Texas Directive To Physicians And Family Or Surrogates: Fill & Download for Free

First of all Hillary's lead of about 300 in the superdelegates is not locked in until the convention. They are basically people who are either currently in government or in the party and this is what they have pledged to do but they can change their mind at the convention. Also you're talking about 300 approximately out of over 4000 delegates.Se was devastated in New Hampshire. To lose to him by 22 points and she lost in every demographic including women by 10 points was stunning to that campaign. I have worked on countless congressional, gubernatorial and presidential campaigns and I can guarantee you that put them into a panic mode going into South Carolina. They didn't expect to win but based on Bill Clinton's surprising second-place showing there in 1992 and her good performance there in 2008 date thought winning was A longshot but an actual possibility. There is no way they thought they would lose by more than 10 points. I can guarantee you.Look, Iowa was a tie. And caucuses are such a screwed up way to the vote to begin with, I think she even hurt herself by proclaiming such a victory after Iowa like she had just won the presidency. I don't know if you understand how caucuses work. Almost no one does and I only do because this was my profession. It would take me forever to try to explain it to you and it's really not worth learning. She basically beat him by 0.2% because of maybe 50 –100 people who conferenced and compromised. Also, young people, where he has an insane advantage, something I have never seen in 30 years and politics where he is leaving her anywhere from 40 to 45 points among 18–29-year-olds. And caucuses take hours to participate in. I'm not talking about waiting hours on line, i'm talking about the actual process, that's how ridiculous it is. And truthfully, the use vote in this country has always been very low and to get them to try to participate in a caucus let alone a simple vote was extremely difficult. I was actually happy as a supporter of his with the Iowa turnout. I just hope that that minuscule percentage that she won by doesn't later turn out to be something that she did in 2008 naming the states she won. In reality she did not win Iowa, it was a tie.I'm much more fearful of her funding from the supra packs. And he really needs the young border turnout. He has excited a huge bass of young people with this campaign and is the first person in history, wish the media does not make nearly as much a deal out of it as they should, who is running a legitimate campaign with absolutely no corporate donors. Except for possibly Trump, and I don't really know what his deal is with PACs. And while I am mentioning him, although I despise him, especially since I'm from New York and corrupt with him on the front of the tabloids every other day, and he has completely changed his opinion on every major issue, and that he is A blatant racist and I'm not talking about the comments he's made during the campaign. He's been bigoted against almost every racial group his entire life. And also since he never actually says how much money he has but the estimate seems to be about $3 billion and how he lauds that figure as to what a great businessman he is, he was bequeathed $40 million, tax-free from his father Fred when he died in 1974. If he had simply put that money in an index fund, like the S&P, not even a mutual fund or specific stocks, it would be worth about $3 billion today, if the dividends reinvested. So in 40 years he performed as a businessman exactly how a very conservative stockmarket meter performed. But I mentioned him to mention Ted Cruz who I think will get the nomination. Cruise is far more dangerous than him, because he's extremely intelligent and yet comes across in a much more appealing manner. I'm telling you, metaphorically if you could unzip Ted Cruz you would find Satan inside. Yes I'm a liberal Democrat but I have known numerous Republicans over my lifetime who I greatly respected. With this Republican field there isn't a whole lot to respect. John Kasich I guess would be my choice.His father, Ted Cruz's, also has a Normas influence and does his own campaigning for his son, like when he was running for Senate for the first time from Texas and other offices before that, where he blatantly lies to the audience. Many of this can be seen on YouTube videos.Cruz hated the decision by SCOTUS approving Obamacare or would people forget is the actual name which is the affordable healthcare act. What's interesting is that the Republicans like to point out that slightly more than half of Americans don't like the law. What they don't tell you is that in the people who disapprove of it, when that number is dissected, about 20% of the ones who don't approve thought it wasn't liberal enough! So if you include the people who approve of the affordable healthcare act along with those who want it to even go further as far as socialized medicine, it's clearly the majority of American people. I don't think The law went clearly far enough, but I think it was the only thing he could get through Congress at the time. I am totally with Bernie Bernie, just remove the words age 65 and over from the Medicare law so we can be like the rest of the world which is civilized. I have a great friend in Toronto and a great friend in the UK and I have asked them numerous times about what their healthcare is like because the