because Giuliani is a crook and was surrounded by crooks, Kerik anyone?) and they don't want to open up the can of unlimited term worms (which I agree with), but if allowed, Bloomberg would be re-elected in a heartbeat and that would be a great thing for this city and what it needs right now.

---

Posted by missliss

Here's the thing, fundamentally, NYC residents are opposed to unlimited terms, you're going down a slippery slope if you allow it and that's why it's voted against and people still feel strongly about it now. You don't want someone like David Dinkins being able to keep running and running and running and winning, god forbid he has no formidable opponents.

That said, Bloomberg's popularity right now is at it's highest since 2002 and he's done an incredible job with this city. And, none of the other potential candidates right now would even come close to beating him....like it wouldn't even be a contest. Wiener, Thompson, I forget the other one right now.....oh, Quinn.....none of them would be any competition for him.

People are angry he wants to go back on his issue of challenging Giuliani's quest for an additional term ETA: or extension of his term (which in hindsight was the best thing because Giuliani is a crook and was surrounded by crooks, Kerik anyone?) and they don't want to open up the can of unlimited term worms (which I agree with), but if allowed, Bloomberg would be re-elected in a heartbeat and that would be a great thing for this city and what it needs right now.

---

Agree with you 10000000000 percent

---

Posted by missliss

Here's the thing, fundamentally, NYC residents are opposed to unlimited terms, you're going down a slippery slope if you allow it and that's why it's voted against and people still feel strongly about it now. You don't want someone like David Dinkins being able to keep running and running and running and winning, god forbid he has no formidable opponents.

That said, Bloomberg's popularity right now is at it's highest since 2002 and he's done an incredible job with this city. And, none of the other potential candidates right now would even come close to beating him....like it wouldn't even be a contest. Wiener, Thompson, I forget the other one right now.....oh, Quinn.....none of them would be any competition for him.

People are angry he wants to go back on his issue of challenging Giuliani's quest for an additional term ETA: or extension of his term (which in hindsight was the best thing because Giuliani is a crook and was surrounded by crooks, Kerik anyone?) and they don't want to open up the can of unlimited term worms (which I agree with), but if allowed, Bloomberg would be re-elected in a heartbeat and that would be a great thing for this city and what it needs right now.

---

i agree with the first part that NYC residents oppose this idea. IT was voted on twice and both times people opposed it. I think the important part is for government to listen to the people and give them what they want, the way it should be. I was watching Lou Dobbs a few nights ago and he said that one thing that made him so happy was that congress actually listened to the people and what a true democracy should be. I think that since this has been voted on before, the ny residents should be what matter and what we want.

I dont know who his opponents would be either. I think thats also something that would make people feel a bit differently.

---

Posted by Espo22

---

Posted by missliss

Here's the thing, fundamentally, NYC residents are opposed to unlimited terms, you're going down a slippery slope if you allow it and that's why it's voted against and people still feel strongly about it now. You don't want someone like David Dinkins being able to keep running and running and running and winning, god forbid he has no formidable opponents.

That said, Bloomberg's popularity right now is at it's highest since 2002 and he's done an incredible job with this city. And, none of the other potential candidates right now would even come close to beating him....like it wouldn't even be a contest. Wiener, Thompson, I forget the other one right now.....oh, Quinn.....none of them would be any competition for him.

People are angry he wants to go back on his issue of challenging Giuliani's quest for an additional term ETA: or extension of his term (which in hindsight was the best thing because Giuliani is a crook and was surrounded by crooks, Kerik anyone?) and they don't want to open up the can of unlimited term worms (which I agree with), but if allowed, Bloomberg would be re-elected in a heartbeat and that would be a great thing for this city and what it needs right now.

---

i agree with the first part that NYC residents oppose this idea. IT was voted on twice and both times people opposed it. I think the important part is for government to listen to the people and give them what they want, the way it should be. I was watching Lou Dobbs a few nights ago and he said that one thing that made him so happy was that congress actually listened to the people and what a true democracy should be. I think that since this has been voted on before, the ny residents should be what matter and what we want.

I dont know who his opponents would be either. I think thats also something that would make people feel a bit differently.

---

Those three would be his opponents, and anyone else who decides to now throw their hat in the ring, though it's doubtful anyone that would make a marked difference would at this point. And in current polls, and in an election, he would slaughter all three. It just is what it is. But yes, people want term limits. So they are torn. And NYers are stubborn (appropriately ) and want what they voted for, but, they also really like Bloomberg and would elect him again if given the opportunity.

