Dems Confront Cartoon Pete Buttigieg After Iowa Caucus

[GreatNews2night]

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.

Where there is a will, there is a way. If a biased and conservative Supreme Court wants to bring down a law establishing a wealth tax, allegedly on constitutional grounds (but actually on partisan grounds), they will find a way. There are sufficient arguments to write a face-saving opinion, even if you find them weak. I'd say that probably the right wing biased justices couldn't care less if it is weak or not. Remember, justices are nominated for life and have nothing to fear, so they can feel free to write bogus opinions to support their partisan causes without any possible retaliation. This is one of the reasons why I'd favor term limits for the Supreme Court. Sure, the idea of lifelong appointments is meant to ensure judicial independence, but an independent court has been a joke and a fantasy for a long time already (lately we've even seen confirmation hearings with the prospective justice going into a partisan rant, specifically naming the Democratic Party as the enemy, something unthinkable a couple of decades back), so what the lifetime appointment is doing, is enshrining partisan bias into a generation-long force. Not to forget, district courts are becoming more and more conservative under Trump. It is sufficient for a district court to find the law unconstitutional and strike it down, and the SCOTUS may simply refuse to hear the case, thus upholding the lower court's decision.

 

[Surrealistik]

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.

Like I said before, if it were really so easy to bribe Trump to benefit their ends, the Chinese would have done it already; again, that's a complete and utter bargain price for an unmolested path to global hegemony.

Beyond that, between Russia and China, the latter is easily and by far the greater threat, and I wouldn't underestimate the damage one can do in four years to our standing as the preeminent superpower versus a hungry up and coming rival willing to do anything it takes to supplant us.

Lastly, rewarding a plutocrat oligarch like Bloomberg with my vote, someone who has, more than Trump even, made a mockery of our electoral system (or served to expose it) as being a function of money, leaves an indelibly bad taste in my mouth. He's so obviously in this race to act as a hedge against having his taxes raised by other Dems, and the fact is almost as sickening as his refusal to acknowledge China as the brutal and oppressive totalitarian state it clearly is.

Where there is a will, there is a way. If a biased and conservative Supreme Court wants to bring down a law establishing a wealth tax, allegedly on constitutional grounds (but actually on partisan grounds), they will find a way. There are sufficient arguments to write a face-saving opinion, even if you find them weak. I'd say that probably the right wing biased justices couldn't care less if it is weak or not. Remember, justices are nominated for life and have nothing to fear, so they can feel free to write bogus opinions to support their partisan causes without any possible retaliation. This is one of the reasons why I'd favor term limits for the Supreme Court. Sure, the idea of lifelong appointments is meant to ensure judicial independence, but an independent court has been a joke and a fantasy for a long time already (lately we've even seen confirmation hearings with the prospective justice going into a partisan rant, specifically naming the Democratic Party as the enemy, something unthinkable a couple of decades back), so what the lifetime appointment is doing, is enshrining partisan bias into a generation-long force. Not to forget, district courts are becoming more and more conservative under Trump. It is sufficient for a district court to find the law unconstitutional and strike it down, and the SCOTUS may simply refuse to hear the case, thus upholding the lower court's decision.

They might be able to contort and word salad a rationale, but it would have to feature a level of willfully disingenuous dogma among the majority not seen since Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co.

I'm not saying it's not possible, but it's far from being guaranteed or in my view, even likely. Ultimately as stated, any incoming democratic POTUS should make it his priority to reform the SCOTUS in order to put a check on its ability to effect partisan verdicts.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Like I said before, if it were really so easy to bribe Trump to benefit their ends, the Chinese would have done it already; again, that's a complete and utter bargain price for an unmolested path to global hegemony.

Beyond that, between Russia and China, the latter is easily and by far the greater threat, and I wouldn't underestimate the damage one can do in four years to our standing as the preeminent superpower versus a hungry up and coming rival willing to do anything it takes to supplant us.

Lastly, rewarding a plutocrat oligarch like Bloomberg with my vote, someone who has, more than Trump even, made a mockery of our electoral system (or served to expose it) as being a function of money, leaves an indelibly bad taste in my mouth. He's so obviously in this race to act as a hedge against having his taxes raised by other Dems, and the fact is almost as sickening as his refusal to acknowledge China as the brutal and oppressive totalitarian state it clearly is.




