Ray Jay wrote:In general he has been against excessive regulation and high taxes.

bbauska wrote:I would take Bloomberg over any Democratic candidate or Trump. How about other people's opinions if that were the 3?

rickyp wrote:Fate

Just like the NYC cigarette taxes won't stop people from smoking. Draconian measures like this just result in people avoiding them.

Its been proven in many jurisdictions that making cigarettes more expensive does cut down on smoking. Especially among young people under 24. Its also been proven that if you don't smoke before you are 24, you are very unlikely to ever take up the habit.
You are right that the addicts do try and avoid paying the taxes. So what?

bbauska wrote:Then who do you take? The Constitution party? Libertarian? I cannot vote for either of the other two options I gave.

I don't like Bloomberg either, but I must vote for someone.

Sassenach wrote:Given where you live DF, I'd have thought a vote for Bloomberg would make more sense. Can't really imagine Trump standing any chance in Massachusetts.

Sassenach wrote:Hmm... If Trump can win in Mass then he's going to end up with 500+ votes in the electoral college. Can you really imagine that ?

geojanes wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:In general he has been against excessive regulation and high taxes.

I'm not sure the facts bear this out. City sales taxes were raised 0.5 point early in his administration, and never reduced, and all of taxes he inherited that people hate (Corporate gross receipts tax and the commercial real estate rental tax to name two) survived his tenure. Further, as I like to point out to anyone who listens: the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York grew by well over 1000 pages, or about 50% during Bloomberg's term: he was NOT against regulation, and often was leading the charge for more.

Instead, he was all about service and he did provide amazing leadership in getting higher quality, responsive government services from a huge and entrenched bureaucracy. He was more about providing value and quality, because he knew that if people feel like they're getting value, many often gladly pay more.

Ray Jay wrote:

geojanes wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:In general he has been against excessive regulation and high taxes.

I'm not sure the facts bear this out. City sales taxes were raised 0.5 point early in his administration, and never reduced, and all of taxes he inherited that people hate (Corporate gross receipts tax and the commercial real estate rental tax to name two) survived his tenure. Further, as I like to point out to anyone who listens: the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York grew by well over 1000 pages, or about 50% during Bloomberg's term: he was NOT against regulation, and often was leading the charge for more.

Instead, he was all about service and he did provide amazing leadership in getting higher quality, responsive government services from a huge and entrenched bureaucracy. He was more about providing value and quality, because he knew that if people feel like they're getting value, many often gladly pay more.

And, I don't know that "Big Government Delivered Efficiently" will get many GOP voters, particularly when his rabid (and I mean "RABID") support for gun-control is made known.

You are correct.

Sassenach wrote:If he has a chance in Mass then he can win anywhere. Realistically speaking of course he doesn't have any chance whatsoever. A vote for Trump would be a wasted vote for you (much like every other vote you've ever cast I suppose...)

Highly classified Hillary Clinton emails that the intelligence community and State Department recently deemed too damaging to national security to release contain “operational intelligence” – and their presence on the unsecure, personal email system jeopardized “sources, methods and lives,” a U.S. government official who has reviewed the documents told Fox News.

The official, who was not authorized to speak on the record and was limited in discussing the contents because of their highly classified nature, was referring to the 22 “TOP SECRET” emails that the State Department announced Friday it could not release in any form, even with entire sections redacted.

The announcement fueled criticism of Clinton’s handling of highly sensitive information while secretary of state, even as the Clinton campaign continued to downplay the matter as the product of an interagency dispute over classification. But the U.S. government official’s description provides confirmation that the emails contained closely held government secrets. “Operational intelligence” can be real-time information about intelligence collection, sources and the movement of assets.

The official emphasized that the “TOP SECRET” documents were sent over an extended period of time -- from shortly after the server's 2009 installation until early 2013 when Clinton stepped down as secretary of state.

Separately, Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., who sits on the House intelligence committee, said the former secretary of state, senator, and Yale-trained lawyer had to know what she was dealing with.

"There is no way that someone, a senior government official who has been handling classified information for a good chunk of their adult life, could not have known that this information ought to be classified, whether it was marked or not,” he said. "Anyone with the capacity to read and an understanding of American national security, an 8th grade reading level or above, would understand that the release of this information or the potential breach of a non-secure system presented risk to American national security."

Pompeo also suggested the military and intelligence communities have had to change operations, because the Clinton server could have been compromised by a third party.

Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton’s “unclassified” emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage such as the true names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse, some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover. NOCs (see this for an explanation of their important role in espionage) are the pointy end of the CIA spear and they are always at risk of exposure – which is what Ms. Clinton’s emails have done.

Not only have these spies had their lives put in serious risk by this, it’s a clear violation of Federal law. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, enacted due to the murder of the CIA’s station chief in Athens after his cover was blown by the left-wing media, makes it a Federal crime to divulge the true identity of any covert operative serving U.S. intelligence if that person has not previous been publicly acknowledged to be working for our spy agencies.

People really go to jail for breaking this law. John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer, recently emerged from two years in prison for unauthorized disclosure of classified information, including exposing the identity of an Agency colleague who was serving under cover.

Anyone possessing political memory will recall that this law was also the centerpiece of the 2003 scandal surrounding Valerie Plame, a CIA NOC officer whose identity appeared in the media after it was exposed by the George W. Bush White House. Ms. Plame became a liberal icon of sorts, complete with high glamour, while the affair became an obsession for much of the mainstream media, despite the fact that the spy was physically unharmed by the leak.

Indeed, Valerie Plame parleyed the ruckus into a successful post-CIA career and she remains in the limelight. In a perverse irony, last weekend she was in New Hampshire campaigning for Hillary Clinton. Neither Ms. Plame nor much of the media seem interested in their candidate’s far greater compromise of classified information, including the identities of NOCs like Valerie Plame once was.

Hillary’s emails also include the names of foreigners who are on the CIA payroll, according to Intelligence Community officials. Since it can be safely assumed that several foreign intelligence agencies intercepted Ms. Clinton’s unencrypted communications, this directly threatens the lives of the exposed individuals. “It’s a death sentence,” explained a senior Intelligence Community official: “if we’re lucky only agents, not our officers, will get killed because of this.” (Agents are foreigners working for U.S. intelligence while officers are American staffers.)

CIA and the entire Intelligence Community are in panic mode right now, trying to determine which of our intelligence officers and agents have been compromised by EmailGate. At a minimum, valuable covers have been blown, careers have been ruined, and lives have been put at serious risk. Our spies’ greatest concern now is what’s still in Hillary’s emails that investigators have yet to find.