Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
yeah I wish I wasn't rich like Sanders too.
He has worked hard his entire life fighting for people. He only became a millionaire recently when he wrote a popular book.
If the rich control the government and if the rich are bad (in context) then wanting to give them more power and authority over you would not make sense or be in your own best interest.
This doesn't even make sense. The basis of my point is to get money out of politics so that the rich cannot unduly influence politicians. You point seems to be to hamstring the government but leave the corruption in place so the rich control the government as well as taking all the power the government is losing. It is the worst of both.
if the rich start wars, control the government and are bad (in context) then wanting to give them more power and authority over you would not make sense or be in your own best interest.
Certain rich people start wars. Typically the ones who profit from it. But whether or not the government has power over regulation is completely unrelated to their power to start wars. The government will always have that power. Nothing you say or do will ever change that.
If no party or individual is immune from same or similar corruptions then wanting to give them more power and authority over you would not make sense or be in your own best interest.
You seem to be willfully missing my point. No party is immune because both parties are corrupted by the corporate money the need to win elections. Once we deal with that underlying problem we can deal with the corruption.
The government is supposed to be entrusted to use the military wisely, sparingly, judiciously if they don't/haven't then wanting to give them more power and authority over you would not make sense or be in your own best interest.
you are repeating yourself, but it still doesn't make sense. Military power and regulatory powers are 2 completely separate things.
You seem to have some warranted distrust of the government and its actions, yet you'd gladly had them more control over you.
governments aren't perfect. I think there is alot of work to do to clean up the corruption. But as a voter we have the power to force change and clean up corruption in politics. But if you managed to take that power away from the government, you would just be handing more power to billionaires you have no power at all over and that is much, much worse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
so you aren't denying the rich run the government, correct?
In large part, that is correct. Although people like Sanders are exceptions.
I ask this because many of the rich in government say the other rich in government and or business are described negatively. Which I don't think isn't deserved in a lot of cases. But that is all the more reason to remove the authority and power from the government only leaving which is actually NEEDED for things like protecting the country etc
I'm not sure I understand what point you are trying to make.
Under the guise of "U.S. interest" people have been killed, foreign and domestic. Got into conflicts the U.S. has no business being in. If you agree with that then it would seem counterintuitive to advocate more power for the very people who start and authorized these events.
I honestly have no idea how you could connect those 2 things. War is always going to be a power of the government. It doesn't matter how many regulations you want them to cut, the ability to declare war is a power of the government. full stop. If you cut regulations it would only make it easier for corporations to bribe the politicians who will make those decisions.
Do you think one party is immune from starting or being involved in these drone strikes and wars?
no. Obama carried out lots of drone strikes. Trump is doing the exact same thing. The problem is money corrupting the system. I mean the current Secretary of Defense was a lobbyist and VP of Raytheon. If the US goes to war with Iran, Raytheon stands to make a fortune.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
wow you might have pointed out ONE exception bravo, clearly the rich doesn't control the government, thanks I feel better now.
Being a congressman/woman is a reasonably well paying job. So if you manage to win 2 or 3 elections your net worth would easily be considerably higher than average. Perhaps the issue is that companies are so significantly under paying their employees that the national average is far too low. If only there were some democratic candidates who had platforms about how to fix that......
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
hey let's make a list of all the poor and middle class people in the senate, congress etc.....um, ok, how about we list the NON millionaires, um wait no, oh forget it.Funny when people think the rich don't run the government.
Just off the top of my head, AOC was a bartender. She certainly isn't rich. We can all be thankful she is gaining some influence in government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Hyperboles are not arguments.
I have already explained how tying the hands of the government will just give more power to the rich and further solidify a ruling class. I admit i used hyperbole, but I have already explained the underlying argument.
Created:
-->
@Vader
You mean a blazing socialist who is getting ready to ruin the economy
Republicans call every single democrat a socialist. They called Obama a socialist and he was only slightly to the left of the republicans. When you use the exact same wildly inaccurate smear for literally everyone you disagree with, it really fails to land. Sanders isn't a socialist. No democrats are socialists. You either don't know what that word means, or you simply don't care that you sound dumb.
Created:
-->
@Vader
When your party is a mess and can only unite on hating Trump knowing that you will use 2020 elections
Sanders' message is almost entirely about policy. Medicare for all, economic reform, political reform etc. Defeating the murderous, racist, man baby in the white house is obviously a high priority to protect the country, but for Sanders the focus is on his vision for fixing the problems that led to that moron being elected in the 1st place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
A tyrant government isn't going to bomb you. They are more likely to use slave labor. Nazi Germany had bombs and could have easily bombed Jewish houses and massacred all Jews they found, but they enslaved them instead.
No, they rounded them all up and sent them to death camps. Bombs are expensive, death camps were much more effective. In this scenario the tyrant government seizes power and you delusionally think you will stop them with an AR-15. That would make you (in their eyes) traitors and rebels. If you were a threat to them then of course they would bomb you. They would do whatever they had to to nulify the threat. America has a massive arsenal it could use to "defend itself from traitors" if the military wanted to.
As Hitler said, "to conquer a country, first disarm it's citizens".
Hitler 1st rose to power using an armed mob. So clearly this statement is bullshit.
Given that the US military would do much more damage then some crazy school shooter, I'd say being pro gun is pro life in the sense that is saves more lives.
What?! america has more mass shootings and it has more murders than most of the developed world. In what sense do guns save more lives?