media here, particularly Fox if you can call them media, Cherry picks the stories in the headlines of Canadian and European newspapers of Aquisse here and to case there where someone died while waiting for treatments or someone was permanently disabled because of poor treatment, meanwhile 20,000 people in the United States die every year because they don't have access to healthcare.These two friends when they look at the American system, cringe. Yes, there are lines for elective procedures and surgeries but anything that is critical or urgent, you see the doctor you want that day. And you don't pay a nickel for any treatment or drugs. Well £5.55 for any prescription in the UK no matter what the drug or how many pills which is about nine dollars US. And in Canada it's completely free. It was interesting the last debate where Marco Rubio, was really embarrassed when Chris Christie pointed out his memorized robotic line about Obama, said how do United States didn't want to be like Sweden, I think he said, in regard to socialized medicine. Why the hell not? Do you know the United States is one number above Cuba at 33rd with Life expectancy? Cuba is 34th. Every European country and Canada are in the top 15 or 20. And this can all be paid for without increasing any of our taxes one cent and simply increasing the marginal tax rate on millionaires and billionaires by 1 to 2%. Look at what the billionaire say, like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. They are asking for this!So back to Hillary and her superdelegates. First of all, I'm disgusted as a Democrat that she has 90% of them pledged to her only because of who she is and because it was assumed that she could win, the superdelegates wanted to be sure they were on her good side and pledged early from the beginning their vote for her, without even looking into Bernie Bernie who has been ahead of every major social issue in this country by about 25 years and the rest of the party.Hilary I guarantee you has committed dozens of federal and state crimes. She has been either too smart to be caught and/or had the power to have all of these countless investigations going back to 1992 quashed. One way that Bernie can overcome those delegates is for everyone to go to YouTube and search for the: 13 minutes of Hillary Clinton lying. She did not publicly come out for game marriage until two years ago! Meanwhile, Sanders when mayor of Burlington in the mid-1980s gave an official proclamation to the LGBT Community and marched in their parade. If you think Hillary would've done something like that in the 1980s when AIDS was completely laid at their doorstep, you're out of your mind. He has consistently throughout his entire life done what you thought to be right regardless of the political consequences. Do you really think you can say the same thing about her? She acts as if her vote authorizing the Iraqi war and the patriot act were just "mistakes." She has apologized and we should move on. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was probably the biggest mistake in this country's history. Responsible for over 1 million innocent Iraqi deaths. Millions more injured and displaced from their homes. The cost of $800 billion which is still growing and was supposed to be repaid to us through a wreck he oil revenues. We still have not gotten sick from that. That's what Dick Cheney told us.And when speaking about Dick Cheney (BTW, Cheney, bush and other bushing ministration officials will not travel outside of the United States for fear of arrest and extradition to the Hague to be tried by the ICC for war crimes, genocide and torture. About a month ago, Bush Junior canceled a long planned trip to Switzerland claiming a scheduling conflict Mei didn't fact he was warned by a high-ranking Swiss government official that he wrist the likelihood of being arrested there. The mayor of London told Butch the same thing within the last year or two. It's almost become ceremonially famous that ex-president's travel the world after they are out of office). Cheney had achieved some level of success in Washington, most notably when he was forwards Chief of Staff for two years between 1975 and 77. But then he went back to his home state of Wyoming with a population of about 37, where there truly are more guns than people and successfully ran for the house seat at large from there six times. A house seat at large means that the population of the state is so small that it normally wouldn't even qualify for one member of the house but since it has to have at least one, it's given the one house eat while they still have two senators. This is true in a few of states, where there are actually more senators in the state then House members. Members of the House and the Senate from those states are running statewide campaigns. Anyone from a somewhat populous state would have a hard time even imagining how their local congressman would be running a State wide race for their congressional seat, like the governor or their senators would. Anyway, the man who shoots his friend in the face while VP and has survived 37 heart attacks, seemed relegated to continue his career as a very unimportant member of the House.When Bush Senior made his nomination for secretary of defense in 1989, who was John Tower, A Republican US senator from Texas for approximately 24 years, he saw active combat during World War II, was in the military for approximately 40 years, headed the famous Tower Commission