And as for your second part about the govt giving the people what they want. That all depends on your viewpoint about how govt 'really' works. Are our representatives really listening to us, or the lobbyists???? But that's a whole nother discussion and it totally not the point of your original thread.

p.s. Denise you and i totally have opposite political viewpoints I think but I still love you. We can just agree to disagree.

---

Posted by missliss

---

Posted by Espo22

---

Posted by missliss

Here's the thing, fundamentally, NYC residents are opposed to unlimited terms, you're going down a slippery slope if you allow it and that's why it's voted against and people still feel strongly about it now. You don't want someone like David Dinkins being able to keep running and running and running and winning, god forbid he has no formidable opponents.

That said, Bloomberg's popularity right now is at it's highest since 2002 and he's done an incredible job with this city. And, none of the other potential candidates right now would even come close to beating him....like it wouldn't even be a contest. Wiener, Thompson, I forget the other one right now.....oh, Quinn.....none of them would be any competition for him.

People are angry he wants to go back on his issue of challenging Giuliani's quest for an additional term ETA: or extension of his term (which in hindsight was the best thing because Giuliani is a crook and was surrounded by crooks, Kerik anyone?) and they don't want to open up the can of unlimited term worms (which I agree with), but if allowed, Bloomberg would be re-elected in a heartbeat and that would be a great thing for this city and what it needs right now.

---

i agree with the first part that NYC residents oppose this idea. IT was voted on twice and both times people opposed it. I think the important part is for government to listen to the people and give them what they want, the way it should be. I was watching Lou Dobbs a few nights ago and he said that one thing that made him so happy was that congress actually listened to the people and what a true democracy should be. I think that since this has been voted on before, the ny residents should be what matter and what we want.

I dont know who his opponents would be either. I think thats also something that would make people feel a bit differently.

---

Those three would be his opponents, and anyone else who decides to now throw their hat in the ring, though it's doubtful anyone that would make a marked difference would at this point. And in current polls, and in an election, he would slaughter all three. It just is what it is. But yes, people want term limits. So they are torn. And NYers are stubborn (appropriately ) and want what they voted for, but, they also really like Bloomberg and would elect him again if given the opportunity.

And as for your second part about the govt giving the people what they want. That all depends on your viewpoint about how govt 'really' works. Are our representatives really listening to us, or the lobbyists???? But that's a whole nother discussion and it totally not the point of your original thread.

p.s. Denise you and i totally have opposite political viewpoints I think but I still love you. We can just agree to disagree.

---

I had originally voted for bloomberg, but i wouldn't now. But he is doing well in the polls so you never know how this will go. I do think in a way that this will hurt him. I think some might not like that he is pushing for a 3rd term, and even those who like him might not like this fact. My opinion though so who knows, like you and many others this wouldn't sway your vote so maybe it wouldn't hurt him.

In this case, i just meant that this issue in particular there has been a vote done twice and both times people didn't want a 3rd term. So when it comes to this I think that the people should be heard. But then again if he were to run for a 3rd time and get re-elected that would also be what the people want.

Its ok, i dont get mad if people disagree with me we are all entitled to our own opinions, and i'd rather someone have some type of opinion than not have any at all. DH and i disagree ALL the time about these things, and same with family members, doesn't effect anything

---

Posted by Espo22

---

Posted by missliss

---

Posted by Espo22

---

Posted by missliss

Here's the thing, fundamentally, NYC residents are opposed to unlimited terms, you're going down a slippery slope if you allow it and that's why it's voted against and people still feel strongly about it now. You don't want someone like David Dinkins being able to keep running and running and running and winning, god forbid he has no formidable opponents.

That said, Bloomberg's popularity right now is at it's highest since 2002 and he's done an incredible job with this city. And, none of the other potential candidates right now would even come close to beating him....like it wouldn't even be a contest. Wiener, Thompson, I forget the other one right now.....oh, Quinn.....none of them would be any competition for him.

People are angry he wants to go back on his issue of challenging Giuliani's quest for an additional term ETA: or extension of his term (which in hindsight was the best thing because Giuliani is a crook and was surrounded by crooks, Kerik anyone?) and they don't want to open up the can of unlimited term worms (which I agree with), but if allowed, Bloomberg would be re-elected in a heartbeat and that would be a great thing for this city and what it needs right now.

---

i agree with the first part that NYC residents oppose this idea. IT was voted on twice and both times people opposed it. I think the important part is for government to listen to the people and give them what they want, the way it should be. I was watching Lou Dobbs a few nights ago and he said that one thing that made him so happy was that congress actually listened to the people and what a true democracy should be. I think that since this has been voted on before, the ny residents should be what matter and what we want.

I dont know who his opponents would be either. I think thats also something that would make people feel a bit differently.