As bad as the school shootings are, they are thankfully very rare and preventable by arming consenting teachers
There were 417 mass shootings in 2019. That is more than 1 per day. There is nothing rare about that. Now many of these weren't at schools, but every single one of them is a tragedy and many could have been avoided with proper gun controls.
If I were a teacher, any school shooter better watch out for my loaded 22 caliber pistol. My classroom would be protected.
The far more likely outcome is that your gun, or another teacher's gun, will end up hurting an innocent person than stopping a bad one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
HistoryBuff are you familiar with the civil war per chance? it is said that brother fought brother, neighbor fought neighbor. If you believe the government has such tight control over the military that they would do those things you should be terrified. If you believe no group in the military would rise up against bombing their fellow citizens then you should be terrified.But this is the same government you'd give more power to.
You clearly didn't read what I wrote. I said that either way, your AR-15 is useless. whether the military sides with the government or against it, your gun doesn't mean squat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The answer isn't to tie the governments hands so that billionaires can do whatever they want. The answer is to get the rich people's money out of politician's pockets and clean up government.No, the answer is to tie both hands and give the power back to the people, and only a sycophant would argue anything else.
How would you do that? How do you take power away from the government with the rich taking that power? If the government doesn't make the rules, then the billionaires will.
What kind of a bullshit argument is this? Hello, reality check, have you seen the condition of the exteriors of licensed cabs lately?
I have a car. I haven't been in an uber or a taxi. But you are trying to force a tangent. You want to hyper focus on one or 2 examples of regulation that might have negative effects and then use that to justify torching the entire country by handing power to the rich.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Because the laws aren't strict enough to prevent people from buying devices designed to kill people on a mass scale?which is defined how?
In my opinion, any weapon that is designed to kill people should be heavily restricted if not banned. A hunting rifle is fine. But no one needs a magazine of more than 5 or 10 rounds to go hunting. No one needs to own a hand gun.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
AR15s provide protection against the biggest mass shooter in history; a tyrannical government.
I find this argument hilarious. An AR15 will not stop a drone from bombing you. It want stop an abrams tank, or fighter jet. If the US government became tyrannical, either the military backs the government, at which point all the AR-15s in the world won't save you, or they don't back the tyrannical government, at which point all the AR-15s in the world are completely irrelevant.
Your guns are meaningless in terms of fighting the government. However, if you hold onto that right to have all those guns countless people will die. Is that pipe dream of fighting off the US military really worth the lives of 10's, or even hundreds of thousands of people?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
That's a fake argument. The government can make regulations that help while also making ones that do not solely for the purpose of destroying competition to ensure big businesses contribute to their warchests.
lol, so because sometimes rules can be bad, we shouldn't have rules.... makes total sense. But once we get all that corporate money out of polotics, that will limit the amount those businesses can influence policy. Everyone wins without handing power to billionaires.
The most idiotic of them is requiring a license to sell lemonade
I agree that these rules can be overly punitive. But there are good reasons why we don't let random people sell food and beverages to people on the street.
destroying charter schools
Charter schools are a bad thing. They get all the benefits of public funding without any of the accountability. They are exactly the kind of thing you usually rail against.
or destroying Uber with regulations to appease the cab driver monopoly.
Or they are trying to enforce safety and quality assurance rules that uber is trying very hard not to have to comply with.
There is no reason why the people cannot reclaim the powers they gave to the government Post FDR, as the government has shown it cannot be trusted with that power.
The government can't be trusted because it has been flooded with corporate and billionaire money making them much more responsive to the rich than to their voters. The problem isn't the government, it is the rich people pulling the strings of a rigged system. The answer isn't to tie the governments hands so that billionaires can do whatever they want. The answer is to get the rich people's money out of politician's pockets and clean up government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
People have no power to negotiate because people like you voted the government to have enough power to destroy competition for medical payment services. Some states only license a single insurance company to do business there.
People have no power to negotiate because the for profit insurance industry gives them no ability to negotiate. They set a price. You pay it, or you run the risk of bankruptcy or death. It's a product that sells itself because if you don't buy it, you die.
Which was in place long before the government had the power to manipulate the economy with subsidies and competition busting regulations.There is no reason we can't step back and go back to the way it was pre FDR nonsense.
lol, I will never understand why right wing people think that establish rules that all companies have to abide by is "competition busting". That's like saying that having a rule where hockey players can't hit each other in the face with their stick is just destroying completion. It is complete and utter nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The alternative is to put people into slave camps and create the drugs you demand for a price only you can agree upon.I'll prefer option A.
No, the alternative is having a single payer system where the consumers actually have some power to negotiate rather than the free for all gouging america currently suffers from.
Tort law has been around long before the crony governmental regulation and subsidy complex
You are aware that tort law is still determined by the government right? They pass laws which govern tort law.
Sure I do. People can choose to not buy those goods if they don't want to deal with the pollution. Personally, I am fine with the current air quality and the convenience of my car and plastic straws. The majority of America agrees with me.
But if the factories are all in one region, then they are only poisoning a small group. The rest of the market doesn't give a shit because they aren't affected. You are fine with the air quality while there are strict laws controlling pollution. If you weakened the power of the government, this would dramatically decrease causing a huge upsurge in preventable health problems (which they would of course gouge you to treat).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Who decides how much you will pay for drugs,I do. It's called "shopping"
Not when they have patents you don't. They hold the patent on the drug you need to live. You can pay the price they decide, or you can die.
what goes into the food you eat,I do, it's called "educating yourself."