which investigated the Iran – Contra scandal, amongst many other accomplishments was the first cabinet nominee by the president of the United States to not be confirmed by the Senate in over 30 years. He lost a very close vote of 53–47, with three Democrats breaking ranks and voting for him and to Republicans breaking ranks and voting against him. The reasons were purely superficial and basically involves allegations of alcohol and womanizing. No one realized it at the time, but that defeat of confirmation by the Senate would wind up changing world history. Busch needed to come up with a back up nominee and according to the New York Times reporting on the day after the vote, this is what they said:"A number of names were circulating as the most likely prospects. These included former Representative Jack Edwards of Alabama; Donald H. Rumsfeld, a Defense Secretary in the Ford Administration; Norman Augustine of the Martin Marietta Corporation, the aerospace manufacturer, and Senator William S. Cohen of Maine. Brent Scowcroft, Mr. Bush's national security adviser, was also mentioned, but today he said he had no interest in the job."As you see, of the four people mentioned, Dick Cheney was not one of them. And Cohen, a Republican, who Clinton shows as his defense secretary despite being a Republican was an outstanding secretary of defense. And Rumsfeld later have the lovely distinction of being both the youngest and oldest secretary of the fence in US history. But if the Senate had simply confirmed Tower, which in retrospect if they realized what the resulting fallout was going to be I can guarantee you he would've been confirmed 100–0, even if there was proof that he was a serial murderer. Somehow, push decided on Cheney, who only had five deferments during the draft during the Vietnam war (A real role model to be the highest ranking civilian officer of the United States military, I guess second to the president is commander-in-chief is not actually a rank).Cheney was confirms, not because he really had any actual qualifications for the position but since there were no scandals and since the Senate did not want to not confirm bushes second choice, he was confirmed and became secretary of defense in 1989. At the time it seemed like a very minor political nomination. It would actually result in ramifications that we in the world are still feeling to this day and suffering from to this day.Wh'sen Saddam Hussein (BTW, this is another minor thing that I have never understood. Why every president since Bush Senior has referred to him by his first name is beyond all of my understanding and nobody has explained it to me to any satisfaction. It would not only be inappropriate and completely against excepted protocol for the US president to be for her to the leader of one of our closest allies by his first name. Imagine President Obama referring to Prime Minister David Cameron as Dave or prime minister Pierre Trudeau of Canada as Pierre, but when you were talking about the dictator of an adversarial country it is even more stunning. Can you imagine FDR or Truman referring to Hitler as Adolf? It would be unimaginable. It would be unimaginable this day and age if Obama for example on Veterans Day, commemorating recently the 60th anniversary of the invasion of Normandy, referred to Hitler, one of the greatest adversaries in American history and someone who was the description of pure evil, as Adolf?) invaded the minuscule Gulf nation of Kuwait, and by the way at the time referred to as "Hitler revisited" do United States suddenly determined that this was a gross outrage and we had to form a multi national coalition to stop this incredible violation of Kuwait sovereignty and The behavior of the Iraqi military. There were two reasons bush initiated that enormous military conflicts. First, to help remove the image the American public had of him of being a wimp and hurting his chances for reelection in 1992, which obviously did not succeed and because this was the Middle East and any displacement or change of power in that region, even with a very small state searches Kuwait, is important to us not for the reason publicly stated which was that we needed to come to the defense of this tiny country. It had absolutely nothing to do with that. And I can't believe there are people who still think that when even today the government and mitts that we have engaged in military conflicts strictly over oil. So the other very large region why we got involved in that or, the first Gulf War, would never have happened if not for Kuwait being a very wealthy, and oil rich country. Never mind the fact that Saddam Hussein basically until the day of the invasion and was our ally during the eight-year war during the 1980s between Iraq and Iran over a minor border dispute (at least that was the pretext that was given by Iraq which was I'm sure fictitious) which resulted in 1 million dead on both sides and in the end nothing resolved. A war that was overshadowed in the 1980s by the end of the Cold War, the fall of the Berlin war, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which that war was desperately in need of US and coalition intervention but instead we had congressman Charlie Wilson, and Charlie Wilson's war with Tom Hanks which very accurately portrayed exactly how United States helped defend these four people getting slaughtered in Afghanistan. We were so afraid of communism developing in Vietnam and possibly then spreading