Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I don't claim to have all the answers. But I do know that allowing the economy to be run by people whose primary goal is to squeeze as much wealth out of it as possible is not good for anyone (except for those tiny number of oligarchs)If you could run America the way you saw fit, could you eliminate poverty?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
He honeymooned in a Communist Paradise and praised Castro. Enough said.
lol he went to a place a long, long time ago and he said something that obama said a few years ago. My god, what a monster. Do you even listen to yourself?
Within the Democratic Party. No way in hell among Latinos that are independents.
Do you have any evidence for this baseless claim?
Then how’d he lose the majority black primary in South Carolina by around 20-25 points?
that's easy, age. South Carolina's electorate skews older and black. Old and Black is the category where biden does best. Bernie won in SC with younger black people.
Bernie is a disaster. All Trump has to do is play footage of Bernie praising breadlines, praising communists like Castro, and talking about his heart attack.
Bernie will crush trump. Trump has failed at most of the things he promised to do. People's lives haven't gotten any better under trump and he has no ideas on how to make them get better. He has no healthcare plan (despite repeatedly promising he does). He has no plan to help the poor and working class other than to just cut more taxes for the rich.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
What is the cause of poverty in non-capitalist countries? Was there poverty before there was capitalism?
There are lots of reasons. Lack of resources, income inequality etc. In america however, the resources exist to eliminate poverty. The problem is that the economy is designed to perpetuate it. Billionaires profit of it.
HB, have you attended university?
Yes
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
It was based on it. It wasn’t Republican. They put a bunch of stuff in it that clearly didn’t make it work lol.
What specifically? All the sources say that obamacare and romney care had the same core designs. So what exactly was in obamacare that was the problem?
Differences change it up entirely. It wasn’t Romneycare at that point.
what differences?
I don’t know why you’re defending a failed plan.
I'm not. It was a right wing plan that, even if the republicans hadn't sabotaged it, didn't go anywhere near far enough to fix the problems. My point is to show you that the republicans called obama a communist when he was proposing slight modifications of a republican plan. This is why no one under 45 cares about the words socialist or communist any more. The right has removed all meaning from the words and laid the ground work for sanders to win.
The bill was unchanged till 2017 and it was a disaster until then. See how ramming something down throats worked. They lost in MA.
the problem was that he didn't ram it down their throat. He wasted tons of time and energy trying to get them to behave like adults. Meanwhile the republicans did everything they could to sabotage and attack the ACA for political gain. If he had just rammed a progressive medicare plan through without worrying what those hacks thought, he would have been much better off.
That’s irrelevant. This is a matter of my own personal health. If I want to take the risk, why should the government be telling me that I shouldn’t. It’s just like buying a lottery ticket. My health has nothing to do with you nor the govt. There is a good reason: people save money.
except that it very much does. you going bankrupt or dying affects others. You are not an island with no effect on the people around you and society. When you massively screw yourself over with stupidity, society and the people around you suffer too. That is why we banned things like driving without a seatbelt. There is no reason that anyone should do it and it only hurts people.
Republicans have eliminated the individual mandate hated by Americans.
another way of saying that is "republicans sabotaged a core component of the ACA in order to destroy a beloved american program without it looking like it's their fault"
the Democratic Party of 2008 and of 2020 are drastically different.
agreed. In 2008 obama promised changes, then failed to enact them by acting like a moderate republican. Now the people are going to push for someone who will actually carry through on those promises.
Republicans have helped the people and that is why they’ve won elections time and time again
oh, so how is that healthcare reform coming? Oh right, they've done nothing. immigration reform? Oh yeah, they've done nothing. Social policies that help poor and working class people? Oh right, they keep cutting them. Yes they really help the people lol.
Tell me again how Americans liked ACA.
The ACA is quite popular. The reason it wasn't at the beginning was the massive fear mongering by the republicans. Once people got used to it and saw that the republican attacks were baseless, they really liked it. That is why Trump was too afraid to repeal it in his 1st two years like he promised he would.
The fact of the matter is: Obamacare was a disaster. He had the chance to pass whatever he wanted. This piece of legislation was “whatever he wanted.”'
The ACA was an olive branch to the republicans. Obama wanted a bipartisan reform that the republicans could agree to. So he mostly used one of their plans. But they behaved like petty children and attacked their own plan just to spite him.
Ya and passing legislation without any GOP vote was a partisan hack thing to do. If y’all can use the Senate rules to your advantage, why can’t we?
Passing legislation without any GOP votes wasn't a partisan hack thing to do, it was literally the only thing that could happen. The GOP refused to actually discuss what health care reform they wanted. All they wanted to do was attack. Obama's options were pass something without them, or pass nothing and let the situation get worse. He did what any president should do in the face of petulant children trying to hurt the people they were elected to help.
Refusing to hold a hearing violated all previously set norms. No one has ever refused to hold a hearing for a SC pick before. McConnell found a new way to act like a petulant child in order to stop the president from doing his job. He made up a flimsy excuse that he has already acknowledged is a lie.
Obama tried to work across the isle with republicans and they did nothing but attack him for it. The republicans made no attempt to work with Obama.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Youre still on the Sanders bandwagon. He’s not going to win. A recent poll showed that 18% of Democrats wouldn’t vote for Sanders.
With MSNBC and CNN comparing him to Nazi's and constantly attacking him, the fact that it is that low is a good sign. Once Sanders win, MSNBC and CNN will have no choice but bend the knee, just like Fox did once it became clear trump was going to win.
Combine that with Latinos especially after the Castro comment.
are you aware that sanders has the highest support among latinos by a sizable margin?
Combine that with his disaster among Africans Americans in South Carolina.
are you aware that recent polling shows sanders at number one among black voters nationally?
There is really only 3 ways this goes.
1) sanders win a majority of delegates and the DNC is powerless to do anything to stop him
2) sanders wins the plurality of delegates, but is too afraid of destroying their party to steal it from him
3) sanders win the plurality of delegates. The DNC uses super delegates to steal the nomination and destroy their party in a desperate bid to stop him.
There is no other way this goes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
I love how Democrats were willing to shove Obamacare down our throats but cry foul when Mitch McConnell gets rid of Merrick Garland. Hypocrites.
merrick garland was a moderate candidate who had been repeatedly praised by republicans. Obama picked him because he was a candidate that everyone could agree on. McConnell refused to even hold hearings because he knew there were no real objections to him and he wanted to prevent Obama from being able to do what he is constitutionally supposed to do. It was a partisan hack thing to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
So a plan that worked in one state should be implemented federally without a single Republican voting. Either way, I don’t think Mitt Romney is a conservative.
Ok, so rather than acknowledge that it was based on a republican plan, you just move the goal posts and try to say a republican isn't republican enough for it to count.
And by no means was the Bill passed by Hussein was anything like “Romneycare.” Take a look at this article: https://prospect.org/power/no-obamacare-republican-proposal/.
1) that article is discussing a comparison of the ACA with the plan by the right wing think tank, not romneycare
2) both Romneycare and the ACA have the same underlying principles. Government funded plans for those who can't afford coverage. Tax penalties for those who don't buy coverage. Here is a link.
Romney care and the ACA do have differences, but they are extremely similar plans. The reason the republicans attacked the ACA but passed romneycare is based on who suggested the idea, not the idea itself.
It was based on it. It wasn’t it. There was a crap ton of other shit in that bill lmao.
And Obama tried for years to negotiate with the republicans about this to create a bipartisan reform. They just attacked it at every chance they got. If they actually had constructive criticism of this republican plan and wanted changes, they could have gotten them. They didn't want to improve the bill, they just wanted to attack obama.
If Romneycare was so good, why didn’t Obama implement that exactly?
1) the two plans are very similar
2) romneycare was designed to work at a state level. There was always going to have to be changes to make it a national policy.
You act as if Republicans were the ones that resulted in the disaster of Obamacare. It imploded on its own.
It did implode, because the republicans sabotaged it. They spent years attacking it and trying to water it down until it was completely unworkable. Obama's mistakes were 1) picking a right wing plan to begin with 2) trying to negotiate with them. He should have rammed a real healthcare plan down their throats.
There’s a reason why no candidate supports it right now. It was a disaster.
Most of the democratic field supports it. They just want to build on it and fix it. It also has significant popular support. That is why the republicans were too afraid to repeal it. They don't have any idea what to replace it with and they know that they would be chased out of office if they repealed it.
I don’t think you understood what I said. Taking away the right to decide whether you need healthcare or not is the decision of the individual, not the government.
This is stupid. As a society we decided that people don't have the right to drive without wearing a seat belt. They don't have the right to drive without car insurance. There are all kinds of ways that we restrict freedom because we know it is in everyone's best interest. There is no good reason to not have health insurance. Everyone needs it. Everyone will get sick or injured at some point. So saying that you should have the "freedom" to be completely screwed over or die is just moronic.
Negotiation my ass. Not one Republican supported the ACA because it was fundamentally different then Romneycare.
Then why didn't they pitch their own plan? No republican has suggested a plan to fix healthcare for decades. Obama came up with a suggestion, based primarily on republican ideas, and they refused to negotiate. They refused to discuss what could be fixed. They just attacked it, lied about it and smeared it in the media. All they cared about was a political victory.
But glad to see you support shoving things down people’s throats. Mitch McConnell has entered the chat.
The republicans in congress have proved they have no interest in working together to improve the american peoples' lives. Their only interest is partisan hackery that will help them win elections. They will sabotage anything the democrats try to accomplish. Under those circumstances, talking to them is not only a waste of time, but it actually gives them more opportunities to sabotage you. Obama should have just told the american people "this is the plan i am going to implement" then completely ignored the republican hacks and passed it. At least then we would have gotten a working plan
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
This is no time for partisan politics, yet Democrats continue to do so because it benefits them.
Trump has been cutting funding to the agencies america now needs to deal with this crisis. He put Pence, a man famous for causing an HIV outbreak, in charge of fighting it. He keeps outright lying about the seriousness of the issue.
Pointing out how horribly this looming disaster is being handled is a perfectly reasonably thing to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Romneycare wasn’t even a thing in 2009 bro. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
romneycare passed in in 2006. I think it is you who doesn't know what they are talking about.
It was by no means a Republican plan because no Republican suggested it nor was any Republican echoing those ideas lol.
The ACA was based on romneycare (which was passed in 2006) as well as a plan from a right wing think tank. It was absolutely a republican plan.
Please source me where it says those elements were supported by Republicans in the Senate in 2009.
This is exactly my point. The ACA was based on republican healthcare plans, but as soon as Obama proposed slightly modified version of their ideas, they all came out against it. The reason no republicans supported it is they don't actually care about helping people, they just wanted to trash anything obama suggested for political points.
Do you even know what a filibuster is? Or how many votes it takes to invoke cloture? Democrats shoved ACA down the throats of Republicans in the Senate.
again, this is because they are political hacks. They were fighting tooth and nail against their own plan to try to score cheap political points.
how? It took away their right to choose to not have healthcare at all.Exhibit A.
this is just getting sad. You said it took away americans ability to choose their healthcare. I explained how it in no way prevented americans from choosing any healthcare they wanted. You then acted like i didn't disprove your point.
Keep your doctor keep your plan. Did that work out? “Choosing their healthcare” my ass. (Exhibit B)
I agree, obama wasn't anywhere near aggressive enough. He tried to negotiate with the republicans thinking they would act like reasonable adults and cooperate to create a reasonable plan. Instead they threw tantrums and sabotaged the plan in every single way they could. In the end the plan got watered down so much that it barely functioned. Obama should have put forward a much more aggressive healthcare plan and then shoved it down those bastards throats since they were going to fight literally anything he did anyway.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
I think you're giving trump too much credit. His instincts tell him that if something bad happens, lie. Lie fast, like vigorously and repeatedly. And it has worked for him. His base believes his lies and he gets away with them all the time. So when news came up that could tank the stock market and ruin his re-election chances he just did what he always does. He lied and tried to blame the democrats.
The only question is will his base continue to believe his lies. As the crisis gets worse, he will find a way for it to be someone else's fault. Maybe it'll be china's fault, or the democrats, or the "deep state" full of "never trumpers" sabotaging his work, or maybe he'll just throw Pence under the bus. But no matter what happens, he's going to continue lying. And based on his history, odds are his base will believe whatever excuse he makes up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The ACA was a republican plan.This is simpy false. ACÁ was shoved down the throats of Republicans with the 60 Democratic Senators needed to invoke cloture on the filibuster. Not one Republican in the Senate voted for that bill.
no, it is very much true. It was modeled on Romneycare and primarily designed by a right wing think tank. If a republican president had suggested it, it would have been pushed through by republicans, not democrats. The reason they opposed it was because Obama was the one suggesting it. It was still a republican plan though.
Obama picked it because he wanted to find common ground to get healthcare reform passed.Utter bull. Scott Brown won in MA because people despised ACA. There was no common ground.
there would have been if the republicans weren't complete hypocrites. the ACA was a republican plan (as described above). But when a democrat pushed it suddenly it wall all about death panels and some nonsense. There was no common ground because the republicans were determined to sabotage any plan obama suggested, even if it was their plan.
Obamacare took away the right of people to choose their healthcare. I think we can agree that not letting people have freedom is wrong.
how? It took away their right to choose to not have healthcare at all. But it didn't force them to pick a specific plan. They still very much had the right to choose their healthcare.
And I think you need to learn the difference between communism and socialism.
The right uses them interchangeably and so frequently that they have lost all meaning. Frankly, the terms are irrelevant cold war jargon at this point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
He wasn't a socialist until the point he lied 50 plus times about keeping your healthcare if you like it.
this doesn't make any sense. Lying doesn't make you a socialist. Republicans lie all the time. Obama wasn't a socialist. He wasn't even really on the left on alot of issues.