---

Those three would be his opponents, and anyone else who decides to now throw their hat in the ring, though it's doubtful anyone that would make a marked difference would at this point. And in current polls, and in an election, he would slaughter all three. It just is what it is. But yes, people want term limits. So they are torn. And NYers are stubborn (appropriately ) and want what they voted for, but, they also really like Bloomberg and would elect him again if given the opportunity.

And as for your second part about the govt giving the people what they want. That all depends on your viewpoint about how govt 'really' works. Are our representatives really listening to us, or the lobbyists???? But that's a whole nother discussion and it totally not the point of your original thread.

p.s. Denise you and i totally have opposite political viewpoints I think but I still love you. We can just agree to disagree.

---

I had originally voted for bloomberg, but i wouldn't now. But he is doing well in the polls so you never know how this will go. I do think in a way that this will hurt him. I think some might not like that he is pushing for a 3rd term, and even those who like him might not like this fact. My opinion though so who knows, like you and many others this wouldn't sway your vote so maybe it wouldn't hurt him.

In this case, i just meant that this issue in particular there has been a vote done twice and both times people didn't want a 3rd term. So when it comes to this I think that the people should be heard. But then again if he were to run for a 3rd time and get re-elected that would also be what the people want.

Its ok, i dont get mad if people disagree with me we are all entitled to our own opinions, and i'd rather someone have some type of opinion than not have any at all. DH and i disagree ALL the time about these things, and same with family members, doesn't effect anything

---

I dont think you guys should agree to disagree. Id like it better if you started calling eachother names. It would give us some entertainment today

---

Posted by Espo22

---

Posted by missliss

---

Posted by Espo22

---

Posted by missliss

Here's the thing, fundamentally, NYC residents are opposed to unlimited terms, you're going down a slippery slope if you allow it and that's why it's voted against and people still feel strongly about it now. You don't want someone like David Dinkins being able to keep running and running and running and winning, god forbid he has no formidable opponents.

That said, Bloomberg's popularity right now is at it's highest since 2002 and he's done an incredible job with this city. And, none of the other potential candidates right now would even come close to beating him....like it wouldn't even be a contest. Wiener, Thompson, I forget the other one right now.....oh, Quinn.....none of them would be any competition for him.

People are angry he wants to go back on his issue of challenging Giuliani's quest for an additional term ETA: or extension of his term (which in hindsight was the best thing because Giuliani is a crook and was surrounded by crooks, Kerik anyone?) and they don't want to open up the can of unlimited term worms (which I agree with), but if allowed, Bloomberg would be re-elected in a heartbeat and that would be a great thing for this city and what it needs right now.

---

i agree with the first part that NYC residents oppose this idea. IT was voted on twice and both times people opposed it. I think the important part is for government to listen to the people and give them what they want, the way it should be. I was watching Lou Dobbs a few nights ago and he said that one thing that made him so happy was that congress actually listened to the people and what a true democracy should be. I think that since this has been voted on before, the ny residents should be what matter and what we want.

I dont know who his opponents would be either. I think thats also something that would make people feel a bit differently.

---

Those three would be his opponents, and anyone else who decides to now throw their hat in the ring, though it's doubtful anyone that would make a marked difference would at this point. And in current polls, and in an election, he would slaughter all three. It just is what it is. But yes, people want term limits. So they are torn. And NYers are stubborn (appropriately ) and want what they voted for, but, they also really like Bloomberg and would elect him again if given the opportunity.

And as for your second part about the govt giving the people what they want. That all depends on your viewpoint about how govt 'really' works. Are our representatives really listening to us, or the lobbyists???? But that's a whole nother discussion and it totally not the point of your original thread.

p.s. Denise you and i totally have opposite political viewpoints I think but I still love you. We can just agree to disagree.

---

I had originally voted for bloomberg, but i wouldn't now. But he is doing well in the polls so you never know how this will go. I do think in a way that this will hurt him. I think some might not like that he is pushing for a 3rd term, and even those who like him might not like this fact. My opinion though so who knows, like you and many others this wouldn't sway your vote so maybe it wouldn't hurt him.

In this case, i just meant that this issue in particular there has been a vote done twice and both times people didn't want a 3rd term. So when it comes to this I think that the people should be heard. But then again if he were to run for a 3rd time and get re-elected that would also be what the people want.

Its ok, i dont get mad if people disagree with me we are all entitled to our own opinions, and i'd rather someone have some type of opinion than not have any at all. DH and i disagree ALL the time about these things, and same with family members, doesn't effect anything

---

Denise, you totally dont have to answer this but Im just curious as to why you changed yoru mind on Bloomberg?