throughout Southeast Asia that we commended 14 years to it and lost over 50,000 American lives, yet when the Soviet Union directly invaded a large sovereign country, completely unprovoked yet there was no public outcry or outreach from the United States government or anything done to assist these purely defenseless Afghani's. The movie with Tom Hanks, Charlie Wilson's war, quite accurately describes our involvement in that carnage of the Afghans by the USSR and even then how we would not allow our fingerprints in any way to be on the limited aid we eventually gave Afghanistan to help defend itself. What did we do publicly? The boycott the 1980 Olympics in Moscow. Whoa! What a courageous political decision that was.Byit is under 40%. Reagan of course who I will detract again from the question and would like to say how I am still completely baffled as to why he is this great hero of conservatives when he gave amnesty to 3 million illegals, cut and ran from Beirut after more than 250 Marines were murdered there, illegally negotiated with her ran to get hostages in return for giving them access to very high level and sophisticated weapons, did not mention the word AIDS in public until 30,000 Americans had died and that was only after six years since the disease was first discovered and only after being urged fervently by Nancy and his personal physician as well as the surgeon general who was in utter disbelief as to how little Reagan paid attention to the illness and how little he cared about it yet incredibly stated that very first time in front of a group of physicians, "AIDS is like an emergency room operation. We are throwing everything we possibly can into solving the problem." Yet he used fuzzy math when asked to explain actually how much funding was being spent on this when in reality it was literally a couple of millions of dollars but blatantly lied to the media when he said "several hundred million a year."What the NIH or CDC spend annually on paperclips. There's a great movie, by the way, based on a book called and the band played on which shows the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s and clearly takes a lot of shots at Reagan for his complete abandonment of trying to do anything to stop this, the worst public health nightmare in recent history. But of course because it was gays and IV drug users who are dying originally, these people were obviously subhuman so why did a President elected by the moral majority care? I have no doubt that if he attacks this with the real emergency room operation or Manhattan project, the triple cocktail of drugs that were eventually discovered would've been discovered years earlier and millions of people would have been saved. He also raised taxes, something that was unthinkable for his conservative base, after the Greenspan commission determined that Social Security was going to be out of money within that year, and numerous other things that I'm trying not to diverge too far away from here original question. But he did raise taxes seven times and taxes were for hire under Reagan then any Democratic president since him. The marginal tax rate was over 70% where under Clinton it was about 36%.If the US government was so afraid of communism spreading, which it never did even after the internal (meaning none of our damn business) governmental decision of Vietnam, who won that war and became a communist nation we have full diplomatic relations with today and is not at all considered an enemy, why did we ignore for all intents and purposes the USSR directly invading a sovereign nation, Afghanistan, and only wound up helping them purely covertly as Charlie Wilson's War with Tom Hanks accurately depicts?But back to Dick Cheney and the Gulf War in 1991. I think I explained the real reasons for that war which were political, to rid this appearance that Bush was not "tough" to use the military and because Kuwait was an oil rich nation. But the idea to put the lives of American men and women military to help ensure a political real action goes beyond basically the worst thing morally and American president could ever do.Bush Sr. did do one thing right in that "96 hour war" which went against what many neocons wanted at the time which was to go into Baghdad and kill or displace Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government. He rightfully stated that by getting rid of Saddam Hussein, it would leave a huge power vacuum in a very large Arab nation in the most unstable area in the world, the Middle East. They had achieved their objective of removing all Iraqi forces from the state of Kuwait and that was their stated objective. Well everyone knows what wound up happening and that when his son had the very first excuse to go to war with Iraq, this time it was not going to be some quick, drive-by endeavor, but literally aattempt to get Saddam Hussein's head on a plate. And what is even more disgraceful is that one of the reasons Butch had decided within hours of 9/11 that he was going to invade Iraq and used the attack of our country as the Nexus, One of the things he decided from the day he was sworn in after that rediculous fraudulent election victory in 2000, I believe is that he already had Saddam Hussein on his kill radar because of the alleged attempts on his father's life when he visited the country of Kuwait in 1993. Incredibly, he was willing to risk countless American and Iraqi lives to settle a personal vendetta.T'his is why it cannot be