Peter Navarro:China Tariffs are "not hurting anybody" in the US. Politifact: Pants on Fire!

[Phase 2]

One more point: as I am sure so many have read, Trump canceled his meeting with the Danish Prime Minister because they ruled out the possibility of the sale of Greenland to the US. Just imagine something like that occurring in a movie or a book, the American President cancelling a meeting because Denmark wouldn't sell Greenland. It would be implausibly stupid to put in any fiction aside from comedies such as 'Idiocracy'. Yet it really happened.

Consider: the absolute ignorance of history and culture to think that Denmark would be willing to sell Greenland, the mind-boggling stupidity to think that the USA could afford it, the incredible myopia needed to think that Greenland has such value that it should be purchased, and the jaw-dropping pettiness to cancel a meeting with a Prime Minister because they necessarily declined such an asinine proposition. Yet it really happened.

If we really wanted Greenland, who would really stop the USA, from just taking it? Just a humorous look. But really our Nation was established by stealing the whole continent from the native Indians. Just look at North Korea, they want to nuke Japan to get their islands back. Messed up World I tell ya. Maybe we can trade Florida for Greenland I'd vote for that or California or Texas. They been wanting to secede from the United States anyways.

 

[highfigh]

Why is it that a Canadian has a better grasp of US politics than most US citizens? Nice post GO-NAD.
These days, a million dollars just ain't what it used to be.

And I doubt he would want to share any of his.

 

[highfigh]

If we really wanted Greenland, who would really stop the USA, from just taking it? Just a humorous look. But really our Nation was established by stealing the whole continent from the native Indians. Just look at North Korea, they want a nuke Japan to get their islands back. Messed up World I tell ya. Maybe we can trade Florida for Greenland I'd vote for that or California or Texas. They been wanting to secede from the United States anyways.

We're well past the point where one country can just waltz in and take another- Denmark is at the top of the chain WRT Greenland and Europe would have a lot to say if the US tried this.

 

[Phase 2]

We're well past the point where one country can just waltz in and take another- Denmark is at the top of the chain WRT Greenland and Europe would have a lot to say if the US tried this.

I'm sure England great Britain would have a lot to say about it too. Even though the two are the same country. NY just loves kissing some Royal a$$. Just read any media story. You'll find just about anything on the royals over in England. Prince Andrew just took a golden s$$t breaking news. They way I look at it, they should give Greenland to the United States! How much is owed to us taxpayers, just from protecting the world sorry-ass from dictators and communists, and Islamic extremist, isis, let's not forget the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan! I'm with Trump on the one issue, pull all our troops from South Korea, pull our nukes from Turkey, stop paying taxpayers dollars to those who take taxpayers money, than hide out terrorist like Pakistan did with Osama bin laden!! Politics? My a$$! And wide out our debt also!! I would bet my last dime, if the United States with just sit back, let Iran, china, North Korea, Russia them evil bastards! Run amok the world would be begging.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Why is it that a Canadian has a better grasp of US politics than most US citizens? Nice post GO-NAD.

Because it's fascinating! Maybe not in a good way, but nevertheless...
To paraphrase: "Never in the field of observing another country's politics was so much popcorn consumed by so few".

I try to keep my facts straight, but if I'm wrong, I don't mind being corrected. As long as the correction is, in fact, correct...

As for opinions, mine won't be in accordance with many others. As the saying goes, "opinions are like buttholes - everybody has one, and everyone else's stinks."

 

[Irvrobinson]

Just a few nits to pick, Irv.

If political campaigning in the US is even remotely similar to Canada, parties tend to campaign from more extreme positions, in order to make the base happy, then, if elected, govern closer to the centre. So, although the NGD and student loan forgiveness might scare people on the right, those policies are probably the first to get dropped after winning the election. Well, there may be portions of the NGD that might be pursued, but certainly not it's entirety. And, I really don't know what you find so scary about universal health care.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/heres-a-map-of-the-countries-that-provide-universal-health-care-americas-still-not-on-it/259153/

How would it be paid for? Through taxes, of course. That would be offset by what you wouldn't pay in insurance premiums. UHC began here as provincial efforts back in the 1940's and by 1961, all provinces had implemented plans. The federal government implemented UHC as a national program in 1966, which standardised services across the country, as well as kicking in federal funding. At the time, many doctors and, of course, insurance companies campaigned bitterly against it as creeping communism. But, they lost that debate. There is still room for private insurance, which provides drug coverage and other services and equipment not covered by UHC. It certainly isn't perfect, but what system is? If the US were to implement UHC, I would skip over looking at our system to copy - there are better ones in Europe.

