You wrote "Trump is clearly the most disgraceful embarrassment of a president in my lifetime"

What in your mind rates such a denouncement? The economy has roared back to life after eight years of the doldrums under President Obama and the Democrats. Trump has been slashing regulations, building a border wall, renegotiating trade deals which were to our detriment, and even proposed a pretty workable deal for peace in the Middle East. I agree that there is still a lingering issue with the budget deficit, but point out that all spending bills must originate in the House so criticism of the President for government spending is only partial at best.

You say that he's an authoritarian, yet he hasn't decided to arbitrarily allow millions of illegals to stay in our nation with the swipe of a pen. He hasn't arbitrarily signed away our sovereignty - without the consent of the Senate - in a climate treaty which didn't address the issues. He hasn't sent billions of dollars to state sponsors of terror. He hasn't wasted billions of dollars of taxes on "shovel-ready projects that weren't so shovel-ready." He hasn't arbitrarily propped up the unions by bailing out their pension funds or demanding the destruction of millions of automobiles to drive the purchases of new vehicles. He hasn't had to resort to quantitative easing to keep the economy from collapsing. So I'm really curious, here. What about Trump makes him "the most disgraceful embarrassment of a president in my lifetime?"

“just because one makes a lot of money doesn't mean one has solid values.”
I respect earning money, and I withhold judgment about if they earned dishonestly unless I know them personally or they get convicted. I found Microsoft's behavior anti-competitive, but after decades of seeing the cycle of integrated systems → commoditized sub-components → integrated systems, I have a different view. I think sometimes making things work requires integrating systems and gives the appearance of anti-competitive behavior. I can’t say which of those people you mention earned their money honestly. I give them the benefit of the doubt.

But my bias would hold true even if the Bloomberg Terminal had been a commercial failure and he had gone back to working at a Wall Street firm.

“I simply can't reconcile him being laissez-faire on anything.”
I just thought that because of his background in finance and starting a business. It tells me he understands business, but I can’t be sure it means he’d push to leave business alone.

“the Second Amendment is a barometer issue which exposes one's true nature as either authoritarian or freedom-loving”
It’s plausible that respecting one right would be an indication of respecting other rights, but I have not found this to be the case. Often people who respect one right are eager to infringe on other rights.

But you may be right about Bloomberg. To me his opposition to big gulps is less important than his opposition to personal gun rights, but it may be more of a warning sign.

In any case, I have no hope of any president reducing federal power or even reducing executive branch power. The best case is anyone who his not President Trump, who is an embarrassment to the country, nearly tripled the deficit, and increased spending, and disregards the law. Fortunately he’s more focused on getting reality-TV style attention on himself. I don’t think Sanders would be. I think he would actually implement authoritarian policies that Trump might mention and then forget about because he doesn’t really care. Sanders is a true believer, I suspect, in socialism. Trump is clearly the most disgraceful embarrassment of a president in my lifetime, but I'd rather have an authoritarian who appears to be a drunk clown who cannot get things done to a true believer who knows how to act on his authoritarian impulses.

I don’t see any of this as an immediate emergency, but it’s a looming problem. IMHO there MUST be some measures to limit cost and intrusiveness before the problems become critical. It’s an odd feeling because the US economy has been great for the past 10 years, and I don’t see it as a “house of cards” or anything like that, but I see a looming problem with government managing too many things and all the problems that come with that.

hmm. that was the goal in the colonial times too. The peasants did the work, and the elite got the wealth. Maybe thats what bloomberg wants to return to.

In style they may be similar, but ideologically they are about as diametrically opposed as one can get. Bernie is an admitted communist/socialist while President Trump has said that "America will never be a socialist nation."

Bernie rejects the entire Constitution so I can see that one. What US institutions does Trump reject (in your opinion)? Big government?

"Fail to repudiate authoritarianism" I'm not following you here other than I agree that Bernie - like all the Democrats - has a tyrannical bent.

"Appeal to victim-thinking..." I can totally see this in the way Democrats are constantly blaming other people for problems they cause, but what I hear out of President Trump is positive - not negative. Would appreciate an example here.

"Willing to increase government spending using large deficits."

This one unfortunately has been shown to be more true than I would like. I have hopes that the 2020 elections will flip the House back to Republican, because I don't believe we have much more time before the total US debt buries us. If we don't start paying it down soon...

"1. I'm biased toward electronic engineers who started a tech business."

At least you're honest. I look at things and compare Bill Gates to Larry Ellison and see that just because one makes a lot of money doesn't mean one has solid values. Bill Gates made his money stealing the ideas of others and marketing them - it should be no surprise that his lack of morals extends to his "philanthropical" approach. Bloomberg is the same.

"2. I also think he would be more laissez-faire on economic issues."

If his time as Governor of New York City is any indication, I simply can't reconcile him being laissez-faire on anything. That being said I don't think he is as nuts as the other Democrats pining for the "New Green Deal" but this is a man who reversed nearly all the changes Rudy Guiliani made - which were working - in order to re-centralize power again.

"opposing gun rights just exacerbates the urban/rural divide."

To me, the Second Amendment is a barometer issue which exposes one's true nature as either authoritarian or freedom-loving. I don't find many politicians who support firearms rights yet are trying to cut taxes.

Getting rid of the middle class is the real agenda. A fearful and dependent populace is a well controlled populace.

Probably getting rid of guns, plastic straws, plastic bags, taxing plastic containers, and tax thousands of other things

"Making America Great Again"
Whatever that is, actually. He's an embarrassment.

You have a good point on outlawing American size pop. Stopping at a gas station is the first thing I do whenever I return to the US. On a more serious note, I wonder what other minor aspects of life Bloomberg would like to control.

"Trump just wants all of us to be able to do our own thing."
President Trump just wants attention. He is only vaguely aware of a philosophy of liberty, and whether he'd reject it or support it would depend on the day.

Trump's authoritarian impulses are tempered by his incompetence. I don't know if that would be true for Sanders. He might be able to execute on his impulses, which would make him worse.

"comparing Bernie to Trump."
I first noticed the similarities in early 2015, when I thought they were both loose cannons who would cause their parties to lose. They seem a lot a like to me:
- Bombastic style
- Reject US institutions
- Fail to repudiate authoritarianism
- Appeal to victim-thinking with facile scapegoat for problems that supposedly can be stopped with government force
- Willing to increase government spending using large deficits.

"Just curious, but what about him makes you think he'd be a great president?"
1. I'm biased toward electronic engineers who started a tech business.
2. I also think he would be more laissez-faire on economic issues.
I don't like that opposition to gun rights is one of the big causes he supports with his wealth.

The more I think about, I may take back that he would be good at being president b/c supporting business but opposing gun rights just exacerbates the urban/rural divide.

It's very unsettling the amount of advertising money Bloomberg is spending here in Arizona to turn this state blue. From what I have read that he is targetting low income, Hispanic communities, and Californians who have moved to Arizona. The local Larsen Newspaper Group seems to support Bloomberg. At least the pro-gun citizens of this state are trying are organizing efforts to meet with county supervisors and city councils for 2nd Amendments Sanctuary declarations. Mohave County and Bullhead City have done so. There are not enough gun owners here in Sedona to petition the city council for such a declaration, too many fluffy bunnies, and ex-Californians living here.

lol
If he's HRH, maybe we could encourage a Megxit?

After the most profound thought about this, my conclusion is "sick fucker."

No doubt Bloomturd stands up for the individual, and will fight against "big Corporations" buying elections.

Bloomberg's big investment will be a total failure, in other words have little effect. The Dems have made sure of it with their ridiculously stupid tactics. Americans are smarter than that, even though many don't show it. It's the politically ignorant ones that could destroy this country by their ignorant voting, and I now believe there are more ignorant voters than there are of the other kind.

Perhaps, but I'm still interested in the thought process. I have a brother-in-law who despite holding conservative values is a registered Democrat and wanted to vote for Bernie in the last election. I like him and don't want to write him off, I'm just trying to figure out how someone who is anti-abortion can stomach any of the current Democrats...

Thank God she wasn't a better candidate. I actually said, "okay, we'll see what he does" after Obama got elected (the first time). I wasn't thinking that during his second term or when she ran against Trump. I can actually thank both Obama and Clinton for making me a true and totally dedicated deplorable, period.

If you examine the history you will find that Perot did nothing of the kind ... unless you think paying the networks for TV time in an attempt to explain simply the spending disaster that the federal government was incurring.
Perot failed because he was not representing the Dems or GOP who work for the state not the people. Perot failed because he underestimated just how evil the deep state was and the actions they would take to defeat him.
Perot was unwilling to let those actions by the deep state cause injury or embarrassment for Perot's family.

Ross Perot tried to do somewhat the same thing. It will fail for the same reason: There is no substitute for going out and being seen and talked to by the voters in person.

But I suspect what he's really trying to do is position himself to be Elizabeth Warren's VP candidate. Their approaches are very similar.

I don't expect rational thought from CG, a Hitlery and Obama voter. Concluding that Trump and Sanders are "exactly the same" displays well the rational thinking CG is able to generate.

Very uncool to call a duly elected president of our country a “clown”. What does it mean???

If we look at trump’s actions, they are well thought out and logical. Far better than racist and socialist obama

I'm not talking about control. I'm talking about a small action which would have no effect if the economy was sound, but will cause a debt-fueled bubble to collapse. I don't know what form this action could take, but I think there are people who do know, and people in a position to take such an action, and at least some of these people would love to bring Trump down.

Two billion is a lot of money in terms of a single person. On a national scale, it's about 2 hours of government spending. And at 169 billion (2013) daily volume on the NYSE, it's just a few minutes.

I don't think 2 billion goes very far in trying to control the national economy.

When your only choice is between a clown and a criminal, vote for the clown.

The clown may become less clownish (as Trump has, IMO, though he may have a way to go), but once a criminal, always a criminal. (Talking about Hillary. Don't know enough about Bloomberg to decide, but given that he's a liberal there's zero interest on my part to decide whether he is or not.)

Editing to add: given that a liberal thinks that what I earned should belong to someone else, I consider that theft...therefore, criminal.