Put yourself in the shoes of Michael Bloomberg. You built a MASSIVELY successful billion-dollar tech company. You climbed from the middle class to become the 9th richest person in the United States. You then become mayor of America’s largest city for 12 years. Unheard of in American political history! Altogether you have more business experience than all of the other Democratic candidates COMBINED. You also have more experience ACTUALLY running a government. In other words, you have a long-track record of GETTING SH*T DONE. (michael bloomberg presidential run) But therein lies Michael Bloomberg’s problem. With Bloomberg’s announcement, all I seem to hear from Democrats is a collective groan. And why? Because he is successful? I understand if you have serious policy differences with Michael Bloomberg because you associate yourself with the far-left flank of the Democratic party, but if you are a centrist Democrat currently supporting Biden, Pete, Booker, or Kamala then what do they have over Bloomberg? They share a similar platform. Bloomberg wants to increase taxes on the rich. He also wants to provide universal access to healthcare without eliminating private insurance. But when you have a long-record of actually GETTING SH*T DONE that impacts millions of lives it means you’ll inevitably have to make some unpopular choices. Bloomberg’s opponents will focus on his “Big Gulp Ban,” which was well-intentioned, but I think rather than an outright ban he should have just put a higher tax on soda to help offset the negative externalities to our healthcare system associated with heavy sugar consumption. Any behavioral economist worth his salt would say that sugar should be taxed at a higher rate due to its health risks. (michael bloomberg presidential run) His opponents will also focus on “Stop-and-Frisk,” which is questionable as to whether it actually reduced crime, but even if it marginally did so it probably wasn’t worth the cost of making minorities feel uncomfortable in their own communities. Regardless of the wisdom of “Stop-and-Frisk”, it was undeniably well-intentioned. It would have been easy for Bloomberg to stop “Stop-and-Frisk” at the first sign of backlash, but he didn’t because he felt lives were at stake, specifically black lives who are most negatively impacted by high crime rates. He wasn’t deaf to the outrage though because he slowly reduced the amount of “Stop-and-Frisks” so long as evidence on the ground supported it. By the time he left office, he cut stops by 94%. But here is the thing I’d encourage everyone to consider — these controversial policies were merely tactics in Bloomberg’s larger pursuit of noble objectives. The media and ignorant voters often miss the forest for ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BAS7dO0Ql0

A complex situation with a simple sensible solution. ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suDluM6hYso

The establishment: if you care about the national debt then you’re probably to blame for it so be quiet (gaslighting) and yet you shouldn’t really care about it because it’s an “investment.” In this video, I explain the forces that have caused our national debt to be so high. ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfpFM5ZDaCY

I've heard many people mock the idea of a southern wall/fence/barrier (whatever the kids are calling it these days), but I think it's useful to lay out the issue in a fair honest way because there is so much misinformation out there. First off, the reason why there is so misinformation is because whether it be the news you turn on, the feed you scroll through, or the search engine you type into the top companies are run by rich liberal democrats who are more interested in creating a globalized economy without any barriers than they are in creating a U.S. economy with barriers. Most Americans benefit from barriers because most Americans benefit when there are more "Job Opening" signs than there are people looking to fill those job openings. The rich however love cheap labor because it drives down wages whereas middle class Americans such as doctors, construction workers, teachers, police officers have traditionally loved barriers by creating unions that block/cap people entering their profession in order to keep their wages up. I've written a few essays on immigration and a common question/critique I get is something along the lines of… “Do you REALLY think a wall can stop illegal drugs/immigrants from entering the country? Can’t they just climb over it, build a tunnel underneath it, or go around it? And not to mention most illegal drugs/immigrants enter the country via legal ports of entry so why waste all this money on a wall?” These are all legitimate points, but it’s not what I think that matters… IT'S A FACT… that a wall helps to reduce the amount of illegal drugs/immigrants entering the country. The mainstream media will say the wall is ineffective, but the whole truth is that the wall is ineffective BY ITSELF. But NO ONE IS ARGUING that a wall is the be-all-end-all. We need an all-of-the-above approach. We can have a legitimate debate on what type and how much wall should be built, but to say we shouldn't build a wall is to be either delusional or dishonest. The reality is there is already hundreds of miles of wall/fence that has been built by republican and democratic administrations on the southern border. “Construction of 600 miles of border fence has created a significant barrier to illegal immigration on our southern land border.” - Chuck Schumer, 2009 So the question isn’t whether to build the wall or not, but how much wall? And the reality is our border security has requested more money to build more wall. When we put troops in harms way we don't politicize what the troops request. If they say they need more tanks to carry out their objectives we don't look down our noses and say that's stupid because tanks won't kill ALL terrorists because some of the terrorists will just go around the tanks. Illegal Im ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFCROAdPM94