Michael Bloomberg on not running

Imagine a mainstream Republican saying anything like this! I mean REALLY, he sounds downright intelligent.
The Risk I Will Not Take (truncated here)
Michael Bloomburg.
Over the course of American history, both parties have tended to nominate presidential candidates who stay close to and build from the center. But that tradition may be breaking down. Extremism is on the march, and unless we stop it, our problems at home and abroad will grow worse.
. . . . Many Americans are understandably dismayed by this, and I share their concerns. The leading Democratic candidates have attacked policies that spurred growth and opportunity under President Bill Clinton – support for trade, charter schools, deficit reduction and the financial sector. Meanwhile, the leading Republican candidates have attacked policies that spurred growth and opportunity under President Ronald Reagan, including immigration reform, compromise on taxes and entitlement reform, and support for bipartisan budgets. Both presidents were problem-solvers, not ideological purists. And both moved the country forward in important ways.
Over the last several months, many Americans have urged me to run for president as an independent, and some who don’t like the current candidates have said it is my patriotic duty to do so. I appreciate their appeals, and I have given the question serious consideration. The deadline to answer it is now, because of ballot access requirements. . . .
. . .As the race stands now, with Republicans in charge of both Houses, there is a good chance that my candidacy could lead to the election of Donald Trump or Senator Ted Cruz. That is not a risk I can take in good conscience.
I have known Mr. Trump casually for many years, and we have always been on friendly terms. I even agreed to appear on “The Apprentice" – twice. But he has run the most divisive and demagogic presidential campaign I can remember, preying on people’s prejudices and fears. Abraham Lincoln, the father of the Republican Party, appealed to our “better angels." Trump appeals to our worst impulses.
Threatening to bar foreign Muslims from entering the country is a direct assault on two of the core values that gave rise to our nation: religious tolerance and the separation of church and state. Attacking and promising to deport millions of Mexicans, feigning ignorance of white supremacists, and threatening China and Japan with a trade war are all dangerously wrong, too. These moves would divide us at home and compromise our moral leadership around the world. The end result would be to embolden our enemies, threaten the security of our allies, and put our own men and women in uniform at greater risk.
Senator Cruz’s pandering on immigration may lack Trump’s rhetorical excess, but it is no less extreme. His refusal to oppose banning foreigners based on their religion may be less bombastic than Trump’s position, but it is no less divisive.
We cannot “make America great again" by turning our backs on the values that made us the world’s greatest nation in the first place. I love our country too much to play a role in electing a candidate who would weaken our unity and darken our future – and so I will not enter the race for president of the United States.
However, nor will I stay silent about the threat that partisan extremism poses to our nation. I am not ready to endorse any candidate, but I will continue urging all voters to reject divisive appeals and demanding that candidates offer intelligent, specific and realistic ideas for bridging divides, solving problems, and giving us the honest and capable government we deserve.
For most Americans, citizenship requires little more than paying taxes. But many have given their lives to defend our nation – and all of us have an obligation as voters to stand up on behalf of ideas and principles that, as Lincoln said, represent “the last best hope of earth." I hope and pray I’m doing that.
Read the whole article here:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-07/the-2016-election-risk-that-michael-bloomberg-won-t-take
It’s worth reading.

My husband, who is no fan of Hillary Clinton, added this:
Implicitly, he is resigning himself to Clinton. Interesting, and astute, that as a Republican he thinks her less bad than Trump or Cruz, and that he correctly assesses Cruz as as bad ( in my view worse) than Trump.
But oh how has it come to this pass: that a talented centrist like Bloomberg, even with his billions, cannot run, while the contenders are the two ( or three) most despicable presidential candidates that the country has ever spat up? ( Well, Nixon runs Clinton close, but they’re pretty much clones). If the rigged big money system cannot allow Bloomberg to oust Trump, it proves that money is not the only thing that has destroyed American democracy. The American people have done it.
There was a survey done recently ( you can see it on Mother Jones, November 2014) about which developed country has the most stupid people. America was second. Italy was first. From La Stampa, asking if Americans will really elect an ignorant clown: " Italians did. Our version of Trump was Berlusconi. Yet while he was buffoonish and crass, he at least had a real economic policy and more gravitas than his American imitator. Both men started out in construction and moved to TV, but while Trump merely starred in a reality show, Berlusconi bought three networks. Trump’s fortune, according to Forbes, is a mere $4.1 billion to Berlusconi’s $7.4 billion. While Trump dallied with a minor sport, professional wrestling, Berlusconi bought AC Milan, one of the world’s great soccer teams. The two share an undeserved vanity, an unnaturally orange skin tone, a penchant for hair plugs, and a fondness for pretty girls. Still, while Trump has boasted about his many affairs with married women, at least he was never prosecuted, like a Berlusconi, for sleeping with an underage belly dancer".
The difference, though, is that Italy doesn’t matter whereas the US president can launch nuclear weapons.

A third party candidate cannot win in our current political system, unless they were able to win more of the electoral college than the Dems and Repubs combined, (an outright majority of the electoral college). A third party candidate could win a plurality by a lot, and still would not get the Presidency, because the Congress would decide the election, when there was no majority win. (And the Congress is made up of Dems and Repubs.)

A third party candidate cannot win in our current political system, unless they were able to win more of the electoral college than the Dems and Repubs combined, (an outright majority of the electoral college). A third party candidate could win a plurality by a lot, and still would not get the Presidency, because the Congress would decide the election, when there was no majority win. (And the Congress is made up of Dems and Repubs.)
That's exactly why he saId he wouldn't run. ". . .As the race stands now, with Republicans in charge of both Houses, there is a good chance that my candidacy could lead to the election of Donald Trump or Senator Ted Cruz. That is not a risk I can take in good conscience." I wish he would have run for the Republican nomination, but it's too late now. If he had run Republicans would have a choice to nominate a reasonable and intelligent person. As it stands now there is no choice. Not one reasonable or intelligent person is running on the Republican ticket.