understood as much how vital to the history of the world that Senator Tower fell three votes shy of being confirmed as secretary of defense which led to Cheney getting the job. And because of the subsequent Gulf War, there were three names involved in that war that became household names afterwards. Cheney, general Norman Schwarzkopf Jr., and General Colin Powell. That Cheney is even mentioned in the same sentence as the other two is an embarrassment, but unfortunately the political reality and a man who even his closest friends and family readily admit is a very difficult man to become friendly with, was that Dick Cheney was now a very popular and very well-liked national figure. The fact that Bush Senior took that invasion of Kuwait by Iraq seriously and talk to the public about it like it was some major military out rage, while annexes of land a lot for your than the size of Kuwait occurs regularly in Africa and other parts of the world but is never even reported, Cheney was now appearing on CNN every day and was considered One of the key masterminds to that victory that an intelligent high school student could have led a plan to victory.So my diversion as over and I will get back to superdelegates. The Gulf War anointed Janie to godlike status and that led to Bush initially asking him to look for a VP candidate and then basically chose himself in 2000, which led to Cheney being the de facto president of the United States for eight years in which we had the longest and second longest wars in the history of the United States, both on declared, spent over $1.5 trillion and counting on those two failed missions, Lost 7000 American servicemen and killed over 1.5 million innocent people, not to mention Chaneys "enhanced interrogation which Sarah Palin called our way of baptizing them which was waterboarding. Trump recently said that waterboarding did not go nearly far enough and he would do much much worse. I guess you never knew that we are signatories to the Geneva Convention. Wilson's bush and company did not seem to care about that either, why would Trump?South Carolina in Nevada are very critical. If cinders can narrow this national league of only seven points which is truly stunning that with a race that is almost completely grassroots he has been able to turn this primary which a year ago Hillary had been basically anointed already as the Democratic candidate and now she is truly worried and should be that Sanders has been gaining on her nonstop for months. Three months ago she still have a 28 point National lead. Six months ago it was 41 points. So if it's seven now, if that rate continues it should be a matter of weeks before Sanders is ahead. This is what Hillary has used her husband as a surrogate to go after Bernie with negative attacks.In their first debate when Bernie was questioned about the emails and the scandal over that with Hillary and the investigation, he was incredibly statesmanlike and said he sick of hearing about emails and let's discuss what's important to the American people. I don't think I've ever seen that in American politics in my lifetime. Where someone running for office, the highest office in the land, refused to use a political tactic that but it's completely fair game to question her about it has been shown that she has certainly lied numerous times regarding this whole issue, yet with that first question from that first debate singes made it clear he did not want to discuss emails and if that doesn't show with this man and this character are truly about that nothing will. Unlike her he will not do anything to win. And made that quite clear by deciding very early on that he would not except one cent in corporate donations while she has received many millions and it will continue to grow. Just this week $5 million more was added to her Super PAC.There is an underlying basic tenant in American politics, particularly presidential elections, which must be understood. Women vote at a greater rate than men and are more Democrats than Republicans, percentagewise. This means that going back to at least 1960, with JFK, without women voting there would never have been a Democratic president in the last 55 years. This is why Hillary was so confident early on even when Bernie was showing some games because we had made history eight years ago by electing our first black president and didn't now seeing that we were suited to make history again by electing the first female president. And since as I said, women are more likely to be Democrats then Republicans. Not more likely, of all registered voters amongst women, there is a noticeable gap in the number that are Democrats compared to the number that are Republicans. I can give you our data because it fluctuates annually or even within a given year. But it is always at least a 10% gap. So Hillery was in and out standing position with trying to at least get the democratic nomination. But stated above Democrats are partial to women and women are partial to being Democrats and here is a woman who probably more than any other woman in the past, at least the Democrats, has seemed to be as qualified to be president as any woman before her. Are your ago, I guess when you could say the primary campaigning unofficially began, she had more money than she knew what to do with and and and was supply from where that came from. Her only real opponent was a socialist, self about and proud of it, and at that time was polling in the single digits. I guarantee you early on she was paying more attention to the Republican primary and she and her advisers were trying to dissect which Republican candidate that she would be most likely to be. I also think that whoever they determined that person to be, among the ones of the initial 14 that seems to have a reasonable chance to get the nomination, they funneled millions to his campaign as that would only work a hard vantage if they could help get the candidate that she was most likely to be victorious against, to win the Republican primary. I think now she's a little more concerned and attentive to her own primary.Hillary's sureness that she had no real Democratic challenger only underlines her lifelong believe that she is more qualified than anyone. If you want to get a fervent Hillary supporter to stammer simply ask that person if they could name three major accomplishments of hers in decades of public service. I bet you'll have trouble getting one. And she has admitted that her time as First Lady is fair game because she was the first first lady to be given her own office and large staff in the White House, to be paid a salary as well as her staff, and what's regularly involved in high-level to Mestic and foreign policy discussions with the president along with high ranking cabinet members, his Chief of Staff, National security advisor, and a few others. From what I have heard she was in more high-level meetings and even the vice President, Al Gore.Hillary early on, even though she did not think this would turn into their race it has secured the pledge of those superdelegates to make it seem even more apparent that she was the heir apparent to the nomination, almost that she deserved it at this point, never mind the little things like the actual primary voters.If you remember back to 2008 in that very grueling primary she had against Barack Obama, she had a very difficult time conceding what was obvious to everyone, that she had no way to secure enough delegates to get the nomination yet she could not bring herself to concede what was obviously inevitable. She went into that primary also thinking that she was going to win it. Not as shortly as this one as she was facing Obama, a very serious challenger who is extremely intelligent, and the fact that he was black gave him among Democratic voters I think in advantage. Democrats at that point I think had no problem to general having the next president be either black or a woman. And I don't think it really fit in to why they voted the way they did. Except for the 13% of this country which are black of which is 90% of them are Democrats. For the first time in history it was a chance that the president of United States could be an African-American. This was something that transcended all demographics and even though it would also be historic to elect a woman to the office, I think a lot of Democrats saw it as a greater and more important bridge to be crossed to finally elect a president of the United States who is black.So back to the delegates go before there were any primaries all she could do was lobby superdelegates to pledge their support to her. And she did that, both to have those votes, which can be changed, but also I think to intimidate anyone who might challenge her, that she clearly had 95% of the establishment of the Democratic Party. I guess in this case, it was fortunate that Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat and I think the fact that he is been an independent which many former Democrats have become as they have been disenchanted and burnt by Republican – Democratic politics and saw Democrats who they would always support just based on their party, wind up disappointing them many times. Either through personal scandals or showing complete this loyalty to the ideology of the party and being a progressive or liberal.mThe election I was involved in last ironically reminds me of the most of this one. I was working as the chief of staff to a New York City councilman at City Hall in 2008. Three days a week we would be at City Hall, in the council chamber, voting on legislation and other legislative functions. The rest of the time we would be in the offices at 250 Broadway across the street.New York City has term limits which was done by a referendum in two consecutive years where the voters overwhelmingly voted for term limits. Both boats were similar, and were something close to 85–15, in favor of term limits. This included term limits for all New York City elected politicians. There are 51 city council members, which was increased from 35 about 15–20 years ago, and those members are voted on by the constituency in their particular district. NYC is also heavily Democratic. When I was working there, 48 of the 51 members were Democrats. So basically if the Council Speaker or president depending on which label they use, who is one of the 51 members, decides to introduce a bill, it is extremely likely it will pass overwhelmingly. I used the label it the Street Naming Council because so many of our bills and so much of our time was still with the naming of parks and streets. I tried desperately to get the councilman who I was working for to introduce important legislation for the city which I had thought of and was very well received by the rest of his staff, by my friends and family lived in the city, by the every day person on the street, etc. Yet he was very committed to his Brooklyn constituency and was what we called either a