As for Bernie being a "multi-millionaire", I suppose - technically - he is, at a net worth of $2,000,000. So, one might consider him rich, but that's debatable. He might be rich to an inner-city person living on minimum wage, but to the truly rich, he's just another peon.

https://slate.com/business/2019/05/how-rich-is-bernie-sanders-wealth-comparison-millionaires.html

We may not have a dog in this electoral fight, but what happens in the US affects us, so we take an interest. But, not the Russian-style "take and interest", of course . In the immortal words of (former) Prime Minister P.E. Trudeau, "Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt."

Universal healthcare is not Medicare for All. Medicare is one of three US government healthcare programs. The Veterans Administration is the outlier because it is a completely separate healthcare system, with its own workforce and hospitals. Medicare and Medicaid are payment programs for open market provided services. Medicare does not provide coverage for everything, it has some rather strict limitations actually, and people who can buy supplemental insurance to close those holes. And the supplemental insurance isn't especially cheap. Sanders' bill does not close these gaps:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1384/text#toc-H69ABD2A090DF463DADE4FBDE5D8E69CA

The bill prohibits private insurance competing with the government plan.

Most concerning about the Medicare for All bill is that it is based on the assumption that current Medicare and Medicaid payment levels are sufficient when eliminating private health insurance. Medicare typically pays about 20% less than negotiated rates for private insurance networks, so in essence those of us with private insurance subsidize Medicare. An often discussed side effect of depending on Medicare pricing is that most hospitals aren't profitable enough to survive in such an environment, yet they would no longer have control over their pricing. Second, the bill does not include a provision that medical professionals must accept Medicare, just like now. It is easy to predict an expansion of the emerging trend towards "concierge medicine" for the wealthy. These physicians often don't accept insurance of any type, require up front annual subscriptions, but provide premium services. In the area I live concierge physician groups charge about $2000 per year per person, which is well within the budget of the simply well-off. The trend is already draining off some of the best physicians in some areas. In my read of the bill there doesn't appear to be a prohibition of concierge services if you're not a provider of Medicare services.

I'm also concerned about the naivety of the "national healthcare budget" that's in the bill. Private health insurance doesn't have a budget. With budgets come allocations and approvals based on budget reserves. No thank you.

Sanders also seems clueless about how his bill will handle federal government workers. Federal workers have a constitutional property right to their jobs and benefits, including retired workers who get private insurance. Trying to replace those benefits with something lesser will end up in front of the Supreme Court, with judges who have the property right. In state-level cases where this has come up (like Oregon), the state judges have always ruled in favor of the employees and retirees, and I suspect this is a good indicator of what the USSC will do.

Overall, as a practical person, I see this bill as a fiscal and social disaster in the making. The ACA was a far better option.

I have no problem with Canadians or Europeans commenting. This is a discussion, not policy-making.

As for Sanders' net worth, if he has three homes, one being a town house in DC, there is no way his net worth is only $2M.

 

[Irvrobinson]

There are campaign promises and then there are realistic expectations. The new green deal is not going to pass as legislation as it is talked about as a campaign platform, it has no chance of that. Reparations is legislative non-starter. As for Medicare for all, I am not so sure such a plan would be as disastrous as you make it out to be. If it destroys the insurance industry as it presently exists, that is collateral damage I can definitely live with. I don't even know how student loan forgiveness could materialize without a strongly sympathetic congress.

But even if your pessimism is entirely warranted, which I don't believe it is, if there is one thing that is more important than economic stability in a democracy, it is electoral security. That is presently at risk. Intelligence agencies are warning of all kinds of electoral interference including directly hacking voting machines, and trump is looking the other way, for obvious reasons. The Republican senate refuses to pass any legislation that protects voting integrity, not that anything they could pass would survive Trump's veto power.

If you think the Democratic candidates are so awful, ask yourself why America's adversaries are putting their thumb on the scale for Republicans? This isn't even going into the horrid nationalism, bigotry, and racism exuded by the executive branch of the United States, or the open disdain for the very notion of human rights. Any one of these points is far more important to me and more fundamental to the shape of this country than whatever the hell the NASDAQ or S&P 500 closes at.

You say you can live with destroying the health insurance industry as we currently know it. That's about 500,000 home office people who would be out of work. Assuming the government hired all of them, which I doubt, they would earn substantially less and probably couldn't afford their current lifestyles. So for 500,000 families it would probably be a disaster. And that would be in addition to the disruption in the healthcare industry itself from lower revenues.

Electoral security is an independent problem no matter who gets elected President.

As for our adversaries "putting their thumb on the scale for Republicans", where is the evidence for this? And even if there is some of this going on, how does the magnitude compare to the propaganda masquerading as news spewed out by Fox, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, NYT, and a multitude of other print and online sources? I think this argument is bullshit.

Regarding your final point, economic success is vital to addressing social problems. And you still owe me an apology for accusing me of making a candidate choice based on stock values alone and "absolutely nothing else". Man up and admit to your gaff.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Irv, exactly what are you looking for in a candidate?

Wow, that would be a long prioritized list, which I'm too lazy to compose. Three that rule out any of the Democratic leaders would be sober practicality, well-researched proposals for change, and no mention whatsoever of the usual trope that some group of people is responsible for all of their problems in life and that all you have to do to make your lot better is eliminate or confiscate the wealth or power of that group.

Trump fails on all three, but he is not making clueless proposals that I feel will disrupt the US economic and social systems. Everything you've said about him is correct, IMO, Ponzio, so I would easily vote for a reasonable alternative. But voting for Warren or Sanders would be like, as the saying goes, cutting off my nose to spite my face.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Universal healthcare is not Medicare for All. Medicare is one of three US government healthcare programs. The Veterans Administration is the outlier because it is a completely separate healthcare system, with its own workforce and hospitals. Medicare and Medicaid are payment programs for open market provided services. Medicare does not provide coverage for everything, it has some rather strict limitations actually, and people who can buy supplemental insurance to close those holes. And the supplemental insurance isn't especially cheap. Sanders' bill does not close these gaps:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1384/text#toc-H69ABD2A090DF463DADE4FBDE5D8E69CA

The bill prohibits private insurance competing with the government plan.

Most concerning about the Medicare for All bill is that it is based on the assumption that current Medicare and Medicaid payment levels are sufficient when eliminating private health insurance. Medicare typically pays about 20% less than negotiated rates for private insurance networks, so in essence those of us with private insurance subsidize Medicare. An often discussed side effect of depending on Medicare pricing is that most hospitals aren't profitable enough to survive in such an environment, yet they would no longer have control over their pricing. Second, the bill does not include a provision that medical professionals must accept Medicare, just like now. It is easy to predict an expansion of the emerging trend towards "concierge medicine" for the wealthy. These physicians often don't accept insurance of any type, require up front annual subscriptions, but provide premium services. In the area I live concierge physician groups charge about $2000 per year per person, which is well within the budget of the simply well-off. The trend is already draining off some of the best physicians in some areas. In my read of the bill there doesn't appear to be a prohibition of concierge services if you're not a provider of Medicare services.

I'm also concerned about the naivety of the "national healthcare budget" that's in the bill. Private health insurance doesn't have a budget. With budgets come allocations and approvals based on budget reserves. No thank you.

Sanders also seems clueless about how his bill will handle federal government workers. Federal workers have a constitutional property right to their jobs and benefits, including retired workers who get private insurance. Trying to replace those benefits with something lesser will end up in front of the Supreme Court, with judges who have the property right. In state-level cases where this has come up (like Oregon), the state judges have always ruled in favor of the employees and retirees, and I suspect this is a good indicator of what the USSC will do.

Overall, as a practical person, I see this bill as a fiscal and social disaster in the making. The ACA was a far better option.

I have no problem with Canadians or Europeans commenting. This is a discussion, not policy-making.

As for Sanders' net worth, if he has three homes, one being a town house in DC, there is no way his net worth is only $2M.

I'm not saying that I endorse Sanders' health care plan. I haven't delved into the specifics. I'm just saying the principal of UHC is sound. Private insurance isn't allowed to compete with the public system in Canada either. Essentially, anything covered publically is off limits to private insurance.

I'm not intimately familiar with the private health care system in the US. Can private insurance decline coverage for pre-existing conditions? Or, if they cover you, would you be paying astronomical premiums?

 

[Irvrobinson]

I'm not saying that I endorse Sanders' health care plan. I haven't delved into the specifics. I'm just saying the principal of UHC is sound. Private insurance isn't allowed to compete with the public system in Canada either. Essentially, anything covered publically is off limits to private insurance.

I'm not intimately familiar with the private health care system in the US. Can private insurance decline coverage for pre-existing conditions? Or, if they cover you, would you be paying astronomical premiums?

One of the aspects of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) that even Republicans like is that insurance companies cannot take into account pre-existing conditions for acceptance or pricing.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Universal healthcare is not Medicare for All. Medicare is one of three US government healthcare programs. The Veterans Administration is the outlier because it is a completely separate healthcare system, with its own workforce and hospitals. Medicare and Medicaid are payment programs for open market provided services. Medicare does not provide coverage for everything, it has some rather strict limitations actually, and people who can buy supplemental insurance to close those holes. And the supplemental insurance isn't especially cheap. Sanders' bill does not close these gaps:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1384/text#toc-H69ABD2A090DF463DADE4FBDE5D8E69CA
The bill prohibits private insurance competing with the government plan.
Most concerning about the Medicare for All bill is that it is based on the assumption that current Medicare and Medicaid payment levels are sufficient when eliminating private health insurance. Medicare typically pays about 20% less than negotiated rates for private insurance networks, so in essence those of us with private insurance subsidize Medicare. An often discussed side effect of depending on Medicare pricing is that most hospitals aren't profitable enough to survive in such an environment, yet they would no longer have control over their pricing. Second, the bill does not include a provision that medical professionals must accept Medicare, just like now. It is easy to predict an expansion of the emerging trend towards "concierge medicine" for the wealthy. These physicians often don't accept insurance of any type, require up front annual subscriptions, but provide premium services. In the area I live concierge physician groups charge about $2000 per year per person, which is well within the budget of the simply well-off. The trend is already draining off some of the best physicians in some areas. In my read of the bill there doesn't appear to be a prohibition of concierge services if you're not a provider of Medicare services.
I'm also concerned about the naivety of the "national healthcare budget" that's in the bill. Private health insurance doesn't have a budget. With budgets come allocations and approvals based on budget reserves. No thank you.
Sanders also seems clueless about how his bill will handle federal government workers. Federal workers have a constitutional property right to their jobs and benefits, including retired workers who get private insurance. Trying to replace those benefits with something lesser will end up in front of the Supreme Court, with judges who have the property right. In state-level cases where this has come up (like Oregon),the state judges have always ruled in favor of the employees and retirees, and I suspect this is a good indicator of what the USSC will do.
Overall, as a practical person, I see this bill as a fiscal and social disaster in the making. The ACA was a far better option.
I have no problem with Canadians or Europeans commenting. This is a discussion, not policy-making.
As for Sanders' net worth, if he has three homes, one being a town house in DC, there is no way his net worth is only $2M.

The $2,000,000 figure came from the article I linked. It could be inaccurate, I don't know. It may only refer to liquid assets. The impression I have of Sanders is that he doesn't hate capitalism and the uber-wealthy. He just wants to protect the average Joe and Josephine from it's excesses.

 

[TheWarrior]

I'm not intimately familiar with the private health care system in the US. Can private insurance decline coverage for pre-existing conditions? Or, if they cover you, would you be paying astronomical premiums?

With the dismantling of the Affordable Care Act, Yes!

We even got kicked off our coverage. Primary Care Physician? *poof*. Gone. Yet, under the ACA, insurance companies hit record profits......

But isn't that the root of the issue - Our level of HealthCARE is determined by how profitable it is?

Medicare for All is taking an existing program and expanding it. How much? To what end?

Well, hopefully being able to get the care ANYONE needs to be healthy.

I mean, come on! You get the satisfaction of ACTUALLY caring for the sick and the poor, PLUS, you get better care than you get now!

How do I know that? Because this system, SUCKS, in some way, for EVERYONE in America.

Yet, there are people living here that would rather see Billions spent on a f@#king WALL.

So, to tie this in with the actual thread topic: We have a portion of our country that has been manipulated through fear to even defend tariffs that just cost us all money. Appliances may now have TVs in refrigerators, but even basic models are hundreds of dollars more than they were two years ago. And mine was even built two counties over!

 

[Irvrobinson]

The $2,000,000 figure came from the article I linked. It could be inaccurate, I don't know. It may only refer to liquid assets. The impression I have of Sanders is that he doesn't hate capitalism and the uber-wealthy. He just wants to protect the average Joe and Josephine from it's excesses.

I think you've mis-judged Sanders. He is all about government control and high taxation. He's also pro-union without ever being a member of a union. I was. The AFL-CIO. It was one of the defining experiences of my life, and if it were up to me labor unions would be outlawed. I like individualism.

 

[Irvrobinson]

So, to tie this in with the actual thread topic: We have a portion of our country that has been manipulated through fear to even defend tariffs that just cost us all money. Appliances may now have TVs in refrigerators, but even basic models are hundreds of dollars more than they were two years ago. And mine was even built two counties over!

The rest of your post is a bit incomprehensible, but on the point of tariffs I can easily agree. They are dumb, and not achieving the objectives Trump has for them.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I think you've mis-judged Sanders. He is all about government control and high taxation. He's also pro-union without ever being a member of a union. I was. The AFL-CIO. It was one of the defining experiences of my life, and if it were up to me labor unions would be outlawed. I like individualism.

We'll have to agree to disagree on whether I've misjudged him. He leans further left than I, but I like several of his policies. You'd have to define what you mean by "government control", before I could comment on that. I believe the US had higher marginal tax rates in the 50's and 60's - the supposed golden age - than they have now. I have little patience with union excesses, but they have their place.

 

[Irvrobinson]

We'll have to agree to disagree on whether I've misjudged him. He leans further left than I, but I like several of his policies. You'd have to define what you mean by "government control", before I could comment on that. I believe the US had higher marginal tax rates in the 50's and 60's - the supposed golden age - than they have now. I have little patience with union excesses, but they have their place.

Oh really? How about this section written into the Medicare for All bill:

COMPETITIVE LICENSING AUTHORITY.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any exclusivity under clause (iii) or (iv) of section 505(j)(5)(F) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, clause (iii) or (iv) of section 505(c)(3)(E) of such Act, section 351(k)(7)(A) of the Public Health Service Act, or section 527(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or by an extension of such exclusivity under section 505A of such Act or section 505E of such Act, and any other provision of law that provides for market exclusivity (or extension of market exclusivity) with respect to a drug, in the case that the Secretary is unable to success fully negotiate an appropriate price for a covered drug for a negotiated price period, the Secretary shall authorize the use of any patent, clinical trial data, or other exclusivity granted by the Federal Government with respect to such drug as the Secretary determines appropriate for purposes of manufacturing such drug for sale under Medicare for All Program. Any entity making use of a competitive license to use patent, clinical trial data, or other exclusivity under this section shall provide to the manufacturer holding such exclusivity reasonable compensation, as determined by the Secretary based on the following factors:

(i) The risk-adjusted value of any Federal Government subsidies and investments in research and development used to support the development of such drug.

(ii) The risk-adjusted value of any investment made by such manufacturer in the research and development of such drug.

(iii) The impact of the price, including license compensation payments, on meeting the medical need of all patients at a reasonable cost.

(iv) The relationship between the price of such drug, including compensation payments, and the health benefits of such drug.

(v) Other relevant factors determined appropriate by the Secretary to provide reasonable compensation.


In other words, the government will confiscate the intellectual property of any company when the government's pricing demands are not met and the intellectual property is deemed crucial.

Regarding the higher tax rates of the 1950s and 1960s, hardly anyone paid those rates. More expenses were deductible, compensation was rerouted into expense accounts and club memberships, and a lot of compensation was through equity grants, just like today. And capital gains taxes were similar. Sheltering income was simpler. Those rates were so unsuccessful that they gave birth to the Alternative Minimum Tax act, which was really dumb, and eventually affected hundreds of thousand of workers in high tax states.

 

[shadyJ]

You say you can live with destroying the health insurance industry as we currently know it. That's about 500,000 home office people who would be out of work. Assuming the government hired all of them, which I doubt, they would earn substantially less and probably couldn't afford their current lifestyles. So for 500,000 families it would probably be a disaster. And that would be in addition to the disruption in the healthcare industry itself from lower revenues.

Electoral security is an independent problem no matter who gets elected President.

As for our adversaries "putting their thumb on the scale for Republicans", where is the evidence for this? And even if there is some of this going on, how does the magnitude compare to the propaganda masquerading as news spewed out by Fox, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, NYT, and a multitude of other print and online sources? I think this argument is bullshit.

Regarding your final point, economic success is vital to addressing social problems. And you still owe me an apology for accusing me of making a candidate choice based on stock values alone and "absolutely nothing else". Man up and admit to your gaff.

You are right that dissolving most of the health insurance industry as we know it would be a disaster for many people. The thing is that the health insurance industry is already a disaster for many people. Furthermore, your argument amounts to keeping this bloated inefficient industry going just for the sake of employing people? You might as well pay them to do nothing. It would be less wasteful.

And the claim that electoral security is a problem independent of the president is just gobsmacking. One of the key points of the Mueller report was the many vectors that Russia is using to attack the US electoral process. This is ongoing. But no measures have been taken to stop it, and no legislation has been passed to oppose it; you seriously believe that having Trump as president has nothing to do with this inaction? The president was told by nearly all of his intelligence agencies that Russia is attacking the American electoral process in a "sweeping and systematic fashion," yet the president does nothing. When Obama was told of Russian efforts to interfere with our electoral process, he didn't do nothing. He might have done enough, but at least he acted.

And I am not going to apologize for my remarks because the post that I replied to, as well as many of your subsequent posts, have the tone of prioritizing fiscal concerns over moral concerns.

 

[Irvrobinson]

You are right that dissolving most of the health insurance industry as we know it would be a disaster for many people. The thing is that the health insurance industry is already a disaster for many people. Furthermore, your argument amounts to keeping this bloated inefficient industry going just for the sake of employing people? You might as well pay them to do nothing. It would be less wasteful.

I don't know if this is true or not, because the answer is non-obvious. The Social Security Administration only has about 6,000 people working on Medicare, but since each state administers Medicare separately there is a bureaucracy in each state, and this administration is handled by privately held so-called Medicare Administrative Contractors, and I haven't been able to find any employee population numbers. There are less than half as many people on government insurance as on private insurance, so normalizing all of this to comparative numbers is beyond my ambition. Given that so much of Medicare processing is provided by contractors and not employees on the federal GS pay schedule or state government schedules, I'm not so sure that Medicare is any more efficient. I am told you really have to work for the federal government to understand just how inefficient it is. Without a profit motive and spending other people's money, inefficiency has more room to run.

And the claim that electoral security is a problem independent of the president is just gobsmacking. One of the key points of the Mueller report was the many vectors that Russia is using to attack the US electoral process. This is ongoing. But no measures have been taken to stop it, and no legislation has been passed to oppose it; you seriously believe that having Trump as president has nothing to do with this inaction? The president was told by nearly all of his intelligence agencies that Russia is attacking the American electoral process in a "sweeping and systematic fashion," yet the president does nothing. When Obama was told of Russian efforts to interfere with our electoral process, he didn't do nothing. He might have done enough, but at least he acted.

Like it or not, that Mitch McConnell and the Republican party leadership are fools is a separate issue. No one ever accused the Congressional Republicans of being all that bright either.

And I am not going to apologize for my remarks because the post that I replied to, as well as many of your subsequent posts, have the tone of prioritizing fiscal concerns over moral concerns.

My original post in this thread was:

Trump is the worst leading candidate in the 2020 presidential race, except for all the others.

So your assertion is nonsense.

 

[Alex2507]

if it were up to me labor unions would be outlawed.

I worked non union before. It was great not having medical insurance for a decade.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I worked non union before. It was great not having medical insurance for a decade.

Yeah, and you probably also enjoyed being differentiated by the quality and quantity of your work, rather than just seniority.