Authoritative Obamacare destroyed choices and American Liberty.
The ACA was a republican plan. Obama picked it because he wanted to find common ground to get healthcare reform passed. It was only after it became Obama's plan that republican's decided it was communism.
The democratic party does not stand for personal liberty anymore.
The republican party pushed through massive restrictions to personal liberty under bush trying to turn the US into a police state. That isn't a left or right issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin have entered the chat
Lol yes, because having rules that benefit society is communism. It's like the right isn't even trying any more. When you label literally everyone a communist and a socialist, the words lose all meaning.
Obama was basically moderate republican in alot of his policies, and the right painted him a socialist too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Unrestricted capitalism is a cause of poverty.This is true, but we need less restrictions.
this seems to be completely backward. you acknowledge that unrestricted capitalism is a problem, but then immediately advocate moving further into unrestricted capitalism. There are already too few restrictions. That is one of the main reasons we have so many problems with poverty.
-I want to abolish the minimum wage.
why? Minimum wage is supposed to be the minimum needed to be able to live. If an employer were to pay less than that, the employee's would either starve to death or be reliant on government programs to survive. This would mean you are offloading expenses from profitable companies onto the tax payers. It is corporatism (ie, socialism, except you use the government to benefit companies instead of people)
-I want to legalize child labor in some instances (children shouldn't be operating heavy machines or other dangerous jobs, but what's wrong with them operating a cashier for instance on the weekends?)
what age are you suggesting? I had my 1st job at 15. Are you advocating for putting 8 years olds in cashier jobs?
-I'd want to legalize and regulate monopolies. Any concerns that come across with monopolies, there can be regulations for. If your worried about them selling things at a higher price, there can be a regulation for that. If your worried about firing workers or paying them low wages, I fail to see how that would happen solely from there being a monopoly. If it does happen, we can require that monopolies can't reduce their worker's wages.
this is probably the worst thing we could possibly do. This is the exact opposite of what capitalism is supposed to be about. Capitalism is supposed to be about competition driving growth and keeping costs down. If you allow industries to be monopolized you lose the benefits of capitalism and amplify the problems. There is literally no upside to this idea.
Abolishing the minimum wage for example, would get low income people to find better jobs now that they can't live off of the minimum wage.
no, it would massively increase poverty by allowing companies to force people into lower wages that they can't possibly live on. It would massively ramp up the costs of social programs as millions more people rely on food banks and food stamps to stay alive.
Once they do this and they find a better job, then in that job, they would be making like triple their current salary at least because the job pays better and then they would get themselves out of poverty. Multiply that on a scale of millions, and poverty is basically gone in the US.
I honestly have no idea what you think will happen. you think that by allowing companies to pay their workers less, workers will somehow magically make more money. That makes no sense.
Why can't they find a better job if their current one doesn't pay as well? If it's because they don't have a college degree, that's fine. There are so many jobs out there that pay very good salaries that only require a HS degree to actually do that if low income people knew where to look, then they would be out of poverty.
This sounds like an argument for more government resources to help people find jobs and has nothing to do with the minimum wage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
n8nrgmi didn't say that here.
oops. that was from a different thread. I think it was still copied.
Although I don't want our politicians bought, we need to get the government out fiscally if we wish to reduce/eliminate poverty.
This makes no sense at all. Unrestricted capitalism is a cause of poverty. You are arguing that we should take actions that will massively increase poverty in order to fight poverty.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump ordered his people at his SC rally to vote for Bernie.
I didn't see that. If he did he is a either complete idiot or quite clever. He would beat joe biden or mike bloomberg easily. They both have shitty records that he could trash them with. If he honestly doesn't know that and thinks sanders would be easier to beat, then he is an idiot.
On the other hand, if he is trying to be sneaky by say, making it look like Sanders is the candidate he wants against him to undermine sanders' support, or if he thinks Sanders can't get to a majority and he knows the DNC will rig it against him and tear the party apart in the process; both of those might be clever plans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Bloomberg is so bad both parties hate him.
like I said, dealing with the symptoms is still a good thing. But that isn't a war that can ever be won. It was always going to be a failure because they never tried to address the reasons poverty exists. They just want to throw some money at it so they can feel like they are helping and so they can get some votes by showing they are helping.
To actually solve the core problems they would need to undermine the economic interests of their campaign donors, and very few politicians would ever consider doing that.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
So what? my point stands.Confiscating guns isn't a far-right policy.
It wasn't a policy about confiscating guns. It was a policy about abusing and violating the rights of minorities in order to bring down the crime rate. It was a "tough on crime" policy", which is absolutely a republican policy. It was also a complete failure at lowering the crime rate.
Bloomberg is so bad both parties hate him.
agreed. He is just awful. He the exact worst mix of traits to make him a complete dumpster fire of a political candidate. Economically right wing but random hard left social issues that make him toxic to republicans. There is no way he could ever win an election for president as either a democrat or a republican.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Confiscating guns isn't a far-right policy.
tough on crime laws are absolutely a far right policy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why is this necessary? Can't we have private health insurance for day to day visits and universal catastrophic coverage together? This was the reason why Obamacare was so unpopular. People really like customizable private healthcare plans as a choice.
the problem is that they are mutually exclusive. The government provided plan would cover most, if not all care. Why would you allow private companies to charge people money for things they are already covered for? At that point it would just be outright theft.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I agree that helping the poor is a good thing, but in the end, the war on poverty is a failure because it hasn't prevented poverty. All it does is fight symptoms of poverty. If we want a real war on poverty, we need to go after the roots of what is causing the poverty. And so long as the economy is run by corrupt oligarchs, that isn't going to happen.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
He confiscated more guns than any Republican or Democrat ever.
and it had no measurable effect on crime. So basically, he violated people's constitutional rights and accomplished nothing.
Question: What do the National Rifle Association and the American Civil Liberties Union have in common? Answer: The determination to stop New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg from having his way with guns. The NRA defends the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. The ACLU defends the Fourth Amendment's constraints on "stop and frisk." Between the two, guns will remain on the street and more people will die.
that is a really weak argument. The NRA wants to be able to sell as many guns, both legally and illegally as they can. They therefore fight against any laws that might prevent them selling killing machines.
The ACLU is trying to protect people's rights to not be searched at random for no reason other than the color of their skin. There is really no comparison.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Bloomberg as mayor: raised taxes, increased funding for affordable housing, didn't touch pensions, and supported strong gun control. Hardly a Republican.
he pushed stop and frisk, that kind of tough on crime bullshit is as republican as it comes. He was constantly attacking unions. He pushed for the privatization of education. He attacked the ACA. He was in favor of curtailing people's rights for the sake of "security".
He is a republican.
Yeah he got obliterated, but they changed the rule about having a certain number of different donors, which would show he has real support from real people.
True, I'm sure they did it to try to benefit Bloomberg. But the effect was the exact opposite. He was much better off when no one had the opportunity to actually question him about his horrible record.
I am not sure what good that would do considering the war on poverty has failed to reduce the poverty rate. Pretty much because it raised out of wedlock birthrates by replacing men as providers and it decreased savings rates.
the war on poverty couldn't ever succeed as long as the underlying economic system is corrupted and controlled by oligarchs
Well you should do super delegates like the GOP. Each state gets three and they are forced to vote for whoever their state voted for. Then you can't have people ignoring caucuses to bank on party elites choosing you.
I think super delegates should be banned entirely. Party elites should not get a vote in who the nominee is.
Just briefly, how do billionaires get so much money? They invest. If you promise to take large chunks of their money if they keep earning it, they will stop investing, which would be dreadful for the economy.
no, it would not. It would be hugely beneficial for the economy. Money moving through the economy is what drives growth. If a large percentage of the money is held by a tiny percentage of the population and not actually being spent, that is a problem.
And anyway, they could just easily move their money overseas. The tricky thing about taxing rich people is that they have the means to get around them.
Are you arguing that billionaires would move the entirety of their assets overseas and never return to america? Because a wealth tax would apply to overseas money. And if they don't pay their taxes, we would arrest them for tax evasion.
But if you want a wealth tax, you have to consider that not every bit of wealth people own is liquid. Some of them, like houses or investments, can be tied up or difficult to sell off to pay said taxes, which makes the whole concept murky.
It would require them to keep liquid assets to pay their taxes. It isn't a difficult concept. they do it now.
I would rather make multiple laws about how they can spend money rather than take it from people offering much-needed investments in our economy. Our savings rates are terrible, so someone has to offer capital for company projects.
The problem is that you can't ever pass and enforce enough laws. For every method you block, they will find a new one. They have virtually limitless resources to find ways to use their money to buy influence. As long as they have billions in assets at their disposal, they will find a way to corrupt the system to benefit themselves.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
So there are no honest powerful people?
There are exceptions, but as a rule, the more power someone gains, the more prone to corruption they are. So when a small group of people gain billions of dollars, most of them are going to engage in corruption.
How can they both be incorrect? You said that power leads to corruption, therefore, All Billionaires become corrupt. Which means then that you think people should be stopped before they become billionaires.
sort of. There are always exceptions. Some people have extremely strong morals that keep them from engaging in corruption. So saying all billionaires are corrupt would be incorrect. However these beacons of morality are definitely the exception, not the rule.
All your charges appear to be what is possible and what could be done, never what actually is done. You convict people on what you think they are capable of doing, instead of what they do.
no. Corruption is rampant right now. Billionaires are engaging in corruption every day. Do you think that mike bloomberg, a republican, is getting glowing endorsements from democrats because they really just want a candidate who demeans his female employees? No, they are endorsing him because he has tons of money and is willing to write checks.
The richer the general population is, the more money the businesses of billionaires make. Billionaires only become possible and sustainable in prosperous societies.
this is simply untrue. Some of the richest people in history came from countries that were otherwise poor. You don't become a billionaire because you spread the wealth, you become a billionaire by amassing the wealth to yourself at the expense of others.
How is it not true? The average American today has a smart phone with a computer in it more advanced that the computer that took man to the moon. People are richer today.
I never said that people today were not richer than they were in the past. I said that it is untrue that this is an important component in the wealth of billionaires.
And billionaires do only become possible and sustainable in prosperous societies, this is why Africa has so few. Billionaires make money off of an educated, prosperous population.
some of them do. Most of them do not. Most of them find ways to exploit the system. The saudi royal family are insanely rich, but it is from oil. Bloomberg got rich by exploiting financial markets, you don't need a strong middle class for that. You need a rich upper class.
Saying that billionaires subvert their democracies doesn't make economic sense.
why? If they can control the rules of demcracy, they can steer the rules to benefit themselves. You don't get crazy rich from strong competition, most of the richest people get that way by crushing opposition and cornering the market. Corruption helps them do that.
Because their democracies are what enables them to become, and remain billionaires.
no, no it does not. China has almost as many billionaires as the US does. You will not find any democracy there.
That they can is all you can be sure of. You seem again to be convicting people simply based on the possibility existing.
you can watch it happen in real time. Bloomberg donated hundreds of millions to the democratic party just before he announced his nomination, do you think that is a coincidence?
That is democracy. No law benefits only one person. Everyone is trying to make the playing field easier for them in a democracy. If they get laws changed the legal way, there is nothing wrong with that. We can always sack crooked politicians.
lol, so corruption is the fault of the person taking the money, but never the person trying to buy democracy? That is insane.
Like all democrats, you think the population is a bunch of morons just waiting to be swindled, so you must protect them.
I think that with enough money you can buy alot of things. You can corrupt and undermine the democratic system. We need to protect the country. .
If you think every rich person is necessarily corrupt, you ether don't know many, or you have bought into the mindset that being rich is evil. You are actually advocating penalizing people for being creative and industrious!
taxation is not penalization. It is paying your share back into a system you have profited from. A billionaire has profited far more from the system, they should therefore pay far more back into that system.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Ok, and you will have the same exact problem as me. You want to tax billionaires much higher. They will fight like crazy to make sure your taxes either don't go through or that there are tons of loopholes in the tax code, like they already do.
I never said it would be easy. It will absolutely require laws to try to keep their money out of politics as well. But as long as a man can sit on 50 billion dollars and use it to buy out news networks, politicians, endorsements etc, then democracy is at risk.
Bloomberg was temporarily a Republican, but he shares next to no values with them. He is now a Democrat, and he acts like your average moderate Dem. He also said during the debate he spent $100 million to take seats from Republicans in the primaries.
no, no he does not. Until right before he decided to run for president he was still espousing republican policies. He pretends he believes in democratic values now because he knows he has to in order to have a chance, but in his heart he is still an authoritarian republican.
Him buying his way onto the stage is more of an issue of DNC corruption and changing rules after getting some large donations, and his ads still have yet to put him anywhere near the lead.
i'm actually not all that concerned about the DNC letting him on stage. He had bought 15% support already. He was basically just getting to spin his own story without being challenged. Letting him on the debate stage opened him up to actually being questioned on his record, and he got obliterated.
Or they dump billions into charity. The 1% of income earners are responsible for 1/3 of charitable donations. They sign a "giving pledge" sometimes to give all of it away
some of them do that. But many of those charities wouldn't even need to exist if proper taxation existed. we wouldn't need to wait for a billionaire to decide he wants some good publicity in order to provide services to people. If we had proper taxation in place we could consistently provide those services.
