Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-13-2018, 04:52 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,422

Former NYC mayor Bloomberg to run as a Dem for president in 2020


from the Times of London. He has $50 bil and started from scratch, no help from Dad.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/w...fied-_-TWITTER

I think he could do well in Dem primaries. I know it's kind of silly , but I think an issue could be his height he's 5-8 and looks shorter when he's around tall people.

Also he's 76 so that won't be a positive.

Last edited by Bijou Drains; 09-13-2018 at 04:53 PM.
  #2  
Old 09-13-2018, 04:57 PM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,750
Hasn’t there been speculation about him every year since about 2008? Not buying it.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #3  
Old 09-13-2018, 05:03 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,422
just like there was speculation about Trump for a long while until he jumped in for 2016.
  #4  
Old 09-13-2018, 05:06 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,506
Most of that article is behind a paywall; what I see cites only unnamed "sources" and "confidants". I mean, I'm sure the Times didn't just make this up, but it seems far from clear that he is running.

I predict if he runs it will go nowhere. Democratic primary voters aren't exactly clamoring for a rich old white guy who was a Republican until quite recently.
  #5  
Old 09-13-2018, 05:20 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,981
Just what we need.

Another corporatist democrat whose only distinguishing characteristic from republicans is they don't care about gay marriage and will say global warming is real although they have no plan to do anything about it.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 09-13-2018 at 05:21 PM.
  #6  
Old 09-13-2018, 05:22 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,422
he would do better running as an independent and he has plenty of money to do that, just like Perot in 92.
  #7  
Old 09-13-2018, 05:37 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
he would do better running as an independent and he has plenty of money to do that, just like Perot in 92.
That would split the Dem ticket and probably only result in a Trump win. Just like Nader in '00 gave Bush the win and Perot gave Clinton the win.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 09-13-2018 at 05:37 PM.
  #8  
Old 09-13-2018, 05:37 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,506
However, it says he didn't run in 2012 because he didn't want to split the non-GOP vote, and good for him. That consideration would seem to still apply; I do think that he has no chance of getting the Democratic nomination, but that he would have a small but nonzero chance of winning as an independent (especially if the Dem nominee is from the left wing of the party). However, his entry into the race as an independent would greatly increase the chances of Trump's re-election.
  #9  
Old 09-13-2018, 05:48 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
(especially if the Dem nominee is from the left wing of the party)
So republican light is what you want?

Fuck that.

What is considered the "left wing" of the party today used to be mainstream a few decades ago. The "center" has been pushed to the right.

Seems to me Bloomberg aims to be a spoiler. He can't win but he can screw over a left candidate who would otherwise win by splitting the ticket and I suspect that is his only goal.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #10  
Old 09-13-2018, 05:51 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Democratic primary voters aren't exactly clamoring for a rich old white guy who was a Republican until quite recently.
Bloomberg was a Democrat prior to 2001. The more likely sticking point would be his endorsement of Hillary.
  #11  
Old 09-13-2018, 05:53 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,506
No, I personally want a left-wing progressive. But it seems obvious to me that such a candidate would be more vulnerable to a well-funded centrist independent candidate than a moderate would be.

And a reminder that, per the OP, his current plan to is run as a Democrat, so there's no concern about splitting the anti-Trump vote.
  #12  
Old 09-13-2018, 05:55 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skywatcher View Post
Bloomberg was a Democrat prior to 2001. The more likely sticking point would be his endorsement of Hillary.
If having endorsed Hillary is a deal-breaker...well, the field just got a LOT smaller.

Last edited by Thing Fish; 09-13-2018 at 05:55 PM.
  #13  
Old 09-13-2018, 06:18 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,375
Whether or not you agree with the NRA, they will pull out all the stops on opposing Bloomberg. There is a not inconsiderable number of Democrats who will vote 3rd party, not vote, or vote Republican based on that.

Last edited by Scumpup; 09-13-2018 at 06:19 PM.
  #14  
Old 09-13-2018, 06:35 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,506
No chance the Democrats nominate anyone remotely acceptable to the NRA. They will lose some votes by pushing hard for gun control, but I think they'd lose more by not doing so.
  #15  
Old 09-13-2018, 06:46 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
It's high time we had a billionaire businessman from NYC as president! It's a novel idea, and I think it would do the country good.

Last edited by John Mace; 09-13-2018 at 06:46 PM.
  #16  
Old 09-13-2018, 06:49 PM
elucidator is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,137
Bloomberg actually has that money.
  #17  
Old 09-13-2018, 07:09 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Yes, Bloomberg's wad is bigger than Trump's.
  #18  
Old 09-13-2018, 07:55 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,531
Trump's only "wad" is the booger he just pulled out of his nostril.
  #19  
Old 09-13-2018, 08:34 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
No chance the Democrats nominate anyone remotely acceptable to the NRA. They will lose some votes by pushing hard for gun control, but I think they'd lose more by not doing so.
If the dems nominated a liberal, lifelong gun proponent (they do exist) the NRA would oppose them.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #20  
Old 09-13-2018, 08:47 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
If the dems nominated a liberal, lifelong gun proponent (they do exist) the NRA would oppose them.
Just curious of who a liberal, life long gun proponent might be if they do exist. I'm coming up short...
  #21  
Old 09-13-2018, 09:21 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
Just curious of who a liberal, life long gun proponent might be if they do exist. I'm coming up short...
Bernie Sanders. At least, I think that's what Hillary said.
😀
  #22  
Old 09-13-2018, 09:37 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
So republican light is what you want?

Fuck that.

What is considered the "left wing" of the party today used to be mainstream a few decades ago. The "center" has been pushed to the right.

Seems to me Bloomberg aims to be a spoiler. He can't win but he can screw over a left candidate who would otherwise win by splitting the ticket and I suspect that is his only goal.
Bloomberg would actually know how to govern the country, which what separates him from Che Sanders.
  #23  
Old 09-13-2018, 09:41 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,078
I personally wish Bloomberg had run in 2016. He would have given Bernistas an education and they wouldn't have been able to complain that he makes money by giving speeches to Wall Street (like that was ever really an issue).
  #24  
Old 09-13-2018, 09:44 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
It's high time we had a billionaire businessman from NYC as president! It's a novel idea, and I think it would do the country good.
See, what I think is so great about this is the idea of Democrats running a very moderate, administratively-minded, very wealthy candidate with ties to Wall Street. Why didn't we think of that before?!
  #25  
Old 09-13-2018, 10:20 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,078
There's nothing wrong with being rich. The Roosevelts were rich and they were still a family of the people. The Kennedys were rich, and they were still a family of the people. If the Democratic party goes to Sanders, this whole country is fucked. I like that he's raising awareness of issues and pushing the party left, but he and his ilk are gadflies and nothing else. They couldn't turn a profit on a lemonade stand.
  #26  
Old 09-13-2018, 11:10 PM
Wesley Clark is online now
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,528
Roughly half of democratic primary voters are liberals now. Unless he can win them over, I don't see him winning a primary.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #27  
Old 09-13-2018, 11:12 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Bloomberg would actually know how to govern the country, which what separates him from Che Sanders.
You mean the guy who has been a politician for over 35 years including mayor of a (semi) major city, in the House of Representatives and a senator has no idea how to govern?

If he doesn't then who does? How does Bloomberg, in your view, have a better claim on being able to govern? (Can't wait to hear this.)
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 09-13-2018 at 11:14 PM.
  #28  
Old 09-14-2018, 06:06 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
You mean the guy who has been a politician for over 35 years including mayor of a (semi) major city, in the House of Representatives and a senator has no idea how to govern?

If he doesn't then who does? How does Bloomberg, in your view, have a better claim on being able to govern? (Can't wait to hear this.)
What major city was Sanders the mayor of?

Being the gadfly of the Senate is different from being an executive of a billion dollar empire and one of the world's largest cities that has a population larger than most American states.
  #29  
Old 09-14-2018, 06:44 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,620
Oh good. A budget-balancing entitlement-cutting deficit hawk. Exactly what people are clamoring for right now. *snooze*
  #30  
Old 09-14-2018, 07:58 AM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 16,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
Exactly what people are clamoring for right now.
That's where a lot of the problem lies. Does anybody actually know what enough people to win an election ARE clamoring for.
  #31  
Old 09-14-2018, 08:00 AM
Textual Innuendo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 486
I hear monocles and tophats are really popular with young voters now, thanks to Mr. Peanut and the monopoly guy.

Bloomberg should definitely hit the campaign wearing tophats and monocles - it will give him mad street cred, and let them know that he's "cool" and "with it."

Or it will just emphasize what a Republican-lite, DINO, card-carrying member of the 1% and corporate elite he is. But hey, either way! Our country NEEDS more 1%-er politicians who are completely out of touch with the issues affecting the middle and lower classes!

I mean, right now that's only 97% of Senators and Congressmen, and every President since Truman!

(and all but 7 others in the time prior to Truman)
  #32  
Old 09-14-2018, 08:47 AM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Being the gadfly of the Senate is different from being an executive of a billion dollar empire and one of the world's largest cities that has a population larger than most American states.
You made the claim that Bloomberg knows how to govern and implied Sanders does not despite Sanders having 35+ years in public office.

And can we ever dismiss this notion that rich people are, by virtue of being rich, ideal leaders? When has this ever proven true? Running a country is not the same thing as running a company. Exhibit A: President Trump
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 09-14-2018 at 08:48 AM.
  #33  
Old 09-14-2018, 09:26 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,422
Trump's problem is not only his management skills but he's also a total sleazeball - bashing people for no good reason, not paying contractors, cheating on wives, lying, etc. All of those things were present way before he ran for office.
  #34  
Old 09-14-2018, 10:00 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
I don't think Bloomberg would be a bad president. He'd probably be an OK one, maybe even a good one. The question is, will he be a good candidate, able to the beat the Republicans? That, I don't know, but it sure would be fun to see him go at Trump, if Trump runs again!
  #35  
Old 09-14-2018, 10:10 AM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
You made the claim that Bloomberg knows how to govern and implied Sanders does not despite Sanders having 35+ years in public office.

And can we ever dismiss this notion that rich people are, by virtue of being rich, ideal leaders? When has this ever proven true? Running a country is not the same thing as running a company. Exhibit A: President Trump
Bloomberg ran America's largest city for 12 years. Effectively. Competently. Perhaps the best mayor in that city's history. From Bloomberg L.P. through his political career, he's a proven administrator and manager. Sanders? He was mayor of Burlington (pop. 38,000) ages ago and since then he's been a senator. Senators don't govern.

What would a Sanders presidency look like? Bernie: I've got all these great ideas. This is what I want to do! Congress, both R and D: No. The end.
  #36  
Old 09-15-2018, 02:42 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,078
Being rich, in and of itself, shouldn't disqualify Bloomberg or any other rich guy for office. The Kennedys and Roosevelts were rich, and they were also generally progressives in their time. A president doesn't have to be poor; he just needs to understand the needs of the poor and be a champion for their causes.

What separates Bloomberg from other billionaires who talk about running for office - Mark Cuban, for example - is that he's demonstrated he can work with diverse constituencies and complicated politics to achieve results. He also clearly understands that running a government is not the same as running a corporation.
  #37  
Old 09-15-2018, 08:06 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textual Innuendo View Post
Our country NEEDS more 1%-er politicians who are completely out of touch with the issues affecting the middle and lower classes!

I mean, right now that's only 97% of Senators and Congressmen, and every President since Truman!

(and all but 7 others in the time prior to Truman)
Could you maybe not throw Ike and LBJ under the bus like that? Thanks!

As for Mike Bloomberg, I agree with--basically everyone but asahi?--that Bloomberg is a terrible candidate. Mike is the less charismatic Ed Koch. I daresay his record in NYC is not going to be reassuring to the folks in Cleveland, Flint, Detroit, Columbus, & Milwaukee that you actually need to volunteer for a campaign.

Last edited by foolsguinea; 09-15-2018 at 08:06 PM.
  #38  
Old 09-15-2018, 08:33 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
If having endorsed Hillary is a deal-breaker
Never said it was, only that it's more likely a bigger deal than him having been elected as a Republican.

Last edited by Skywatcher; 09-15-2018 at 08:34 PM.
  #39  
Old 09-16-2018, 01:35 AM
China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,712
Let's just run Matlock instead? Christ, Reagan was a few days short of 70 when he took office, and Trump was close to 71. Biden, Bloomberg, Warren, isn't there a democrat in their 50's? Christ, I'm pushing 60 but I really want someone in their 40's or 50's that are reasonably in touch with all generations. Trump, and to be fair this can easily be Trump specific, is stuck in an idealistic 60's or 70's view of the world (coal is good, manufacturing are jobs, etc).
  #40  
Old 09-16-2018, 07:56 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoPostie View Post
Sounds like a great choice; billionaire of inherited wealth vs. billionaire of inherited wealth. Got the real peoples' touch about it.
Bloomberg didn't inherit wealth afaik. According to wiki his dad was an accountant at a dairy company.
  #41  
Old 09-16-2018, 07:56 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
Just what we need.

Another corporatist democrat whose only distinguishing characteristic from republicans is they don't care about gay marriage and will say global warming is real although they have no plan to do anything about it.
Not only that but he is a straight up authoritarian. Is everyone forgetting stop and frisk?
  #42  
Old 11-07-2019, 05:45 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,888
Well, he's back.

Quote:
Michael Bloomberg To Announce He’s Joining The 2020 Presidential Race: Report

Billionaire businessman Michael Bloomberg is reportedly preparing to join the 2020 presidential race this week, after previously announcing that he would not run.

The former mayor of New York City is expected to file paperwork that would designate himself as a Democratic primary candidate in at least one state, Alabama, which has an early filing deadline, people familiar with the plan told The New York Times on Thursday.
  #43  
Old 11-07-2019, 05:52 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,317
Fuck
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #44  
Old 11-07-2019, 06:06 PM
Locrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Valley Village, CA
Posts: 4,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Fuck
Hang on. This may not be bad. All those voters who think rich=smart might flip to the Dem side.
  #45  
Old 11-07-2019, 06:13 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,078
Clearly a shot at Warren and Bernie's popularity. I'm just glad that some narcissistic "centrist" billionaire hasn't decided to run as an independent...yet.
  #46  
Old 11-07-2019, 06:13 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,888
Lol, in trying to stop Warren, he just immensely helped her by:

1. Showing the powerful are actually scared of her*
2. If he continues, he'll merely split the moderate "why can't things be like the 90s" voters with Biden, Buttigieg, and others, thereby helping Warren seal the nom.

Politickin' is hard.
  #47  
Old 11-07-2019, 06:18 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
Nice strategy, Bloomberg. Wait until there have already been lots of debates, and everyone has trashed each other, and others have dropped out. Then hop on in. I sez fuck off. Try again in 4 more years, dickhead. I promise not to vote for you then, either.
(Unless you somehow end up as the only one up against Trump this time. Then you've got my vote. Asshole.)

Last edited by bobot; 11-07-2019 at 06:21 PM.
  #48  
Old 11-07-2019, 06:32 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,888
Sorry...

*Bill Gates! WTF, man! I guess if the decision is between an mentally deteriorating white Supremacist in the WH vs. a hypothetical which leaves me with a mere $7,000,000,000... well, I don't know about that last, guys. I mean, America was great and all, but... just $7,000,000,000? Let me dwell on that...
  #49  
Old 11-07-2019, 06:34 PM
Wesley Clark is online now
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,528
Seeing how half of democratic primary voters want to vote for Warren or Sanders, what value will Bloomberg bring? The public are clamoring for reform.

As long as he doesn't run as an independent.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #50  
Old 11-07-2019, 06:49 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,932
There's nothing wrong with Bloomberg running as a Democrat. I have no problem with that. If he was running third party, that would be awful, but as a Democrat it's absolutely fine.
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 11-07-2019 at 06:50 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:12 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017