They might be able to contort and word salad a rationale, but it would have to feature a level of willfully disingenuous dogma among the majority not seen since Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co.

I'm not saying it's not possible, but it's far from being guaranteed or in my view, even likely. Ultimately as stated, any incoming democratic POTUS should make it his priority to reform the SCOTUS in order to put a check on its ability to effect partisan verdicts.

First issue: I doubt that Bloomberg is worried about his taxes. He is the 11th richest man in the world. He's got 50 billion dollars. He is old and can't take his billions to the grave. Whatever taxes he pays will still be pocket money for him. His main concern is likely to be one of potential slowing of the economy if these high taxes come to pass.

As far as China goes, sure, they are a threat.

Second issue: I entirely agree.

 

[Surrealistik]

First issue: I doubt that Bloomberg is worried about his taxes. He is the 11th richest man in the world. He's got 50 billion dollars. He is old and can't take his billions to the grave. Whatever taxes he pays will still be pocket money for him. His main concern is likely to be one of potential slowing of the economy if these high taxes come to pass.

As far as China goes, sure, they are a threat.

Second issue: I entirely agree.

If we're talking wealth and inheritance taxes, plus substantially higher income taxes, it's definitely going to make a dent and certainly won't be 'pocket change', even for Bloomberg. The thing with billionaires and the ultra rich is that for them, money is a way of keeping score and they are habituated to the need to increase their fortune: Why Aren’t Rich People Happy With the Money They Have? - The Atlantic

 

[marke]

First it was Hillary.
Next it was Kamala.
Then it was Klobuchar.
Then Biden. Then Warren. Now Buttigieg.

Is there any Democrat running for president that you Sanders supporters won't hate? :lol:

Hillary may even find an opening to get back in herself after Bloomberg implodes.

 

[GreatNews2night]

If we're talking wealth and inheritance taxes, plus substantially higher income taxes, it's definitely going to make a dent and certainly won't be 'pocket change', even for Bloomberg. The thing with billionaires and the ultra rich is that for them, money is a way of keeping score and they are habituated to the need to increase their fortune: Why Aren’t Rich People Happy With the Money They Have? - The Atlantic

Bloomberg has said that he will continue to spend his personal money for the Dem nominee even if it is not him. He said he will support any Dem nominee since his biggest goal is to defeat Trump. It's been said that he may spend up to 1 or 2 billion of his own money in this campaign even if he is not the nominee, which is way more than what he'd have to pay in taxes even if these wealth taxes passed Congress and the courts (which, as we've discussed, is not a given even if Bernie or Warren become POTUS). Again, I doubt that Bloomberg's motivation is his personal taxes. By the way, his empire is in 69 countries, all subject to a myriad of other laws and currencies and complex ownership structures; it would be extremely complicated for the IRS to get an assessment of his total net worth to tax him.

As far as the estate "death" tax, it's already in the books. Now, if we say that Bloomberg is nearing the end of his natural life but still wants to become even more ultra-rich for the sake of his daughters, well, these two, Emma and Georgina Bloomberg, are actually very nice people who have dedicated their entirely lives primarily to philanthropy. Emma worked for 6 years for the Robin Hood Foundation, then founded an organization called Murmuration, which has the goal of improving children's education. Georgina is involved in philanthropy for humans and is a dedicated activist for animals. Both women went to very good schools and have interesting non-profit careers. I think, ideologically speaking, they wouldn't oppose more taxation to help with social programs.

Now, let's think of it. Trump has slashed taxes for the rich, more than any other president. If Bloomberg were preoccupied with his personal taxes, he'd be supporting Trump, no?

Mate, you know that I respect your opinion, but in this, I believe that you are wrong, sorry. There are other valid points to be made against Bloomberg (the China issue is impressive), but the idea that he is running (with the declared goal of defeating Trump) out of concern for his own personal taxes makes no sense, or else, he'd be spending money in ads FOR Trump, not against him.

I think he is just trying to make a real difference, in the twilight years of his life.

 

[Surrealistik]

Bloomberg has said that he will continue to spend his personal money for the Dem nominee even if it is not him. He said he will support any Dem nominee since his biggest goal is to defeat Trump. It's been said that he may spend up to 1 or 2 billion of his own money in this campaign even if he is not the nominee, which is way more than what he'd have to pay in taxes even if these wealth taxes passed Congress and the courts (which, as we've discussed, is not a given even if Bernie or Warren become POTUS). Again, I doubt that Bloomberg's motivation is his personal taxes.

As far as the estate tax, it's already in the books.

Now, let's think of it. Trump has slashed taxes for the rich, more than any other president. If Bloomberg were preocuppied with his personal taxes, he'd be supporting Trump, no?

Mate, you know that I respect your opinion, but in this, I believe that you are wrong, sorry. There are other valid points to be made against Bloomberg (the China issue is impressive), but the idea that he is running (with the declared goal of defeating Trump) out of concern for his own personal taxes makes no sense, or else, he'd be spending money in ads FOR Trump, not against him.

I think he is just trying to make a real difference, in the twilight years of his life.

To be clear, by estate taxes I mean their increase.

And yes, Bloomberg has said things, but it's hard to imagine him actually supporting Sanders in the event he won the nomination; saying and doing are two separate things entirely, and talk is cheap; doubly so in politics.

Think of it this way; if Bloomberg was really so concerned with beating Trump above all else, why did he get in the race to begin with? Why did he blow all this money on a personal campaign when all he really has to his credit is money, possessing nothing in the way of force multipliers such as likability, charisma, eloquence or even a compelling platform? Why didn't he just put his megabillions behind a candidate he thought was compelling and capable (which would basically be all of the top 5 excluding him in my view) or wait to dump his cash on the Dems after a nominee was selected? I mean the man is either utterly narcissistic and disconnected from reality to think that he would be the party's best shot at defeating Trump, or, more likely, he desperately wants a moderate to win, but has no confidence in those presently on the field to ultimately beat back Sanders and Warren and preserve his fortune from taxes that most certainly would cost him more than he intends to spend on the 2020 election and primary. There is also a third possibility in that he doesn't count on winning outright, but feels that he can pull enough Dems away to his camp to either force a brokered convention or, worst case scenario, run third party to derail Sanders/Warren in the event they get the nomination as a nuclear option.

I do think he doesn't care for Trump's managerial style, and it is his ardent preference that a moderate win over him, but he seems more than fine with President Cheeto's coddling of the ultrarich, and given the choice between a progressive and Trump, I have little doubt he would either back the latter, or deny the Democratic party his resources.

 

[Phys251]

Hillary may even find an opening to get back in herself after Bloomberg implodes.

She will not be running. Nice try.

 

[GreatNews2night]

To be clear, by estate taxes I mean their increase.

And yes, Bloomberg has said things, but it's hard to imagine him actually supporting Sanders in the event he won the nomination; saying and doing are two separate things entirely, and talk is cheap; doubly so in politics.

Think of it this way; if Bloomberg was really so concerned with beating Trump above all else, why did he get in the race to begin with? Why did he blow all this money on a personal campaign when all he really has to his credit is money, possessing nothing in the way of force multipliers such as likability, charisma, eloquence or even a compelling platform? Why didn't he just put his megabillions behind a candidate he thought was compelling and capable (which would basically be all of the top 5 excluding him in my view) or wait to dump his cash on the Dems after a nominee was selected? I mean the man is either utterly narcissistic and disconnected from reality to think that he would be the party's best shot at defeating Trump, or, more likely, he desperately wants a moderate to win, but has no confidence in those presently on the field to ultimately beat back Sanders and Warren and preserve his fortune from taxes that most certainly would cost him more than he intends to spend on the 2020 election and primary. There is also a third possibility in that he doesn't count on winning outright, but feels that he can pull enough Dems away to his camp to either force a brokered convention or, worst case scenario, run third party to derail Sanders/Warren in the event they get the nomination as a nuclear option.

I do think he doesn't care for Trump's managerial style, and it is his ardent preference that a moderate win over him, but he seems more than fine with President Cheeto's coddling of the ultrarich, and given the choice between a progressive and Trump, I have little doubt he would either back the latter, or deny the Democratic party his resources.

Again, why do all this effort to defeat the president who has slashed taxes for the rich and the corporations the most, if his preoccupation is his personal taxes?

Now you are moving the goal posts - narcissism, moderate ideology, dislike of Trump's style, etc. Sure, maybe that's what moves him. My post was in contrary to your idea that it's his personal taxes.

Like you said about a nuclear option, if what moves him is his personal taxes then it's sufficient that Trump wins, and if he then wanted to ensure this outcome, it would be sufficient for him to launch an independent candidacy with a leftist platform, to siphon out the votes of whoever the Dems nominated so that Trump would win. Maybe there's not even a need for that. Trump is the incumbent, and frankly, the favorite. If Bloomberg only wanted lower taxes therefore Trump would do, then Bloomberg wouldn't even need to run; it would be sufficient to throw 2 billion dollars into the Trump campaign. He could start a PAC and be flooding the airwaves with pro-Trump ads and attack ads against the Dems.

Have you noticed that ALL Bloomberg ads are against Trump, and that he has sponsored no attack ads whatsoever against any of the Dem candidates? Again, what you are saying doesn't match the action we've seen, so far.

I'm not discounting any of the other reasons. When I say, to make a real difference in his twilight, that's a narcissistic goal. What I'm discounting is exclusively the idea that he is doing it to lower taxes.

By the way, I added some bits to the post you quoted, after you quoted it, especially regarding Bloomberg's daughters.

 

[Surrealistik]

Again, why do all this effort to defeat the president who has slashed taxes for the rich and the corporations the most, if his preoccupation is his personal taxes?

Now you are moving the goal posts - narcissism, moderate ideology, dislike of Trump's style, etc. Sure, maybe that's what moves him. My post was in contrary to your idea that it's his personal taxes.

Like you said, if what moves him is his personal taxes then it's sufficient that Trump wins, and if he then wanted to ensure this outcome, it would be sufficient for him to launch an independent candidacy with a leftist platform, to siphon out the votes of whoever the Dems nominated so that Trump would win. Maybe there's not even a need for that. Trump is the incumbent, and frankly, the favorite. If Bloomberg only wanted lower taxes therefore Trump would do, then Bloomberg wouldn't even need to run; it would be sufficient to throw 2 billion dollars into the Trump campaign. He could start a PAC and be flooding the airwaves with pro-Trump ads and attack ads against the Dems.

Have you noticed that ALL Bloomberg ads are against Trump, and that he has sponsored no attack ads whatsoever against any of the Dem candidates? Again, what you are saying doesn't match the action we've seen, so far.

I'm not discounting any of the other reasons. When I say, to make a real difference in his twilight, that's a narcissistic goal. What I'm discounting is exclusively the idea that he is doing it to lower taxes.

By the way, I added some bits to the post you quoted, after you quoted it, especially regarding Bloomberg's daughters.

I will freely admit his motives are more complex than simply sheltering his wealth from taxes; it's hyperbole to say that's all Bloomberg is about, so fair enough.

But protecting that wealth definitely appears to be one of his most seminal goals; like I said, I think he genuinely despises Trump and wants to see him turfed, but I wholly doubt Bloomberg would prefer a progressive to him: ultimately if it came down to a progressive nominee against Trump, I find it difficult to see the latter interest superseding the former, and again, nothing explains his entry into the primary save delusional narcissism that he stands above the field by his own merits (which is definitely not something I want to see in a president to be sure) or a deficit in confidence that the moderate candidates can stop a Warren or Sanders nomination (or both, in that the alternative is to give a moderate his backing).

Further, I can't say I'm terribly persuaded by the idea that Bloomberg's daughters in any way would preclude or undermine selfish motives on Bloomberg's part; they're not the same people, and besides, maybe his daughters, like many ultrawealthy people, thrill at playing god, and specifically deciding who and on what terms the plebeians should benefit from their beneficence, rather than have the tax man and government take their credit and spotlight?

I think the only thing that really gives me pause as to my judgement on Bloomberg's motives is his lack of attack ads against Bernie and Warren, but I'm uncertain if this means he wants to make sure Dems will win regardless of who they nominate, or he simply feels such would backfire on him, or would merely serve to further galvanize and motivate Sanders' base, and gain the candidate sympathy as have other disingenuous attacks leveled against Bernie in the past.

 

[GreatNews2night]

I will freely admit his motives are more complex than simply sheltering his wealth from taxes; it's hyperbole to say that's all Bloomberg is about, so fair enough.

But protecting that wealth definitely appears to be one of his most seminal goals; like I said, I think he genuinely despises Trump and wants to see him turfed, but I wholly doubt Bloomberg would prefer a progressive to him: ultimately if it came down to a progressive nominee against Trump, I find it difficult to see the latter interest superseding the former, and again, nothing explains his entry into the primary save delusional narcissism that he stands above the field by his own merits (which is definitely not something I want to see in a president to be sure) or a deficit in confidence that the moderate candidates can stop a Warren or Sanders nomination (or both, in that the alternative is to give a moderate his backing).

Further, I can't say I'm terribly persuaded by the idea that Bloomberg's daughters in any way would preclude or undermine selfish motives on Bloomberg's part; they're not the same people, and besides, maybe his daughters, like many ultrawealthy people, thrill at playing god, and specifically deciding who and on what terms the plebeians should benefit from their beneficence, rather than have the tax man and government take their credit and spotlight?

I think the only thing that really gives me pause as to my judgement on Bloomberg's motives is his lack of attack ads against Bernie and Warren, but I'm uncertain if this means he wants to make sure Dems will win regardless of who they nominate, or he simply feels such would backfire on him, or would merely serve to further galvanize and motivate Sanders' base, and gain the candidate sympathy as have other disingenuous attacks leveled against Bernie in the past.

Sure, but what if these are actually good people, his daughters, and the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, and even in the presence of the Dems attacking him (Sanders and Warren have started attacking him in the last debate, and Biden too) he hasn't counter-attacked them; that's kind of noble; can't you give him the benefit of the doubt and think that maybe he is well-intentioned after all?

I don't eliminate the possibility that Bloomberg's motive are purer than those of most billionaires. I always thought of him as not the worst one of the bunch. I like Bill Gates too. These are billionaires who are strong in philanthropy. I used to live in New York City and I used to like Bloomberg as the mayor. Refreshing change from Giuliani whom I always hated even when everybody was applauding him.

Now, sure, he is narcissistic, but who isn't? Bernie is, by the way. I think that there is no such thing as a politician who isn't a narcissist, or else the exceptions are a handful. Even Mahatma Gandhi was a narcissist. Maybe Mandela wasn't. But these are exceptional, rare human beings. Most politicians are narcissists. So, don't be so offended that Bloomberg at one point decided that the others are not as good as he thinks he is, and decided to jump in.

I mean, one of the worst points of Sanders is his narcissism. It will likely prevent him from inviting Warren to be his veep. I wonder if he will pick his veep well, or will do like Hillary, picking a veep that is bland, to make darn sure that he is seen as the big boss of the ticket.

So, if you are such a fan of a narcissist, why do you blame Bloomberg so much for having the same trait?

i see another advantage in Bloomberg - he is kind of immune to Trump's usual line of attack. Trump touts himself as this stable genius and great businessman and negotiator, and the only one who understands the economy. Bloomberg, 18 times richer than him, and much more self-made, and much more knowledgeable about finances, robs this argument from Trump.

If Trump in debates says to Bloomberg "mini-Mike" to taunt him for his diminutive height, Bloomberg can just say, "I'm mini but I'm 18 times more successful than you are." Can you imagine Trump's face when hearing that? LOL - I'm almost tempted to vote for Bloomberg just to see that (of course I still think he has no chance to win the nomination and my vote wouldn't change it, but you get my point).

 

[Surrealistik]

Sure, but what if these are actually good people, his daughters, and the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, and even in the presence of the Dems attacking him (Sanders and Warren have started attacking him in the last debate, and Biden too) he hasn't counter-attacked them; that's kind of noble; can't you give him the benefit of the doubt and think that maybe he is well-intentioned after all?

I don't eliminate the possibility that Bloomberg's motive are purer than those of most billionaires. I always thought of him as not the worst one of the bunch. I like Bill Gates too. These are billionaires who are strong in philanthropy. I used to live in New York City and I used to like Bloomberg as the mayor. Refreshing change from Giuliani whom I always hated even when everybody was applauding him.

Now, sure, he is narcissistic, but who isn't? Bernie is, by the way. I think that there is no such thing as a politician who isn't a narcissist, or else the exceptions are a handful. Even Mahatma Gandhi was a narcissist. Maybe Mandela wasn't. But these are exceptional, rare human beings. Most politicians are narcissists. So, don't be so offended that Bloomberg at one point decided that the others are not as good as he thinks he is, and decided to jump in.

I mean, one of the worst points of Sanders is his narcissism. It will likely prevent him from inviting Warren to be his veep. I wonder if he will pick his veep well, or will do like Hillary, picking a veep that is bland, to make darn sure that he is seen as the big boss of the ticket.

So, if you are such a fan of a narcissist, why do you blame Bloomberg so much for having the same trait?

i see another advantage in Bloomberg - he is kind of immune to Trump's usual line of attack. Trump touts himself as this stable genius and great businessman and negotiator, and the only one who understands the economy. Bloomberg, 18 times richer than him, and much more self-made, and much more knowledgeable about finances, robs this argument from Trump.

If Trump in debates says to Bloomberg "mini-Mike" to taunt him for his diminutive height, Bloomberg can just say, "I'm mini but I'm 18 times more successful than you are." Can you imagine Trump's face when hearing that? LOL - I'm almost tempted to vote for Bloomberg just to see that (of course I still think he has no chance to win the nomination and my vote wouldn't change it, but you get my point).

I don't think of Sanders as a narcissist; a narcissist wouldn't have waited to see whether Warren was running in 2016 before getting into the race with seeming reluctance; a narcissist wouldn't make his campaign tagline: 'Not me, us' as juxtaposed against Hillary's obnoxious 'I'm with her'; a narcissist would have claimed victory in Iowa before any of the results were in as Buttigieg did; and would, as a businessman with no political experience whatsoever, deem himself capable of doing what at least 5 other politicos, each more compelling than him, cannot, as per Bloomberg. Granted, I'm a Sanders man to my core, but narcissism repels me utterly, and I don't see it about him whatsoever. I think it's clear he only got involved in 2016 as a last resort because he knew Clinton was a disaster and the progressive voice he hoped would run in Warren ultimately chose not to; he ran again in 2020 because he legitimately feels, and with just cause, that he is the best shot the FDR wing has of regaining its voice, especially given the enduring foundation and movement he built.

As to Bloomberg, the man knows how to make money clearly, but on macroeconomic matters he's offensively ignorant, willfully or otherwise: the dude actually thinks, contrary to all available evidence, that poor minorities and government coercion are responsible for the 2007-8 crisis as opposed to irresponsible bank executives exploding risk with derivatives, unscrupulous mortgage brokers issuing NINJA loans, and amoral banks packaging and selling off these **** mortgages they misrepresented, including to their own clients, and had corrupt credit rating agencies misrepresent as triple A product. Utterly disgusting and inexcusable: Michael Bloomberg Blamed End of '''Redlining''' for 2008 Financial Collapse | Time

Between this, China, his blatantly racist views ( This should disqualify Michael Bloomberg (opinion) - CNN ) , his self-identification as a 'fiscal conservative' and his stated distaste for taxes, and historic support of tax cuts ( Michael Bloomberg - Wikipedia ) I find it exceedingly difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[marke]

She will not be running. Nice try.

If she cannot run, maybe someone can carry her.

 

[Phys251]

If she cannot run, maybe someone can carry her.

Why are you so obsessed with Hillary? Do you have a need to "beat" her again? :lol:

 

[marke]

Why are you so obsessed with Hillary? Do you have a need to "beat" her again? :lol:

I hope she does manage to get back in in 2020. I think she needs to be beaten again. I just hope democrat voter fraud does not steal the election from Trump this time.

 

[Phys251]

I hope she does manage to get back in in 2020. I think she needs to be beaten again.

So, yes, you do have a need to "beat" her again. Exactly as I suggested.