And every candidate shits on him at the debates for a variety of reasons. Just the fact that people are saying he is buying the election turns a lot of voters away from him. He doesn't have any delegates currently, does he? And if people want a winner, they won't vote for someone who spends a lot of money and has no delegates. I really don't think he has any chance from what I've seen.
he has no chance of winning the most delegates, but that isn't the point. The point is to bribe enough people so that he will be crowned during a contested convention. Here is a story about it. Basically the plan is to use corruption to steal the nomination.
Well, nobody says they want anyone to be able to buy a democracy. I am saying that there are other ways to make sure that they don't do that than just taking their money.
how? Are you going to pass laws about what they can buy? They can no longer buy newspapers, facebook ads etc. Will you prevent them from donating to causes to try to buy influence and endorsements? No matter how many laws you pass to restrict what they can do with their money, they will find a new way to use it to buy influence and power. The money itself is a threat.
So, your method of controlling "insane wealth concentration" is to put what, a 100% tax on every dollar over $1 billion earned or what?
I like the wealth tax idea. It wouldn't prevent them from amassing large amounts of money, but when they get into the hundreds of millions and billions it would get harder and harder to maintain and grow their assets. They would be prompted to spend more, donate more etc because if they don't they will just increase their tax bill. I think that is a very effective way to both boost the economy and control the out of control income gap.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
I'm curious. Do you believe....A. No one is an honest person?If so, then the real threat to democracy is dishonesty, not billionaires.OrB. All Billionaires become corrupt?Which means then that you think people should be stopped before they become billionaires.
I believe that power leads to corruption. If you have the ability to get what you want, then alot of the time you will do so. If you have 50 billion dollars and can buy up politicians to get your vision of what is "good" done, then why wouldn't you? From their point of view they might not even see this as corruption. But they are effectively silencing the voices of others by using their massive resources. So both of your options are incorrect.
I find it difficult to believe a billionaire would twist the very system that made his huge wealth possible. If I became a billionaire, I would want more Democracy.
You assume that there isn't massive amounts of corruption right now. So corrupting the system more to suit themselves is not a radical change, it is just more of the same. And it would inherently benefit them to do so.
The richer the general population is, the more money the businesses of billionaires make. Billionaires only become possible and sustainable in prosperous societies.
lol this is just patently not true. The rich in america have been getting massively richer while wages for the working class have been stagnant.
Saying that billionaires subvert their democracies doesn't make economic sense.
why? They use their money and influence to get laws that benefit them. If they make their money in oil, bribe politicians to limit environmental laws. They can, and do, make huge sums of money off of corruption.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
A nuclear weapon and money are two entirely different things. Money has near infinite purposes, but a nuclear weapon has one
true, the analogy is limited in scope. But they are both extremely dangerous if they are not properly controlled.
Having large fines associated with attempts at corruption could make it unprofitable to try to use money to influence politics.
but if they successfully use their money to corrupt the system, they can prevent those kinds of fines from existing. Or build in loopholes to avoid them. It is true you could spend a lot of time and effort trying to fight them back, but in the end they have the resources to find new ways to use their money to corrupt the system.
What is the threshold at which someone's money becomes a "threat to democracy"? Because just picking on billionaires because they are a small minority of people seems like something used for political viability than a number that actually has inherent meaning associated with it.
This is certainly debatable, but I would say a billion dollars is probably the point at which it becomes a threat. At that point they have the ability to drown out the voices of everyone else. Bloomberg (a republican) has dumped half a billion dollars into ad buys and bribes and managed to buy his way into 2nd place in a democratic primary (in some polls). That is extremely dangerous.
I will once again have to ask how much money it takes to threaten democracy, because at the least we agree he deserves to be wealthy.
agreed. people who work hard an innovate deserve to reap the rewards of that. But no one can spend 100 billion dollars in their lifetime. The way they tend to spend that kind of money is by dumping it into political campaigns, super pacs and various other ways to buy influence and corrupt the system.
Media isn't the end all be all. Bernie is the front runner and the media hates him, no matter how many millions Bloomberg and others are spending. People simply don't trust it anymore.
In some polls Bloomberg is in 2nd nationally. And he isn't just buying ads, he is paying off the media and politicians all over the country. That 500 million he has spent on ads didn't just disappear into the ether, it went to MSNBC, CNN etc. That kind of money buys you alot of good will.
He also dumped millions into the DNC and various other political organizations all over the country to buy endorsements.
That is a gross mischaracterization of Amazon. (I don't like Bezos btw, I think he is scummy.) But he created a website that provides cheaper and more convenient products for millions of customers. Amazon employs 798,000 people, as well.
i'm not saying he didn't do something innovative. He absolutely did. He deserves to be wealthy. He does not deserve enough wealth to buy democracy though.
I wasn't trying to compare Sanders and Bezos because public service and private sector entrepreneurialism are two entirely different things. But, I was saying that Bezos undertook a lot of more financial risk, so his resulting much larger financial rewards are to be expected.
Fair enough. And bezos would struggle mightily to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in a single lifetime. That is a pretty massive reward on his investment and risk. But once he passes the line into billions, and god forbid hundreds of billions, he becomes a massive threat. He has the money to buy up news agencies, politicians, political organizations etc. America has had those kinds of problems before with railroad barons. The solution was to break up their companies so they wouldn't be such a massive threat. We need a modern day method of controlling that kind of insane wealth concentration.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Isn't that ironic? Democracy is the only system where a person can become a billionaire honestly, and then have the created billionaire be called a threat to the very system that allowed the possibility.
Democracy has absolutely nothing to do with making money. It is a method of picking the leader of the country. Unregulated capitalism is the mechanism billionaires use to amass insane amounts of wealth. They then use that wealth to twist democracy to suit themselves and allow them to make more money. They are massively reducing the voice of the people and massively amplifying their own agenda.
Billionaires are a threat to democracy.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You saw it on the debate stage last night as our "hopeful leaders" descended into anarchy.
nah, last night you saw desperation. Everyone on that stage knew that they needed a big moment if they wanted any chance of surviving. So they all dog piled on each other trying to create the "moment" that would stave off the death of their campaign. Ultimately, all they did was ensure the status quo, which is Sanders becoming the nominee.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
There are hard caps on how much welfare you can receive state by state. The only way a poor person can break the cycle of inequality on welfare is to defraud the system.
ahh i see. But republicans are constantly trying to cut back on those programs. They are actively trying to screw over the poor. Forcing them deeper into a cycle they cannot escape from. If you have draconian restrictions in place and only provide just barely enough to avoid starving to death, they can't afford to get a suit, a means of transportation etc. These create additional barriers that prevent people from getting a job and improving their lives.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Wealth gaps were higher under Obama when there was much more unemployment. Why was that?
The great recession that was triggered by greedy oligarchs. That wiped out alot of working class people. Obama lead the come back from the recession and trump is now trying to take credit for the economy he inherited.
Simple. You can only go so far up the ladder when the government controls how much wealth you can have with welfare.
When has the government ever controlled how much wealth people can have?
Trump instead gave Americans a job and the freedom to invest in yourself and learn more job skills.
A more accurate way of phrasing it is, he inherited an economy that was growing and won't stop trying to brag about it.
Also, a corresponding drop in welfare participation rates shatters the ceiling the government places on the poor to keep them in their place.
this doesn't make sense.
Created:
love the apples and oranges comparisons. population alone is a huge one.
ok, so america has more people. America also has the economic size and tax base to go with that. Larger population does increase the complications, but it is not something that can't be done. It isn't apples and oranges, it is apples to a bigger apple comparison.
now I could see a "universal" catastrophic plan, but that's not really healthcare as much as it is emergency care.
medicare for all would cover everything. That is the whole point. That is by definition healthcare, not emergency care.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Of the democratic party, in two states only. Meaning he's won the under 35 leftist votes in two sparsely populated states.
Sanders won the popular vote in every state so far (Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada). His national polling shows him up over 11 points. He won in nevada in almost every category, left, right, moderate, young, middle aged, with a college degree, without a college degree, white voters, minority voters etc. The only category Biden was able to get a slight edge in was over 65 voters.
What year are you talking about? Because last I checked, open borders, and abortions after births are zany left.
lol what are you talking about. No one advocates for open borders or abortions after birth. I don't know why people keep repeating weird lies like that.
There are lots of conservative democrats. I mean pretty much everyone who appears on MSNBC falls into that category.Laughable. Even Sanders just said that he has been treated better by CNN than by MSDNC. They aren't even a news channel anymore.
MSNBC is no longer left. The have attacked any progressive candidate and constantly defended the right leaning ones. They are essentially the channel for moderate republicans now.
oh, so he surrounds himself with criminals and yes men...Are you able to distinguish between your perception and reality?
several of his friends and cronies are in prison right now. That is reality. Are you able to see reality?
You said this of Trump... "I didn't realize that corruption and giving power to the people were the same thing."Then you immediately after said this, "Trump's upsides (populism, fighting against corruption, fighting for the people..."Do you see why we would think those were contradictory statements?
I'm sorry if I was unclear. I meant that his "upsides" were what people perceived his upsides to be, not what he actually was going to do. His base thinks he fights for them because he uses populist rhetoric, when in reality he is funneling as much money as he can into his own, his family's and other billionaire's pockets while bankrupting the country. He is then trying to cut social spending to pay for it. He is screwing over his own base.
Bernie on the other hand actually believes in the populist message he uses.
Trump didn't make your contradictory statements. You did.
I didn't make any contradictory statement, i clarified above.
Yet the economy is better than its been in decades,
wages are stagnant, student debt is crushing a generation of americans, people are dying and being bankrupted trying to get healthcare. The economy is working great for a small chunk of the population. For everyone else is is going pretty badly.
and Trump has lost personal riches.
lol he has saudi princes funneling money to him and his corrupt son in law. He has the government of china doing favors for his daughter. He is diverting government funds to his hotels. He is doing quite well profiting from the white house.
I'm saying the 3rd option, Trump is not who you think he is, and socialism works only on paper. Add in human nature and socialism becomes indistinguishable from stupidity.
You clearly don't understand. Democratic socialism is used all over the world, and has been for decades. Countries like Canada and Denmark have been doing it a long time and they have much higher standards of living than most americans.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Americans want freedom. Bernie isn't a freedom lover.
Freedom hasn't exactly been going well lately. Wages are stagnant, wealth gaps are growing, debt is out of control.
To republicans, freedom means the freedom to be gouged and financially exploited by the rich. It means oligarchy. To the establishment dems it means pretty much the same thing, just with less racism thrown in.
People are tired of the status quo. They want their lives to actually get better and both the republicans and democratic establishment have not been able to do it. Sanders wants to make people's lives better by giving them healthcare, an education and growing wages. You can scream "authoritarian" all you want. It doesn't, in any way, diminish the power of his message or the appeal of his platform.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
1) Taxation is authoritarian.
lol so literally every government that has, or ever will, exist is authoritarian? By that standard the word loses all meaning.
2) Price fixing drugs is authoritarian.
Has anyone suggested we should price fix drugs? The argument I have heard sanders make is that a single payer system would give america negotiating power against extortionate drug companies.
3) Destroying existing energy industries while subsidizing other energy industries is authoritarian.
why? The government does that right now. How many subsidies do the republicans give to fossil fuel companies? By that standard the republicans are extremely authoritarian.
4) Forgiving student debt while not compensating students that worked and saved money for school is authoritarian (and unfair to boot)
I'm starting to think you don't know what authoritarian means. Forgiving debt is a service that would benefit a massive number of people, help the economy and hurt no one.
5) Price fixing real estate is authoritarian.
who has advocated for that?
6) Declaring healthcare as a "human right" is most definitely authoritarian to anyone working in the health care industry.
this one doesn't even make sense. How is declaring something that every human needs a human right authoritarian? It is just acknowledging reality.
And on and on, everything Sanders wants to fundamentally change in this country requires the force of an authoritative government backed with Federal guns.
what? It is backed by the popular will of the people. The only reason sanders would be able to do these things is if the people back him. That is not authoritarian, that is democracy.
In essence, using the government to help some people by restricting the freedoms of others.
no, it is helping everyone. That is what the government exists for.
Sanders is all about empowering the authority of the government, not the people.
again, this doesn't make sense. Sanders is about using the power of the government to help and provide services to the people. Why does giving people healthcare and an education seem authoritarian to you?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Comparing America's Overton window with western countries is a classic apples/oranges fallacy.
Why? america is a representative democracy. It has a mixed capitolist and socialist economy. It is fundamentally no different than those other countries. The overton window is to the right because both political parties shifted right, not because the american people are right wing.
Bernie is hardcore authoritarian left, no excuses.
No, he isn't. He isn't authoritarian at all and he isn't "hardcore left".
Interestingly, Bernie only supports and praises western Nations with economic opportunities and free capitalistic markets as center-right Denmark has (less authoritarian regulations on businesses) while at the same time promising crippling regulations on all job creators (like Cuba and Venezuela have).
lol i don't even know where to start on this. He hasn't proposed crippling regulations. He is suggesting that america should be a country with economic opportunities and strong social programs like Denmark.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
I’m talking in general. Every aspect of Bernie Sanders is left wing.
true. Bernie is definitely on the left. But the media would have you believe that he is some crazy far leftist/communist. And that idea is laughable. Most of his main points are things that are done in other capitalist countries.
Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar are all Center left. It’s just common sense.
not really, no. Biden is a bit all over the place. He pushed Reagan to the right on "tough on crime" laws. He has been pro-war. He has alot of areas where he has a track record of right wing policy. Buttigieg has no record to run on and his campaign promises shifted to dramatically right when he realized he couldn't win as a progressive. I'm not sure he actually stands for anything other than his own career. I'm not super familiar with Klobuchar's record because she is largely irrelevant.
These "center left" candidates have alot of right wing policy in their records. (or no record at all).
I don’t see anyone denies that Bernie is much more left wing than the average Democrat .
That is because people ask the wrong questions. If you ask someone if they are left, right or moderate, alot of people will tell you they are moderate. If you asked that same person if they supported left wing positions (like medicare for all), they would likely tell you they support it. The democrats have made being "left" a slur for a long time so people say they aren't when they actually are. If Bernie were actually that much further left than the average democrat, he wouldn't be winning. People support his policies even when they say they are "moderate".
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Is Bernie a far left winger?
No. His ideas are right in line with what lots western countries are doing. He is only considered far left because the 2 parties in america are far right and center right when it comes to economic policy. Anyone left of center seems "far left" when your frame of reference is a all right wing policy.
If you deny this then there’s not much to argue because we have a fundamentally different opinion on semantics
The problem we have is that the terms left and right are fairly subjective. They mean very different things to different people. They were simplistic terms designed to describe ideology in revolutionary france. The world has gotten much more complicated since then making such simplistic descriptions next to useless.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
The democrats are the centrist/center left party. The republicans are the extreme right wing party.If this is true, why is Sanders winning? He’s a radical progressive and very left wing.
Because the people are much more left wing than the democratic establishment. The party got hijacked around the time Clinton became president. Since then the people running the party have only been slightly to the left of the republicans on economic issues. So while they were center left socially, they were right wing economically. The country has had no left wing voice for a long time. This has led to more and more people getting fed up as the right wing economics from the republicans and then more right wing economics from the democrats consistently crushes the working class out of existence.
Now that there is a real left of center voice as a viable option. He is crushing the establishment dems.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Sanders hasn't won. Hillery lost.
Sanders has won the popular vote in every contest so far. All the pundits for the last year would have told you that won't happen. Pundits predict what they hope will be true.
One state in a democratic primary. What would be a democratic conservative?
I don't understand your confusion. The democrats are the centrist/center left party. The republicans are the extreme right wing party. There are lots of conservative democrats. I mean pretty much everyone who appears on MSNBC falls into that category.
"crooked hilary" "drain the swamp", are these ringing any bells?No. Crooked Hillery was not power.
Are you serious? Hilary clinton ran the democratic establishment. Her campaign team was approving DNC messaging. She was extremely powerful.
oh, so he surrounds himself with criminals and yes men...Are you able to distinguish between your perception and reality?
yep. multiple associates of his are now in prison.
Trump's upsides (populism, fighting against corruption, fighting for the peopleYou just said Trump was corrupt and not fighting for the people! It's only virtue when Sanders does it huh?
The difference is trump is a liar. He cloaks himself in populist messaging to win the election. But once elected he uses power to enrich himself, his family, and his oligarch friend while he bankrupts the country .
without any of the downsides (corruption, lies, misogyny, racism etc).After the election, you'll see how wrong you are about human nature
how so? Are you saying Sanders is those things? or that people simply don't care that trump is a corrupt, lying, misogynist, racist, asshole?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
By passing only 7 bills on 30 years? Gimme a break. He hasn’t done anything to help the people.
one interesting thing is that Sanders often lets others be the author on bills so that they can look like the hero. His goal is to get things passed, not to get glory and electoral points. (see amy klobochar constantly bragging about her shitty record). Letting other, more power hungry, politicians take the spotlight and only caring about getting good laws passed is the definition of putting public service above your own benefit.
His support runs among young people who have no idea what they’re talking about (Source: I’m in highschool).
in nevada he won in almost every category, Left leaning, right leaning, moderate, white voters, voters of color, unionized, non-unionized, with a college degree and without one. He won in virtually every single category (the only one he didn't win was voters over 65).
His supporters are pretty much everywhere, in all categories. Saying his support is only young people shows you really aren't paying attention.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Because if he truly was fighting for the people, he would give some of his houses to the people.
you say that like he has 100 houses. He has 1 in vermont, 1 in DC (since he works there) and a cabin.
Funfact: Trump has donated more of his salary to the people than Bernie.
you say that like it is relevant. Trump is raking in more in corruption than his salary is worth.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
What about accumulating large amounts of wealth and not trying to influence the democratic system? Is that okay? Because you are in favor of getting large money out of politics anyway, as am I.
Honestly, it depends on the amount of wealth. A billionaire is a threat to democracy in the same way a nuclear weapon is a threat. Even if you put strict rules around how it can be used, the risk of it being used is huge. Someone like bloomberg has the money and connections to pay off virtually everyone in the halls of power. His wealth is a threat.
1. I was referring to Jeff Bezos by the way. He was the founder as well as the CEO. He took huge risks in creating that company. He organized the labor. You said "the work was done by other people". What I heard was " he gave people jobs and directed employees in such a way as to be successful".
ok, but he now has more money than he could possibly spend. He was certainly critical to the success of the company. But the vast majority of the work that was done to make that company a success was done by his employees, not him personally. Does he deserve to be rich for that, absolutely. Does he deserve to have enough money to destroy democracy, absolutely not.
I have no problem with billionaires existing if the money was not obtained through illegal means. A good way to do away with their influence would be getting rid of "soft money" or at least capping it in the same manner that hard money is capped. (It is money given to political parties). It has no limit. That should change, because obviously the party can just pressure the politician to do the large donor's bidding anyway.
There are lots of improvements we could make to get their money out of politics, but the money itself is a threat. They will always find ways to use it to help them push their agenda (which probably isn't the same agenda as the people). Maybe they buy out all the news agencies, maybe they buy out social media platforms and use those to push their agenda. It doesn't matter what rules you put in place. A man with 100 billion dollars will find a way to use it to benefit himself. It will always be used to amplify his voice to drown out the voices of others. That is not healthy for a democracy.
Bloomberg and Bernie aren't in the same league. But my point is that Jeff Bezos did a hell of a lot more work to earn his billions than Bernie did to earn his two million. There was a lot more risk involved in creating a company and expanding it to fight large competitors and therefore a lot more reward than government jobs.
could not disagree more. Bernie spent a lifetime devoted to public service and helping people. Bezos designed a website that sells stuff. He did it really well and deserves to be rich. But to pretend that a lifetime of service to the people is worthless is insane.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
And the pundits all thought she would win the election.
All the pundits said Bernie couldn't win. All the pundits said bernie was going to drop out after his heart attack. Pundits say the things they want to be true.
Sanders is currently ignoring the center and right of center with his leftist nonsense. But as I said, it isn't his socialism that will sink him, its his image.
This isn't true. Sanders got the most support from both "moderates" and "conservatives" in Nevada. Pundits like to simplify people down to whether someone is right, center or left. But this is a gross misunderstanding of how people think about things. There are alot of people on the right who would love medicare for all.
And Trump isn't a radical yelling F-you! to power.
lol that was half of his election campaign. "crooked hilary" "drain the swamp", are these ringing any bells?
Trump has always known that the power belongs to the people.
oh, so he surrounds himself with criminals and yes men so that the people have power? I didn't realize that corruption and giving power to the people were the same thing.
You actually think Sanders would win against Trump.
of course. He has most of trump's upsides (populism, fighting against corruption, fighting for the people etc) without any of the downsides (corruption, lies, misogyny, racism etc).
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
And if you, I don't know, make the third largest company in the entire world and invest for decades, why wouldn't you deserve $100 billion? Seems a lot more productive and important than writing a book.
1) most of that work was done by others. The idea that a CEO is solely responsible for building successful companies is a joke. It takes thousands, 10's of thousands of skilled and devoted employees. Without those employees, the billionaire is nothing. So saying he deserves 100 billion and his employees deserve to scrape by is horrible argument.
2) billionaires are a threat to democracy. Simply by having that much money they are able to tip the scales of democracy in way that benefit them. You are seeing it right now. 2 billionaires are dumping hundreds of millions of dollars to try to protect themselves and their wealth. As the gap between people like Bloomberg and the rest of the country increases, democracy weakens. More and more power ends up in the hands of oligarchs.
3) bernie's net worth is estimated to be 2 million dollars. Trying to say that both Bernie and Bloomberg's wealth is the same is like saying someone who makes 20 thousand dollars a year and 200 million a year are exactly the same. They aren't even in the same league.
God forbid you start a business for peoples' benefit and actually succeed.
no one has argued you shouldn't do that. That is great. What you shouldn't do is spend your life accumulating an astronomical amount of money and then use that money to try twist the democratic system to benefit yourself and screw over the poor. That is what Bloomberg has tried to do and is still trying to do.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
He’s a millionaire, end of story. Doesn’t matter how he earned it. He’s a millionaire. Full stop.
Why? Why does him being a millionaire cause any problem at all? He made money by serving the people and fighting for their well being.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Who cares how he GOT the money? The fact that he HAS it is inconceivable.
ok, so there is no difference between a man who has worked hard for decades fighting for his constituents and any other method of getting money? Also, why is it inconceivable? That doesn't make and sense.
Bernie aint the only politician to "mysteriously" become an "amazing" author of a book. In fact, nearly all politicians eventually cash in on the scam, including Obama.
Bernie has spent decades fighting for the people. The people wanted to read more about him and his thoughts. And you see that as evidence of corruption?
Created:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
You said there is no way to prove either then you said you have proof that he is lying? Are you stupid?
I said the available evidence (ie his decades of right wing ideology) says he is lying. There is no evidence he is telling the truth. Why are you choosing to believe him? Are you stupid?
I literally showed you a quote of mine but you still said the same thing as before. Have you literally lost your mind or are you doing this on purpose since I did show you evidence of my response and you refused to give me a different answer?
you showed me that more people on one side believed something. If I found a a poll that said that more democrats like blue cars, does that make liking the color blue a left wing belief? Believing science is not a left or right wing ideology.
No proof given. Guess this must be your belief. Everyone other than who I like are liars.
There is clearly no point discussing this with you. Rather than actually look at what I am saying you just dismiss it out of hand.
You are asking me to difinitively prove something inside Bloombergs head. That us obviously not a fair request.Calling someone a liar is a pretty hefty claim my dude. If you can't prove it don't say it.
lol a politicians says he has done a complete 180 on a ton of his beliefs that he has held and defended for years. He has done absolutely nothing to prove that is true. you say we must believe his words even though they are completely contrary to his actions. That is insane.
Why do you think that the campaign promise is his real beliefs?Why would I engage in conspiracies, so that I can be as bad as you?
questioning a politician's promises is now conspiracy theory? How biased are you that you see the questioning of a candidate's record and promises as conspiracy?
It isn't 1 issue. It is various issues like with Bloomberg. You give me a bullshit answer and expect to me to accept this level of trash.
no, religion is one main issue. There are lots of issues under that. Bloomberg is claiming he has completely changed his mind on a large number of unrelated issues all at the same time at the exact moment he has something to gain by claiming he has changed his mind. Anyone who thinks that isn't suspicious isn't looking at the situation rationally.
I guess people don't change. Well guess poor people are doomed to be poor.
lol this is just getting sad. You are comparing the beliefs of a man in his late 70's that he has held for decades to the amount of money someone has. Those things are in no way related and you just sound increasingly desperate to try to defend a right wing oligarch. But it's ok, MSNBC and CNN are also desperately trying to deflect as well.
Literally wants a minimum wage and you have refused even now to tell me how my link was wrong.
I have thoroughly explained. You just refuse to listen. Bloomberg has argued against raising the minimum wage all his life. Now he suddenly needs to appeal to a national democratic audience (who strongly believes in raising the minimum wage) and he suddenly sees the light. He now realizes his entire life has been wrong and if you vote for him he will totally do the thing he has spent decades arguing against. If you believe that, you are either REALLY biased and just want to believe it, or you just aren't very bright. I have seen you argue eloquently (sometimes) so I am guessing it is the former.
Guess literally all of your claims don't correlate with the present. Biden I guess is right wing. Bloomberg doesn't support the minimum wage even though he said he has. Bloomberg doesn't support a higher tax rate but he does.
again, you choose to believe something a politician says when their entire record says they believe the opposite. The only reason to believe him is because you want to. There is no evidence to support it.
Respond if you want but your refusal to be reasonable instead be feelings driven has made this useless to me.
My entire argument is based on his long, easily checkable record. Your entire argument is based on "well he says something different now so his record doesn't count". Which one of us is arguing from emotion?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
If he cared about his beliefs, he wouldn’t be a millionaire right now. That’s all I’m going to say.
lol that doesn't even make sense. The only reason he is a millionaire is that he wrote a book and people wanted to read what he had to say. He is a millionaire specifically because he has spent a lifetime fighting for people and building up credibility.
Created:
-->
@Vader
But your again taking the life away from farmers and having them make a profit from their goods, and having it government regulated for a smaller wage they can potentially make with capitalism versus socialism, so no, he won't change the vote for those states
what? no one is saying that.
People don't vote for radical unless there is dire cause. There is no dire cause
most of the american population disagree. Trump is an absolute mess who could set of a new war at any moment. He regularly abuses his power and engages in rampant corruption.
It's a Radical vs a Moderate Conservative. The radical is less likely to gain traction due to, radical beliefs. The radical side will be strayed away to favor Trump.
It's a progressive against a corrupt, criminal, oligarch. My money is on the progressive.
But the corporation isn't evil
I said corporatist. Basically it means they engage in socialist policies, except instead of using government resources to help the poor and working class, they funnel as much money as they can to the rich and corporations. It is corporate socialism, corporatism. The Republicans love it, the establishment dems love it.
I’d also like to reiterate Bernie never worked an honest job to be criticize a system he’s never been involved in
he's devoted his entire life to helping people. Explain to me why that is worse than devoting your life to avarice and corruption?
Created: