Dems Confront Cartoon Pete Buttigieg After Iowa Caucus

[3leftsdoo]

That's exactly what y'all, Trump, and Putin want. It would have never been an issue had we just rallied around Hillary. :shrug:

Rallying around Hillary = What destroyed the Democrat Party

And they STILL don't get it...

:donkeyfla

 

[3leftsdoo]

Don't play the #notallsanderssupporters game with me. It's a phenomenon that's real and present. Now go read Post #6.

2020 Democrats = Trying to do even MORE damage to their party than they did in 2016

 

[DarkWizard12]

Bernie Bros are determined to give us four more years of an ever-increasing fascist nation.

You could just vote for bernie. It's not like he's worse than all the other democrats. If bernie bros want him so badly, you could hardly do better than placating them.

 

[3leftsdoo]

Enjoy the rest of your regressive political life under the thumb of fascist republicans.

The same to you.

It worked in 2016 when Democrats supported Vampire Queen Hillary, so why stop self-destructing now?

:thumbs:

 

[3leftsdoo]

And then you guys proceeded to lose so maybe those instincts to rally around a moderate aren't exactly so great, are they?

Moderate?

Hillary???

She's about as moderate as Genghis Khan.

That's why Cheney & Kissinger LOVE her.

 

[3leftsdoo]

You actually think you are funny and smart, huh?

Only because he is.

 

[3leftsdoo]

Criticism of the DNC and others you disagree with isn't negative. It's healthy.

For Putin!!!!

And Trump!!!!!

A vote for Bernie = LITERALLY Hitler

:donkeyfla

 

[3leftsdoo]

"gormless centrists"??? LOL
Yep, very healthy criticism...
It's partially this in-fighting that made us lose in 2016, and it will make us lose in 2020 too.

Why Democrats lost in 2016 = They embraced Vampire Queen Hillary & attacked anyone who didn't

2020?

Rinse & repeat with Wall Street Pete/Lyin' Lizzie Warren

:donkeyfla

 

[3leftsdoo]

You’d think the corporate-hack wing of the Democratic party would show some humility after giving us 4 years of Trump.

2020 Democrat strategy = Double down on what failed in 2016

:donkeyfla

 

[GreatNews2night]

My greater fear is the longer we continue with the existing, obviously dysfunctional system as it is, the more calcified, entrenched and unaffordable it will become, along with the possibility of being a source of eventual social instability and upheaval.



Yes, it would be difficult, and the only way we are going to pass this (and anything else) is if we control the House, Senate and presidency. One of the primary advantages of SP is it outrights eliminates much of this needless, expensive and excessive complexity, and all but eliminates private health insurance as a toxic lobby that prioritizes their profits over the healthcare and well-being of Americans, and tirelessly works to pervert our governance to these ends. Stuffing the courts FDR style might be necessary in light of the conservative blight infesting it. It's high time we dispense with any silly and ridiculous notions of the Supreme Court being above the political fray, and recognize it as the football it clearly is and has always been.



That we're doing so poorly per this metric speaks to the critical need to minimize and eliminate the cost barriers to medical education and accreditation, and entice doctors from abroad to live and work here; clearly pay is not the problem, so much as the other obstacles.



Well I mean, it's not free; they've paid into it all their lives. Cumulatively Medicaid and Medicare are rather large indeed.

Second, one of the benefits of phasing in the expansion of Medicaid over a period of years is to get the appropriate infrastructure and methodologies in place to enable Medicare to properly administer the increased number of enrolled, and to see what works and what doesn't in real time and in the context of real conditions.

I'll tell you what, I feel that you are convincing me. Maybe it is high time to give it a try to SP in this country regardless of the difficulties. I think I predict more problems than you do, but we can't get an omelette without breaking the eggs. I lived in Europe for 5 years and I do like what I saw there in terms of healthcare (and I consumed it for me, my wife, and my son; all three of us ran into serious medical problems there and we were very well assisted and we made full recoveries, I'm thankful to them for that, and I didn't spend a dime beyond the taxes that I paid which, yes, were high, but we had the feeling that they were put to good use).

Haha, speed it up, my friend. Early voting in my state is coming up, and if you keep it up, with your strong argumentation, I may end up voting for Bernie in the primaries after all; if it happens, you'd deserve a prize as one of the most proficient debaters in the history of DP... Remember how I was virulent against Bernie? You and a couple of others made me change my attitude, and now, the biggest obstacle for me regarding supporting him in the primaries, M4A, is starting to appear under a different light, so, pushing me to vote for Bernie is not entirely out of reach.

This should serve as a lesson to some Bernie fans. It is possible to change the mind of even a committed anti-Bernie person, but it is done with sound and civil argumentation like you're able to put together, not with insults, conspiracy theories, and contemptuous arrogance like we see so often among some other Bernie fans.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Trump's going to win anyway - we both agree on this.

So Democrats can:

A) Continue alienating people by embracing reptiles like Wall Street Pete & Lyin' Lizzie

B) At least PRETEND that a decent candidate like Crazy 2020 Bernie is someone whose values they support

The problem?

Liberals are WILDLY conservative.

They don't want Bernie because he's a decent social democrat.

Liberals who oppose Bernie should just vote for Trump - it's more honest.

:thumbs:

I'm starting to see your point. I never thought I would, but I can sense that I'm slowly changing my mind on this. See my latest reply to Surrealistik above.

 

[joko104]

I'll tell you what, I feel that you are convincing me. Maybe it is high time to give it a try to SP in this country regardless of the difficulties. I think I predict more problems than you do, but we can't get an omelette without breaking the eggs. I lived in Europe for 5 years and I do like what I saw there in terms of healthcare (and I consumed it for me, my wife, and my son; all three of us ran into serious medical problems there and we were very well assisted and we made full recoveries, I'm thankful to them for that, and I didn't spend a dime beyond the taxes that I paid which, yes, were high, but we had the feeling that they were put to good use).

Haha, speed it up, my friend. Early voting in my state is coming up, and if you keep it up, with your strong argumentation, I may end up voting for Bernie in the primaries after all; if it happens, you'd deserve a prize as one of the most proficient debaters in the history of DP... Remember how I was virulent against Bernie? You and a couple of others made me change my attitude, and now, the biggest obstacle for me regarding supporting him in the primaries, M4A, is starting to appear under a different light, so, pushing me to vote for Bernie is not entirely out of reach.

This should serve as a lesson to some Bernie fans. It is possible to change the mind of even a committed anti-Bernie person, but it is done with sound and civil argumentation like you're able to put together, not with insults, conspiracy theories, and contemptuous arrogance like we see so often among some other Bernie fans.

Ron Paulite trolls tried this same tactic of "talking each other into voting for Paul." You're fooling no one. And, like with Ron Paul, after a few weeks of this people who were indifferent to Paul came to despise him - because they came to despise Paul's internet trolls.

Is your favorite promise of Sanders his promise that people are going to lose their jobs if he is elected?

 

[GreatNews2night]

Yes, it would be difficult, and the only way we are going to pass this (and anything else) is if we control the House, Senate and presidency. One of the primary advantages of SP is it outrights eliminates much of this needless, expensive and excessive complexity, and all but eliminates private health insurance as a toxic lobby that prioritizes their profits over the healthcare and well-being of Americans, and tirelessly works to pervert our governance to these ends. Stuffing the courts FDR style might be necessary in light of the conservative blight infesting it. It's high time we dispense with any silly and ridiculous notions of the Supreme Court being above the political fray, and recognize it as the football it clearly is and has always been.
.

OK, I looked at your source for a discussion on European wealth taxes. I had previously seen another one (it would be hard for me to find it) talking about 18 countries cancelling them and 4 keeping them. Your source talks about 12 that had them in 1990 and 4 keeping them. I guess my source (which didn't list the countries) either analyzed a longer time span or included other countries in Europe but outside the EU.

Anyway, your article does confirm that it all backfired in the majority of countries. France lost twice as much revenue as it collected. Germany cancelled it through their Supreme Court finding it unconstitutional to treat differently a cast of people (the same challenge that is likely to happen here).

I explored a link in your article with more details on the four countries that kept them - Spain, Norway, Switzerland, and Belgium. Even though they set the threshold much lower than Bernie and Warren propose, they still didn't make much money from these taxes: Spain, 0.55% of their revenue; Norway, 1.1%, Belgium, too early to gauge (it's been done recently, probably triggered by the fact that lots of rich people moved from France to Belgium to avoid French taxes, so Belgium decided to cash in, with a tiny tax on the rich that started in 2019), and the only country with a bit of more success on this was Switzerland which collected 3.6% of their revenue this way - but then, as a banking haven, Switzerland has other advantages for the rich who are less likely to flee them; it's a quite unique case, and they had these taxes since 1840. It seems like everywhere else, it either didn't work (even decreasing the revenue) or added a negligible amount to the treasury.

So your main objection to what I was saying is that it wasn't just capital flight but other reasons too, such as administrative costs, and like the article says, too many exemptions and loopholes, too many difficulties to gauge the true value of assets, and constitutional challenges.

So maybe I was partially mistaken about the reason for the failure, but see, the reason doesn't really matter. What matters is that it failed, extensively, almost everywhere, and for several reasons, so why exactly do we think that it will happen in America, especially in a political environment where the courts are very conservative and partisan, and lobbies are such that according to a Stanford University study, decisions in Congress are influenced by corporate lobbies at a rate of 99.5% while only 0.5% of decisions have the people's interest at heart?

We'd see loopholes, exemptions, and challenges here too. And regarding the United States, your article says:

"For progressives to invest their energy in a proposal that the Supreme Court has better than a 50% chance of declaring unconstitutional, that has very little chance of passing through the Congress, whose revenue potential is extraordinarily in doubt... it seems to me to potentially sacrifice an immense opportunity," said former Treasury secretary Larry Summers at a Peterson Institute panel on inequality last month in Washington. Tax experts also say it could also prove difficult to appraise a financial value onto what a person owns.

So, the bottom line is, regardless of the reasons which are many, this kind of thing is unlikely to work. If so, then tell me, how in the hell will we pay for all the programs that Warren and Sanders want to implement?

So, again, like the physician per capita issue, you posted a link that seems to support my position more than yours.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Ron Paulite trolls tried this same tactic of "talking each other into voting for Paul." You're fooling no one. And, like with Ron Paul, after a few weeks of this people who were indifferent to Paul came to despise him - because they came to despise Paul's internet trolls.

Is your favorite promise of Sanders his promise that people are going to lose their jobs if he is elected?

Uh, what? Sorry. I often feel that your posts make little sense. Listening to *you* is very unlikely to change my mind in anything (if this is even your intention; it probably isn't, and if it is, the hidden agenda would have to be questioned because you're no left-leaning poster). Actually I can tell you upfront: it won't (most of your posts contain what I feel are conspiracy theories). So maybe you should leave it to Surrealistik who has a much bigger chance of getting heard by me.

 

[Surrealistik]

OK, I looked at your source for a discussion on European wealth taxes. I had previously seen another one (it would be hard for me to find it) talking about 18 countries cancelling them and 4 keeping them. Your source talks about 12 that had them in 1990 and 4 keeping them. I guess my source (which didn't list the countries) either analyzed a longer time span or included other countries in Europe but outside the EU.

Anyway, your article does confirm that it all backfired in the majority of countries. France lost twice as much revenue as it collected. Germany cancelled it through their Supreme Court finding it unconstitutional to treat differently a cast of people (the same challenge that is likely to happen here).

I explored a link in your article with more details on the four countries that kept them - Spain, Norway, Switzerland, and Belgium. Even though they set the threshold much lower than Bernie and Warren propose, they still didn't make much money from these taxes: Spain, 0.55% of their revenue; Norway, 1.1%, Belgium, too early to gauge (it's been done recently, probably triggered by the fact that lots of rich people moved from France to Belgium to avoid French taxes, so Belgium decided to cash in, with a tiny tax on the rich that started in 2019), and the only country with a bit of more success on this was Switzerland which collected 3.6% of their revenue this way - but then, as a banking haven, Switzerland has other advantages for the rich who are less likely to flee them; it's a quite unique case, and they had these taxes since 1840. It seems like everywhere else, it either didn't work (even decreasing the revenue) or added a negligible amount to the treasury.

So your main objection to what I was saying is that it wasn't just capital flight but other reasons too, such as administrative costs, and like the article says, too many exemptions and loopholes, too many difficulties to gauge the true value of assets, and constitutional challenges.

So maybe I was partially mistaken about the reason for the failure, but see, the reason doesn't really matter. What matters is that it failed, extensively, almost everywhere, and for several reasons, so why exactly do we think that it will happen in America, especially in a political environment where the courts are very conservative and partisan, and lobbies are such that according to a Stanford University study, decisions in Congress are influenced by corporate lobbies at a rate of 99.5% while only 0.5% of decisions have the people's interest at heart?

We'd see loopholes, exemptions, and challenges here too. And regarding the United States, your article says:

So, the bottom line is, regardless of the reasons which are many, this kind of thing is unlikely to work. If so, then tell me, how in the hell will we pay for all the programs that Warren and Sanders want to implement?

So, again, like the physician per capita issue, you posted a link that seems to support my position more than yours.

To be clear, France didn't 'lose twice as much revenue as it collected'; that is the opinion of a single Adam Smith idolizing right leaning economist, Éric Pichet.

The key takeaways are that:

A: Wealth taxes didn't fail due to capital flight or because they represented a net drag on the economy, which is the primary fiction pushed by the right, so much as administrative cost and complexity and flawed structures that facilitated minimization/evasion; in otherwords, it is a failure of implementation and execution, not a fundamental failure of concept, and this is a substantial difference and distinction.

B: There are ways to structure wealth taxes that do not succumb to the same issues: How Elizabeth Warren'''s wealth tax would work | CBC News

Further, it should be noted that wealth taxes are only responsible for funding a portion of core progressive policies.

 

[3leftsdoo]

I'll tell you what, I feel that you are convincing me. Maybe it is high time to give it a try to SP in this country regardless of the difficulties. I think I predict more problems than you do, but we can't get an omelette without breaking the eggs. I lived in Europe for 5 years and I do like what I saw there in terms of healthcare (and I consumed it for me, my wife, and my son; all three of us ran into serious medical problems there and we were very well assisted and we made full recoveries, I'm thankful to them for that, and I didn't spend a dime beyond the taxes that I paid which, yes, were high, but we had the feeling that they were put to good use).

Haha, speed it up, my friend. Early voting in my state is coming up, and if you keep it up, with your strong argumentation, I may end up voting for Bernie in the primaries after all; if it happens, you'd deserve a prize as one of the most proficient debaters in the history of DP... Remember how I was virulent against Bernie? You and a couple of others made me change my attitude, and now, the biggest obstacle for me regarding supporting him in the primaries, M4A, is starting to appear under a different light, so, pushing me to vote for Bernie is not entirely out of reach.

This should serve as a lesson to some Bernie fans. It is possible to change the mind of even a committed anti-Bernie person, but it is done with sound and civil argumentation like you're able to put together, not with insults, conspiracy theories, and contemptuous arrogance like we see so often among some other Bernie fans.

Surrealistik can continue supplying sound argumentation, and I'll keep up with the contemptuous arrogance.

From each according to their skill!

 

[Surrealistik]

I'll tell you what, I feel that you are convincing me. Maybe it is high time to give it a try to SP in this country regardless of the difficulties. I think I predict more problems than you do, but we can't get an omelette without breaking the eggs. I lived in Europe for 5 years and I do like what I saw there in terms of healthcare (and I consumed it for me, my wife, and my son; all three of us ran into serious medical problems there and we were very well assisted and we made full recoveries, I'm thankful to them for that, and I didn't spend a dime beyond the taxes that I paid which, yes, were high, but we had the feeling that they were put to good use).

Haha, speed it up, my friend. Early voting in my state is coming up, and if you keep it up, with your strong argumentation, I may end up voting for Bernie in the primaries after all; if it happens, you'd deserve a prize as one of the most proficient debaters in the history of DP... Remember how I was virulent against Bernie? You and a couple of others made me change my attitude, and now, the biggest obstacle for me regarding supporting him in the primaries, M4A, is starting to appear under a different light, so, pushing me to vote for Bernie is not entirely out of reach.

This should serve as a lesson to some Bernie fans. It is possible to change the mind of even a committed anti-Bernie person, but it is done with sound and civil argumentation like you're able to put together, not with insults, conspiracy theories, and contemptuous arrogance like we see so often among some other Bernie fans.

I meant to respond to this post earlier but forgot.

Regarding MFA and other major projects, never forget that FDR proved such things are possible, so long as the political will and public appetite are there, and I very much believe they are. However, I don't think just anyone could manage to enact them, and buck the corrupting influence of Washington and its army of lobbyists, but I legitimately feel that Bernie can; that he's one of those once in a life time politicians that can make such things happen, having both the compelling moral clarity and imperative drive to do so.

I do appreciate that the effort I've expended has amounted to something meaningful here; to be honest, I do it partly out of love of debate, but I also enjoy informing and edifying, as well as the overall exercise of critical thinking. Indeed, sometimes my own biases and conclusions are challenged, or I end up acquiring a new vantage, learning something as a consequence of exchanges here and knowledge gained/research done as a result of such, and I'm glad that I was able to provide that sort of experience for you.

I'm going to be honest, when I first met you, and I'm sure the feeling is probably mutual (lol), I thought you would turn out to be someone like Phys or Linc, but I have been very pleasantly surprised since.

I agree that a return to form in terms of calm and reasoned debate is the way to go, and should be what we strive for here; it is difficult to learn, improve and persuade while in the grip of blind anger, whether you support Bernie, Bloomberg, Buttigieg or otherwise. However, I certainly understand emotions running hot, particularly these days when politics are more divisive and heated than ever, both intra and interparty, and ad hominem, deflections and pejorative are the first and last resort of so many among supporters of all stripes. I've definitely lost my cool a few times on these forums, but I do try to rein in my feelings as best as possible in favour of a level head, as the results are always better.

 

[GreatNews2night]

To be clear, France didn't 'lose twice as much revenue as it collected'; that is the opinion of a single Adam Smith idolizing right leaning economist, Éric Pichet.

The key takeaways are that:

A: Wealth taxes didn't fail due to capital flight or because they represented a net drag on the economy, which is the primary fiction pushed by the right, so much as administrative cost and complexity and flawed structures that facilitated minimization/evasion; in otherwords, it is a failure of implementation and execution, not a fundamental failure of concept, and this is a substantial difference and distinction.

B: There are ways to structure wealth taxes that do not succumb to the same issues: How Elizabeth Warren'''s wealth tax would work | CBC News

Further, it should be noted that wealth taxes are only responsible for funding a portion of core progressive policies.

Sure, but this part - "in a proposal that the Supreme Court has better than a 50% chance of declaring unconstitutional" - which happened in Germany too according to your source, is a major obstacle for us, here, no? And then, the better than 50% part might even be generous, especially if soon enough Ginsburg croaks and Trump sticks another conservative justice in the Supreme Court.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Surrealistik can continue supplying sound argumentation, and I'll keep up with the contemptuous arrogance.

From each according to their skill!

The crazy thing is, I'm warming up to you too... At one point I was teasing you with counting how many posts you'd publish with one-liners, remember? Now I'm kind of appreciating your dry humor.

 

[GreatNews2night]

B: There are ways to structure wealth taxes that do not succumb to the same issues: How Elizabeth Warren'''s wealth tax would work | CBC News

Fascinating, but from a link inside your article, I got this:

Being a cynical bastard I have to wonder whether the billionaires are proposing a tax that the Supreme Court may bail them out from having to pay to keep progressives from enacting other measures that would be more effective like having their interest in publically traded securities marked to market or simply stronger enforcement.

Wealth Tax - That Pesky Constitution Might Get In The Way

The bottom line is, while there are strong arguments and precedent to consider the wealth tax constitutional, there are also strong arguments to the contrary, so it will obviously boil down to what the *current* SCOTUS will say (since if the conservative justices - who are in the majority - want to shut it down, they will have plenty of ammunition to do so when writing up their opinions, regardless of their liberal colleagues writing up dissent opinions based on the other good arguments for it), and frankly, I think the SCOTUS will side with the 1% rather than with the people. 75% chance. 99% if Ginsburg dies and Trump gets another conservative justice there.

 

[GreatNews2night]

I meant to respond to this post earlier but forgot.

Regarding MFA and other major projects, never forget that FDR proved such things are possible, so long as the political will and public appetite are there, and I very much believe they are. However, I don't think just anyone could manage to enact them, and buck the corrupting influence of Washington and its army of lobbyists, but I legitimately feel that Bernie can; that he's one of those once in a life time politicians that can make such things happen, having both the compelling moral clarity and imperative drive to do so.

I do appreciate that the effort I've expended has amounted to something meaningful here; to be honest, I do it partly out of love of debate, but I also enjoy informing and edifying, as well as the overall exercise of critical thinking. Indeed, sometimes my own biases and conclusions are challenged, or I end up acquiring a new vantage, learning something as a consequence of exchanges here and knowledge gained/research done as a result of such, and I'm glad that I was able to provide that sort of experience for you.

I'm going to be honest, when I first met you, and I'm sure the feeling is probably mutual (lol), I thought you would turn out to be someone like Phys or Linc, but I have been very pleasantly surprised since.

I agree that a return to form in terms of calm and reasoned debate is the way to go, and should be what we strive for here; it is difficult to learn, improve and persuade while in the grip of blind anger, whether you support Bernie, Bloomberg, Buttigieg or otherwise. However, I certainly understand emotions running hot, particularly these days when politics are more divisive and heated than ever, both intra and interparty, and ad hominem, deflections and pejorative are the first and last resort of so many among supporters of all stripes. I've definitely lost my cool a few times on these forums, but I do try to rein in my feelings as best as possible in favour of a level head, as the results are always better.

Fantastic post, thank you. And yes, we started by clashing, so it was mutual, LOL, but fortunately, we turned it into a civil conversation, in which you earned my respect.

 

[Surrealistik]

Fascinating, but from a link inside your article, I got this:



Wealth Tax - That Pesky Constitution Might Get In The Way

The bottom line is, while there are strong arguments and precedent to consider the wealth tax constitutional, there are also strong arguments to the contrary, so it will obviously boil down to what the *current* SCOTUS will say (since if the conservative justices - who are in the majority - want to shut it down, they will have plenty of ammunition to do so when writing up their opinions, regardless of their liberal colleagues writing up dissent opinions based on the other good arguments for it), and frankly, I think the SCOTUS will side with the 1% rather than with the people. 75% chance. 99% if Ginsburg dies and Trump gets another conservative justice there.

Overall the case against seems pretty weak to be honest, even while trying to take up the Devil's Advocate position here, I struggle to identify a reasonable line of argumentation that would exclude its constitutionality altogether.

Generally I agree with the analysis of the American Bar, particularly given precedent handling estate taxes: A Wealth Tax Is Constitutional

Either way though, clear cut or not, as I said, the SCOTUS is in bad need of a stuffing/overhaul, since there will likely be other constitutional challenges beyond this one.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Either way though, clear cut or not, as I said, the SCOTUS is in bad need of a stuffing/overhaul, since there will likely be other constitutional challenges beyond this one.

Agreed. First, we need to win the election for this to happen. Like I've always said, this is the most compelling argument to vote the lesser of two evils even if one's preferred candidate doesn't make it. This is the most important thing for Bernie fans to understand. Even if they feel that their candidate was unfairly bumped out (which I don't believe; sure, the DNC may have preferences but I doubt it's the systematic rigging they suspect) they still must vote for the Dem nominee so that the courts get fixed, otherwise they will suffer for a generation from conservative decisions handed down by all levels of federal courts.

 

[Surrealistik]

Agreed. First, we need to win the election for this to happen. Like I've always said, this is the most compelling argument to vote the lesser of two evils even if one's preferred candidate doesn't make it. This is the most important thing for Bernie fans to understand. Even if they feel that their candidate was unfairly bumped out (which I don't believe; sure, the DNC may have preferences but I doubt it's the systematic rigging they suspect) they still must vote for the Dem nominee so that the courts get fixed, otherwise they will suffer for a generation from conservative decisions handed down by all levels of federal courts.

Of course. I don't know if I can bring myself to vote for Bloomberg though to be brutally honest; again, I simply cannot countenance or abide a Manchurian Candidate in the White House.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Of course. I don't know if I can bring myself to vote for Bloomberg though to be brutally honest; again, I simply cannot countenance or abide a Manchurian Candidate in the White House.

While Bloomberg may be a Manchurian Candidate for China, there is no doubt that Trump is a Manchurian Candidate for Russia. I don't know which one is worse. Maybe China is worse than Russia. But one compelling reason to vote for Bloomberg is that he doesn't have a crime family threatening to perpetuate power in the White House like a mafia boss. Can you imagine 4 more years of Trump followed by 8 more years of Ivanka and 8 more years of Don Jr.? Bloomberg is still more ethical than Trump, and would nominate better justices and judges.

Sure, the gap narrows as far as the lesser of two evils goes, but still, there is nobody, truly nobody worse than Trump. So, my choice is clear; I'd still vote for Bloomberg against Trump. Bloomberg is old and wants to have another hurrah, another blast of glory before he dies. Maybe he'll stay there for four years. China will get some more contracts and some better trade deals than they would otherwise get with a different president. But at least, the Trump Crime Family would be out of the White House.

And there is no guarantee that Trump won't abandon the anti-China rhetoric in a second if Xi offers him some lucrative Trump Hotel deals in several large Chinese cities. Remember his sudden change of heart to favor a Chinese tech company and cancel the sanctions imposed on it by the Department of Commerce and the Department of State (for spying) under the very lame excuse that sanctioning this company would hurt the job market in China (huh? Since when is Trump's alleged America First policy concerned about jobs in China???), and then a week later China announced a 500 million dollar investment in an Indonesian touristic complex project that includes... a Trump resort?

Trump is the Manchurian Candidate of the highest bidder. He won't hesitate in throwing America under the bus if it favors his own business. His potential for damaging America's interests is much bigger than Bloomberg's.