pothole councilman or pothole congressman, which is not entirely derogatory. It really just means that they focus more on the actual date today problems of their constituents instead of the ones who focus on legislation which can make the whole city better. A pothole councilman will literally get revolved with having a pothole fixed ASAP, on a street in his district. A legislative councilman will focus much more on introducing legislation that will help the whole city and leaves the matters of problems like that in the district to his staff in his district office.The councilman I was working for as his Chief of Staff I found very disappointing because he would not introduce any of my legislative ideas. I couldn't understand why because they were so well received by everybody on his staff, by members of Congress, of the state legislature and as I said earlier by so many people that I knew who lived in the city.This was supposed to be Bloomberg's last year before the election in 2009 where there would be the vote for a new mayor. The elected positions that term limits applied to addition to the 51 city council members was the New York City comptroller, the New York City public advocate and the New York City Mayor. As I said these term limits were done by public referendum and put into the New York City charter which was the de facto constitution of the city of New York. I always assumed that the city charter could not be changed with the bill because it was in fact the constitution of the city and as most people are aware you cannot amend the constitution with a bill. That is why constitutional amendments are so difficult to achieve because they usually require two thirds of both the House and the Senate and 35 state legislatures. A very overwhelming proposition. Yet, if you remember, this was a period in US history where we were going through our worst financial nightmare since the Great Depression and many if not most economies were predicting that was going to happen. And while we never quite had that crash, the economic situation was horrible for several years. This was of course the year that Obama beat Hillary and he was given such a financial hole to start with, that it took him years to literally dig out of what Bush had left for him. But then he kept getting blames that after year in office he had to start taking responsibility for the economy himself now, he could not just keep passing it off to Bush and his heavily faulty programs. But I remember following that very closely and I don't remember him saying anything like this. Democratic pundits would lay the blame in 2010 for example at what push left Obama but I never remember Obama passing their responsibility off of himself.So into thousand eight, because of the financial crisis which I guess was headquartered in Wall Street in New York City, Bloomberg who was a very successful businessman announce that if you could run for a third term he would love to because he had the wherewithal and business knowledge to turn New York City around very quickly. Now clearly he could've done that with a physician and see government such as thecomptroller or some other appointed position or non-paying position. But he decided the only way he could be heard and his financial genius could turn the city around was if you were somehow able to get a third term in direct violation of his eight year limit as mayor. Eventually his self praise of being a financial genius was heard by the New York City electorate and there started to be some who believed we would be better off if he could be in office for another full four-year term. Of course I strongly believe that if you did have an insight that could fruit valuable he did not have to be mayor to help the city he supposedly cared so much about. In addition and more importantly, I believe that the power he had during those eight years, turned out to be very important to him and he was not in a hurry to relinquish them so he tried to come up with a legitimate argument to how the term limit law should not apply to him because these were extenuating circumstances. Again whenever he was asked why he needed to be mayor for an entire extra four-year term in clear violation of the city charter, and could not give his knowledge and advice through a position in city government instead, was completely ignored.Despite as I pointed out earlier the overwhelming super majority of New Yorkers who wanted the mayor's turn to be limited to two terms, he spent enough time campaigning for himself and a one time only third term because of this very unique financial catastrophe we were in started to actually resonate with people. No to this day, most legal experts including myself believe this was a Gross miscarriage of justice and law. The charter which was the constitution could not be amended by a bill. It was that simple. And to amend it would require a referendum by the people of the city in two consecutive election cycles which clearly he did not have the time to wait for. And it would probably have been very unlikely that the voters of New York would've changed 180° on this position. Now the speaker of the council, in New York City it's a unicameral legislature, like Nebraska which is the only state that has only one body, unlike Congress and the other 49 states which have two bodies in the legislature. So in the New York City Council once the 51 members vote on a bill passes, it goes to the mayor for his signature to become law.