And if the entire industry they want to use certain sub-standard products? What if they decide to just not tell you what is in their food? Or if they just lie on the label about what is in it? Then you are screwed. Luckily for all of us, there are laws against those things.
I do, by choosing to buy products like a car that causes pollution.
Oh so you are choosing that a factory near you puts poison into the air or into your water? It kind of seems like you have no control over that.
The rich do.no
I just explained how they do. They can price fix their products to charge what they want. They can decide to dump poison into your water or into your air. They can put sub standard ingredients in your food and lie about it. All of these things would be incredibly easy things a company could do to you if the government didn't prevent them from doing it.
Tell that to the buggy whip manufacturers. They were rich once too and had the government bought and paid for.People just stopped buying horses and buggies.
I have no idea what this means. People stopped buying buggies because a better product came out that replaced them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Which laws do you think need strengthening? I saw GM lose about $100 million every day during that strike. Seems like they don't have a whole lot of power, now does it?
So because workers have some sort of leverage to bargain with, you see that as a multi-billion dollar company being powerless? They are incredibly powerful, they just don't have absolute power like they would prefer.
Well, if you would actually allow for competition, you would get your choice of medical provider who would actually work to get you a good deal.
The reality is very different from your fantasy unfortunately. Insurance companies have found that it is more profitably to co-operate with the medical companies and pay outrageously over priced costs for hospitals and drugs because they know they can squeeze it out of people anyway. When your choice is pay the cost or die, it doesn't leave people with any options.
Would you get a vote for drug prices? Let me rephrase that- would you get the right to coerce a company to sell a drug for whatever you want, essentially saying you have the right to someone else's property? No, and I don't think you should, either.
Of course not, you get bargaining power. When you represent the entire US health insurance industry you have the power to negotiate better prices. When individual companies who have no problem squeezing the money out of their customers are in charge of it, the result is ridiculous runaway costs.
What would be wrong with giving parents a voucher that will allow them to choose which school their child can attend instead of sending them to whatever the closest public school is. I know it is cliche, but.... WHY SHOULD A ZIP CODE DETERMINE A CHILD'S FUTURE?!
The details would be highly important. Would the schools be obligated to take students who choose to use their voucher or could they refuse students? Because at that point it would be very easy for rich parents to make a donation to a school and get their child a spot while a poor person's voucher is refused. You would then see the exact same problems we have now where the rich just go to private schools and the poor have public schools.
If what you say about the government doing most of the work/subsidizing MOST of the work is true, then please provide a link''
I have seen sources vary based on what numbers they are using. Here is a study showing that between 2010-2016, every single drug that was approved received government funding. This was over 100 billion dollars.
Not necessarily trustworthy inherently. Their main objective is to make money. Competition, if present, has the power to be a "market force", however. If a company engages in false advertisement, but their competitor doesn't, naturally the "untrustworthy" company will most likely fail. That is a market force that keeps them somewhat trustworthy because they need to maintain a positive brand image.
You are assuming a few things that would have to all work, all the time. 1) you assume that there are honest, trustworthy competitors. If they are all corrupt, which most of them are, then this wouldn't happen. 2) you assume the market would react. Companies are doing shitty things every minute of every day all across america. the "market" hears about a teeny tiny percentage of them. And even if the "market" hears about them, they can only react to so many stories. If there are 10's of thousands of companies doing shitty things every day, only a tiny percentage of those are going to receive significant blow back from them. It is much more profitable to be crooked. And if you get caught, you apologize, maybe pay off a few lawsuits for grieving families, then go right back to doing it again.
The market cannot ever, under any circumstances, force companies to stop being assholes. They will continuous screw people over as frequently and as severely as the possibly can. You can punish a few of them for these actions. but people's attention spans are too short and there are just too many cases for it to ever be effective. The much better plan is to have strict regulations and laws in place that will severely punish them if they do shitty things.
Not from what I have seen. People have an illusion of power. They certainly vote for people, but nothing ever changes.
In large part because of the money in politics. They know they need the billionaires and bundlers to fund their campaigns. They can piss off some voters and be fine, but if they piss of their donors they are screwed. Once you get all that private money out of elections, then they have much less incentive to be listening to the rich, because their donors are now every single american citizen. You empower voters, exactly like you said you wanted to.
On the other hand, you see companies like General Electric with a plan called "ecomagination" in which they are planning to invest in more renewable options for their product line.
General electric is a massive multinational conglomerate. They are reported to be the 4th largest corporate polluter in america. They have massive holdings in oil and chemicals. They have on many occasions been found to have caused massive contamination including one time they dumped more than 100,000 tons of chemicals from their plant in Waterford, New York.
They invest in green energy with one hand to get some good publicity, while massively investing in pollution, poison and death with the other. This is a perfect example why "the market" can never hold these companies accountable. They will us their massive resources to publicize the handful of good things they do, while making huge amounts of money exploiting people and spreading poison. But that money buys alot of good headlines.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Not at all. The rich don't have any power over me. As long as the government is the only one that can tax me, I am all for stripping that power down.
lol that is incredibly naive. Who decides how much you will pay for drugs, what goes into the food you eat, how much pollution is going into the air you breath or the water you drink? The rich do. The only limitation on their power over you is the laws the government passes that prevents them from doing these things. If you take that power away, then corporations can do whatever they want to you and there is nothing you can do about it.
When the rich have the power to tax me and send people with guns to my house, then I will start to worry.
Umm, have you ever heard of debt collectors, Private military contractors etc. The rich already have some of those powers. The reason they can't do more is because the law says they can't. You take that power away from the government and you can bet your ass companies will be using that power instead.
I'm not advocating a transfer of power. That is a false choice you are presenting. I am advocating for a reduction of that power and giving it back to the voters instead of powerful politicians with favors to buy.
But that is nonsense. If power is removed from one group, another group will take it. If it isn't the government putting rules in place to control how much poison a company can dump in your water, then a company will decide that instead. Power is a zero sum game. If you take it away from the elected representatives of the people, then the rich will take it. Giving power to the government IS giving power to the voters, as long as we reform the system to keep them honest. Taking power away from the government only hands it to billionaires.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
if billionaires have no way of giving money to politicians without going to jail, then it is alot harder to buy off politicians.That's never going to happen. Every schoolyard kid knows how to get access to cigarettes and vapes without getting any punishment. And the government has the judicial system stacked in their favor so nobody really goes to jail.
This is a bit like saying that you can't stop a murder, so why bother making it illegal. It is just silly. There are already plans that would do this. For example, Andrew Yang's "freedom dollars". Basically, it would ban all private funding of elections. Instead every citizen would get a specific amount of money they could send to a politician(s) of their choice. That way if a politician wants money to run an election, they need to get people to support them. Billionaires would have the same amount of money to donate as a Walmart worker.
The only way to clean up the government is to take the power away so the rich have nothing to purchase.
lol, that is an even sillier idea. Basically you are advocating taking power away from politicians who could be bribed, and just handing that power directly to the rich people who were bribing them. You just want to cut out the middle man and put the rich directly in charge of your life. I can't imagine a worse idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I think it is a bit of a strawman to say that I am advocating for a total absence of labor laws. Do I think a $15 minimum wage is a terrible idea? Yes, I would certainly be against that. Do I think unions like United Auto Workers need to be scaled back and regulated more? Yes. I don't want an absence of unions, though. I don't think an absence of workplace regulations is a good idea, either.
Companies are already abusing workers and poor people with the laws we have right now. Any crack in the law, any loophole they can get around is exploited to the greatest extent they can. Any relaxing of labor laws, environmental laws etc would be a terrible idea. If anything these need strengthening.
You would get more of a say in your school and healthcare if you were a consumer instead.
Why? Do I get a vote on what the drug prices are for medication I need? of course not. Companies decide how they can make a profit and only reign it in if it catches headlines for being particularly egregious. Without government regulation they would be free to gouge as hard as they can.
Are you in favor of school vouchers so there is school choice, or do you think public schools should expect money and students without having an incentive to improve?
I would need to see the details of such a plan. But i'm pretty sure it would work out terribly.
Not entire economic central planning. Medicare for all is centrally-planned healthcare.
It is not central planning healthcare in any way. It is government provided insurance. Healthcare is still entirely separate. Many countries have very similar systems and they work much better than America's.
So companies should just have to wait 50 years to make their money back (by which time their drug is generic)?~10 years and millions of dollars go into developing drugs.
This argument is bullshit. Drug research is a small fraction of drug company's expenditures. most drug research is heavily subsidized by the government. Drug companies spend like 3 or 4 times as much on marketing their drugs than they do trying to make or improve them.
We agree there need to be rules. I just think there should be less than you. That is generally how this discussion works, as we aren't communists or anarcho-capitalists.
agreed. But you seem to hold the view (and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to straw man you) that companies and executives are trustworthy and/or can be controlled by "market forces". But this argument is silly. Company's will do whatever they can to increase profits. If that means putting sub-standard ingredients in your food, they will do it. If that means letting people die in preventable car accidents rather than recall the faulty vehicles, they will do that too. They don't care you about. If you die, they could care less as long as they make more money.
Governments on the other hand are beholden to their people. If the government treats people in a way they don't like, the people can get rid of them. I would MUCH rather power be in the hands of devil I have some level of control over than the devil I have no control over at all.
Created:
The media released a baseless smear of bernie over the last few days. Members of warren's team leaked a story to the media (almost certainly with Warren's blessing) that bernie had told her in a private meeting that a woman couldn't win. They then spent the whole day the story came out refusing to comment fueling the media to keep reporting it. Warren eventually came out and said it was true. The point of all of this is to try to smear Sanders as some kind of chauvinist.
Sanders has a long history of fighting for women's issues. He tried to get Warren to run in 2016, and only ran himself because she refused. There are also videos of him confirming he believes women can win the presidency dating back to the 80's.
To run this attack on Sanders smacks of desperation. And even worse, she is attacking the person she has the most in common with while letting Biden, a man who has made TONS of terrible decisions, statements etc, completely off the hook.
She can't possibly beat Sanders on the issues because he is the most trusted candidate on most of them. She can't beat him in popular appeal because he has the highest favorability rating among the candidates too. So she takes a cheap shot that cannot possibly be confirmed or disproven to try to undermine her closest ally.
I think this desperate play is bad for her campaign.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Well when you give power to corrupt politicians, you give the power of writing laws to the very people those billionaires bought.
That is why it is important to get their money out of politics. if billionaires have no way of giving money to politicians without going to jail, then it is alot harder to buy off politicians.
With a small government, rich people get some indirect power, but they cannot write crony laws and regulations on the books. They can’t force us to pay billions in tax dollars to subsidize their businesses and bail them out.
No, they can just crush unions, pay slave labor wages, treat employees as disposable commodities to be used up and discarded. That is how it used to work before employment laws were passed. If you take that power away from the government, we will just slide back into that world of rampant abuse by the rich and powerful.
I will gladly pay taxes to get roads, health care, schools etc. At least I get a say in what services we get and what the rules will be. If you take away the power of the government, you are giving up your say in what the rules will be and handing that power exclusively to the rich. And they will promptly use it to make themselves richer and you poorer.
I agree that we should get money out of politics regardless. It makes your position more sustainable. But then that brings up the separate issues caused by central planning.
Do you mean economic central planning? No one has suggested doing that. But there is always going to need to be a balance. If there is no laws controlling companies, they will abuse their workers and the poor. That is just a fact. One only has to look at the 100,000% markup drug companies put on drugs people need to live. They are already making record profits, they don't need to do that. but they can, so they will. If they can get away with it and get more money, they will do it. Even if it kills people.
On the other hand, if there are too many rules and too much control by the government you crush innovation and stifle growth. That is why we need a mixture. We need capitalism to fuel growth and innovation, and we need strong rules to keep that avarice in check so it doesn't hurt people and society in general.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Firstly, the guns labeled assault weapons by California are civilian weapons designed for hunting, sporting, and self-defense, not mass killings.
No hunter has ever needed 30 round mags in a semi-auto for hunting. If you need that much firepower then you are out to kill humans.
Secondly, handguns are responsible for about 20 or 25 times as many deaths as all rifles put together.
I would be very much in favor of gun control on handguns too.
Thirdly, the reason I was referring to is that many pro-gun people believe that the end goal of gun control advocacy is a ban on all guns.
The point isn't to ban guns. The point, from my point of view anyway, is to ban, or heavily restrict, guns that are designed to kill humans. A handgun for example has no use other than killing people. Very few people need to own that.
Any weapon that is capable of unloading 30 rounds in rapid succession is designed to kill humans. No one needs to own those.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
That is one of the biggest reasons pro-gun people oppose gun control.
Because the laws aren't strict enough to prevent people from buying devices designed to kill people on a mass scale? That's an odd reason to oppose gun control.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
You're right. clearly that ban doesn't go anywhere near far enough.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Absolutely. Back in 2016 I believe, there was a debate between Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz. Cruz said something along the lines of "Bernie, we both agree that Washington is corrupt. I can't think why you'd advocate for giving them more power."
The alternative is that the power is in the hands of the rich and powerful people that the average person has absolutely no control over. We are much better off with power being in the hands of a politician we can vote out if he does shitty things than it being in the hands of a billionaire who doesn't give a shit what we think.
We just need to work harder to get the money out of politics to remove the ability for politicians to abuse their power. This means no corporate money fueling campaigns. This means no politicians spending the majority of their time in office schmoozing the rich so they can win their next election. It will be difficult and the billionaires will fight it every step of the way. But it can be done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
if you think it's something other than what it is I'd lean more towards a campaign promise kept kind of thing. I like a good conspiracy but I don't think this is one of them.
You think it is a coincidence that trump chose the moment he is impeached to launch an act of war against Iran?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
that's one of the problems with stuff being classified etc right?
Yeah, that's kind of the problem though isn't it? The government carried out an act of war without providing any justification to the american people and didn't even bother to tell congress he was doing it. I for one don't think the President should have the power to declare war unilaterally and not even bother to justify it afterwards. But maybe republicans don't care if the president becomes a king.
I believe a few sources indicated he was coordinating and aiding in those attacks which would explain why he was there. He was involved with the attacks directly.
says who? no evidence of any kind has been presented. They could have just made it up, as countless governments have before, to justify an attack. These kinds of lies got us into Afganistan, Iraq and vietnam. They may very well get us into a war with Iran too.
Iran could turn a corner towards peace but I don't believe the leaders want that nor do they care about their citizens. I hope I'm wrong. It could be the start of a new era.
How could that possibly happen when the US won't stop attacking them? They made efforts to move towards peace and Trump blew it up. They got burned when they made moves toward peace last time. They aren't going to try again without guarentees. And trump is much more interesting in bombing them than talking to them.
correction, I vilify subhumans who burn people in cages, behead them, kill gays etc, don't you think people who do those things should be vilified?
which people is that specifically? Some random officials or clarics? How does that have anything to do with the murder of Solemani?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
right, there is no reason to take their word for it unless it's something you want, you know like free stuff, entitlements, HEALTHCARE lol you are funny.
So you see domestic policy proposals coming from candidates for the presidency as exactly the same thing as vague threats made by the defense department that are being used to push us towards war. You don't see any difference between those things?
leftist love to judge others, I get that, but don't pretend that you know me or what I feel, it's irrelevant and frankly none of your business.
You have done nothing but vilify Iran this entire time with little to no criticism at all of the wanton murder and destruction being carried out by the US military. If I am wrong and you oppose that, by all means say so. But i'm guessing you won't do that because you don't care that the government is bombing muslim funerals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
“General Suleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region,” the Pentagon said in a statement
Ok, the US government says he was going to do stuff. They also said Sadam had weapons of mass destruction. Where is the evidence? Why should we carry out acts of war with no proof Iran was planning or had done anything?
In killing General Suleimani, Mr. Trump took an action that Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama had rejected,
They rejected it because they knew it was stupid. They knew it would escalate the violence and cause pointless death and destruction.
As rocket attacks against U.S. bases in Iraq intensified over the last two months, the president had granted the Pentagon extraordinary latitude
So Iraqi's were launching rockets, so they murdered an Iranian general....
Where is the evidence that Iran or Solemani were in any way involved? That article says that allies of Iran did stuff. It in no way shows that Iran did anything, much less Solemani in particular.
So based on the actions taken by Iraqi militia groups, the US committed an act of war against Iran. Do you not see how nuts that is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I don't have access to classified information but the claim I thought was they were planning an imminent attack on U.S. citizens and or the embassy.
There was a claim that Sadam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, or was involved in 9/11. Those were lies. There were claims that there were 2 gulf of Tonkin incidents, that was a lie too. There were claims that afganistan refused to turn over Bin Laden, also a lie. The government has proven on many occasions that it likes to lie about stuff, especially to justify the use of violence.
There is no reason to take their word for it.
hope this helpssad...
Ok, so you are slightly unhappy about the fact that women and children have and continue to be massacred by the US military. You just don't care enough to condemn that, or criticize it even slightly, let alone do anything. Oh yes, I can definitely see that you care deeply about these atrocities....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I'm not sure that is how it happened or what he did. Are you certain this wasn't in defense of U.S. citizens?
He murdered an Iranian general while he was on his way to a meeting with the Iraqi government to discuss peace. What exactly was being defended against?
context and intent is key which I've already explained and you are still trying to defend.
I'm not defending either side, you are. I am saying both sides are terrorists that murder women and children for political power and money. You are trying to paint one side as evil and the other side as justified.
you mean what they do to the gays, Christians etc? yeah I agree
I mean the US government is responsible for countless deaths in the middle east. I mean it must be millions by this point what with the Iraq war, the war in Afghanistan, drone strikes constantly ranging from Baghdad to Pakistan.
They carried out an airstrike on a wedding and your reaction is basically that you don't give a shit.if you think that is my reaction you should stop trying to judge people with your assumptions because you really suck at it.
Your exact response was "I've previously brought up collateral damage. It's a sad reality." then you changed the topic. How is that anything other than you don't give a shit. There is no outrage, there isn't even a tiny bit of criticism. Just that's reality. That complete nonchalance about the massacres of civilians is why much of the world sees america as evil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
So let me get this straight. They attack us first and we’re just supposed to sit there?
What makes you think that they attacked 1st? America has been attacking them pretty much constantly for decades, but especially since trump became president.
If you’re equating the United States to Iran then go live in Iran lmao. See how similar they are for yourself, you’d be surprised.
The idea that if you want to get the government to stop murdering people all the time, you should instead go to another country is an incredibly stupid argument.
Prove that they want to get rid of Israel and have been actively trying to get rid of the state. You can’t because they haven’t ever since the US got in the picture.
The Saudi's are just spreading their money and domination. They don't like Israel, they'd love to get rid of them. They just know that if they deal with Iran then the Saudi's will dominate the middle east.
American allies deserve to be protected, that’s how it works. It’s us vs them.
What? Why? Why is Israel an american ally? Why would we go to war with Iran when Iran hasn't actually done anything to try to destroy Israel? Wouldn't the much, much better plan be to use diplomacy to convince them not to try to destroy Israel?
In war, civilian targets banned under the Geneva Conventions, and we try our best to avoid it. It’s a war zone, it’s a risk, and sometimes mistake do happen.
America's military bombs funerals all the time. That is not a military target. Also, trump tweeted he wanted to attack "cultural targets" like yesterday.
But these Iranians and their proxies purposefully target civilians. That’s the difference between us and them.
The difference is that America has bigger weapons and can target more freely. The Iranians have more limited options for targets because they don't have drones hovering over the middle east. But don't pretend like the US is any better. The US has just as much, if not more, blood on it's hands as Iran.
You have yet to answer my question regarding what YOU would do. I’m assuming you would sit around and do nothing while American soil is attacked and American lives are in danger.
I have said this over and over. USE DIPLOMACY!!!!. Sanctions and violence might get iran to the table to talk, but they will never, ever, resolve the problem. If you don't talk to the Iranians the problem will never end.
Makes sense, you support Hillary Clinton.
Very much no. She was a bad candidate. But she would have been way better than trump.
Oh and we did negotiate, they did nothing.
by did nothing, I assume you mean they kept up their end of the deal while america didn't hold up their end.
A religious dictatorship is incompatible and nothing like American democracy yet you are quick to compare American and Iranian actions.
Then why are we allies with Saudi Arabia? They are also a religious dictatorship. But they give politicians money, so we overlook their terrorism.
The man killed 600 American troops and wounded thousands. He deserved to die if you support America.
Says who? Where is the evidence of that? The US government has offered no evidence at all that he had done anything or was planning to do anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
When trump carries out an attack that will escalate violence you defend it.did I? you seem to interject a lot of what you assume and think into what I write, you really should stop doing that.
Here are some quotes from you defending/justifying the attack
"they are subhuman imo who don't deserve the treatment a slaughter house animal gets, they deserve worse."
"I find it perplexing that diplomacy would be needed to stop terrorism, burning people in cages etc People of that mind set can be rationalized with? As I see it we can turn a blind eye to it or not. If not the options are rather limited."
"he killed people who killed people, he's not getting anyone killed, they would/will kill no matter what he did or didn't do. terrorist will be terrorist."
you defend or justify burning people in cages, killing gays and I'm the one not reasonable? LOL why do you hate gays, they are people just like the rest of us.
I'm not defending either side. Both the US government and Iran have both carried out terrorist attacks against each other. They need to negotiate and talk, not bomb each other. Which is why I think it was incredibly stupid for Trump to force Iran's hand.
Trump wasn't president in 2009, do you know who was?from that very short link it sounds like these were not women and children and they were, infact targeting the militants in that funeral.
The national security people who ordered and carried out those attacks haven't changed. Also, those are just a drop in a very large bucket. I provided 4 sources and it took me less than 5 minutes to find them. There are thousands, if not 10's of thousands of american drone strikes that hit civilian targets. But it is Iran that is evil?
I've previously brought up collateral damage. It's a sad reality.
Seriously? They carried out an airstrike on a wedding and your reaction is basically that you don't give a shit. This is why much of the world think america is evil. They just keep on murdering and murdering and murdering and they just do not care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
in what context? collateral damage is a reality of war/violence, burning people in cages etc is not, it's rather disturbing you'd try to justify and equate those 2 thing, you should re-evaluate your line of thinking.
Oh i understand, so when the US massacres women and children that is just the way of the world, but if Iran does that they are evil sub-humans that deserve to die. Glad to see I am talking to a reasonable human being.
I'm discriminating against people who kill gays etc either by action or inaction, if that makes me a bigot so be it.
You are discriminating against people who have nothing to do with the actions you are describing. You are lumping them all in together when most people would have had nothing to do with that. That is bigotry.
wow, there is always a choice, just because it's one you don't like doesn't mean it's not available to you, seriously, come on, geez.
Then why are you not ascribing that same thought process to trump? When trump carries out an attack that will escalate violence you defend it. When iran carries out an attack that will escalate violence you call them evil terrorists. Either you should attack when provoked or not. You can't argue that america can escalate the violence and it is fine, but if iran does it that is evil.
can you give an example where a random wedding or funeral was purposefully targeted by the U.S.?
Here is one from 2009. here is an article describing the practice of the "double tap" where they drone strike a militant then bomb their funeral killing scores of civilians.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
They attacked American troops for years. Peace my a**.
And america was attacking them at the same time. Why do you pretend like this is one sided?
They want to get rid of Israel and we’re in the way.
I'm sure the Saudi's would love that too. But they are US allies and not "evil".
Unless you support an extinction of the Jewish State, then you can’t negotiate with them.
That is incredibly dumb. The only way to convince them to stop trying to do that would be to negotiate. Ramping up tension only increases the violence and hate. Ruling out negotiating is guaranteeing violence and war.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
yeah? quote where I said the whole government, they are complicent for certain because they either condone, ignore or encourage these atrocities.
So again, the US does the exact same things. They bomb weddings, funerals, markets etc all the time. Is the US also sub-human?
I didn't know government bigotry was a thing, but if it is, I'll accept that moniker and wear it proudly. Gays are people too.
You discriminating against an entire group of people for actions done by a subset of that group. That sounds like bigotry to me.
America talks a big game about how they will throw their weight around, then they get stuck in a brutal war.that's true
That is exactly the problem. That is why this murder makes war much more likely. I would hope we both agree that going to war with Iran would be a bad thing.
so they really don't want diplomacy or peace then, but rather they will escalate the situation.
They did want peace. They negotiated a deal with multiple countries including the US. The US then torched that deal, tried to crush their economy, murdered their allies, and now have murdered their most popular government official. But iran is the problem?
They could cut their losses and restart/reboot but you rightfully believe they won't and instead will further violence and escalate the situation. Does that sound rational to you, like someone you could reach with diplomacy?
They, much like Trump, can't afford to look weak. If they cave after the murder of a national hero, their government loses all credibility. The Iranian people are going to demand blood for blood. Trump has tied their hands. They have no choices left but to attack. I agree that reaching them with diplomacy is now very unlikely, but that is because America (trump) betrayed them.
I think burning people in cages (all the stuff I've already said) is pretty evil, don't you?
Agreed. So is drone striking a wedding or a funeral. Why are they evil for these things but america is somehow a defender of virtue?
let me rephrase, imagine you ruled Iran, what would you do to the U.S. in this situation based on what you know?
If I were the ruler of Iran? Probably assassinate the highest ranking american I could get my hands on and bomb some high level american military targets. Because if I don't, the people would see me as weak and cow towing to evil empire.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you may have some sort of warped compassion for people who burn other alive and do the things I've listed, but I don't, they are subhuman imo who don't deserve the treatment a slaughter house animal gets, they deserve worse.
Again, your bigotry is showing. There are some people in Iran who have done those things. You are then using that to paint the government and this specific general as sub-human. That is bigotry.
I can show you cases of americans engaging in all sorts of depraved, evil actions. That doesn't mean america is evil.
any idea how many times that's been said, even before the cold war?
The problem is that it keeps happening. Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam etc. America talks a big game about how they will throw their weight around, then they get stuck in a brutal war.
A general was killed by a (the) super power. Is that worth starting a war you have NO chance to win or survive? Over a dead terrorist general?
Iran won't declare war, america will. Iran will engage in retaliation for America's murder of their general. Trump will use that to justify an american attack.
For example, Trump tore up a diplomatic treaty with iran and began punishing them. Iran countered with more funding and support for militia groups that then attacked the US. The US used that to justify attacks in Iraq. Those militias counter attacked at the US embassy. The US used that as a justification to murder an Iranian general. The cycle continues on and on.
Let's be real here. The U.S. could level that country and they must know this given what happened in Iraq etc.
1) Iran is much more capable of fighting the US than Iraq was. The was would be much bloodier.
2) You clearly learned nothing from Iraq. It has cost an absolute fortune and rivers of blood. The american people won't stand for another stupid war. The Iranians know that.
They can bitch and moan all they like about his death, but to actually do something would seem counterproductive for them and counterintuitive to a logical, rational perspective.
lol oh yes. Just like when the US did every other escalation, the iranians just threw up their hands and surrendered.... Anyone who knows anything about the region or diplomatic relations at all knows that Iran has no choice but to counter attack. An Iranian national hero has been murdered. The Iranian people will demand revenge just like the US did after 9/11.
Let's pretend you control Iran, you seem fairly level headed, what would you do?
If we could control Iran, we wouldn't have any problems. No one can control Iran. The only thing you can do is talk to them. As long as america continues to call them evil and refuse to negotiate, then more violence will be the only outcome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
He’s a freakin terrorist.
So is the US government. They bomb civilian targets all the time.
You saying there’s no evidence is blatant hypocrisy for what Obama did.
What did Obama do that you think is comparable to murdering a member of the Iranian government?
Do you have any idea the type of government you’re defending?
That's the thing. I'm not defending them. I am trying to get you to realize that they are a large and desperate group of people who are carrying out the same sort of actions that the US government does. But you see them as evil but America is good.
They want to perform a genocide. You’re ok with that?
No, and if they tried to do so, we would obviously have to do something about that. They haven't tried to do so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
is that what I said? how about some honesty on your part?
You said you don't see them as human. That is what you said.
has the regime stopped those atrocities? arrested or punished those who have and continue to commit them?
How does murdering the most popular general in their country do anything about that? Will going to war with them stop that? Because that is where we are headed.
ahhh ok, so how about we use diplomacy with murderers in the U.S. and we can house them next door to you? How about that?
you are acting like Iran is a person and not a nation. The are very, very different.
oh let's ask, pretty please stop burning people, killing gays, raping women etc, maybe that would work, or we'll pay you not to do those horrible things, or punish those who do these things, think that would work?
No one paid Iran. They released money that was illegally stolen by america decades ago. But yes, diplomacy might get them to agree to do the things that we want them to do. Murdering their post popular government official will absolutely not do that.
diplomacy with barbaric criminals, that's awesome.
1) your bigotry is showing again
2) going to war with them sure as hell isn't going to stop those things. It will just increase the suffering massively.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
40 Iranians won't die of old age either. This madman kills people even after he is dead!
He was so popular that the crowd for his funeral caused people to die. And you think that is evidence he was evil? Man that is some backwards thinking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
burning people alive, throwing gays off of roofs etc, you are correct I don't see them as human
Then you are admitting you are bigoted. Some people have done those things, so all of Iran must be evil. America has bombed wedding, funerals, markets etc. Is all of america evil too?
again you think you can reach a diplomatic solution with religious zealots bent on ruling the world and killing or enslaving non believers.
lol, world domination huh? When did Iran announce they were looking to conquer the world?
he killed people who killed people, he's not getting anyone killed
That's bullshit and you know it. Trump took an action that will guarantee a counter attack. He is getting americans killed.
they would/will kill no matter what he did or didn't do.
I'm sure there would be attacks somewhere in the world done by someone, and that trump would blame Iran (without any evidence). But now there will definitely be attacks carried out by Iran and people will die. That blood is on trump's hands.
so you think Iran just wants to live in peace and be left alone?
I think Iran is no different that Israel, Saudi Arabia or America. They are trying to push for their interests. They want power and influence in the region, no different than Saudi Arabia or the US. But the Saudi's and the US government want that power for themselves, so they attack Iran.
how should they be sanctioned for supporting terrorism and human rights abuses?
Your question is backwards. America has been trying to use the stick for literally decades and all it has done is continue the problem. it isn't working. More murders and drone strikes won't change that. Diplomacy is what is needed, not more murders.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I'm sure he went to advisors or members of Congress for opinion or had some evidence behind it
I think he advised 1 or 2 of the republicans. No democratic member of congress was told. That means the leader of the house had no idea trump was committing an act of war before he did it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Trump is pulling troops out of Syria, so he isn't even killing people indirectly. This argument is ridiculous. And I'm talking about directly. Boeing is fair, but it was a 1x occurance
Trump has removed air pollution laws, that will kill Americans. His policies have kicked many thousands off medicare taking away their healthcare, that will kill americans. He will arguably kill more americans than Iran ever has.
People will always die. It's how they die that matters.
People will now die in terrorist attacks that would otherwise have died of old age. And trump has caused that.
I highly doubt Congress would allow them to bomb a foreign leader without a reason.
I'm not sure I know what you mean. Trump didn't even tell congress he was going to murder Solemani. He committed an act of war with 0 oversight.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
it sounds like you are under the assumption that these people, some who blow themselves up, burn people in cages, throw gays from roofs etc are rational and can be dealt with and treated as such.
It sounds like you are engaging in the bigoted practice of dehumanizing your adversaries. It is a stupid practice that makes diplomacy and peace much more difficult and war crimes much easier. Trump is threatening to attack civilian targets on twitter (a war crime). You couldn't get away with that if people saw their adversaries as human.
how long has Iran been chanting "death to America"? and you think they can be reasoned with? they are religious zealots, that's all that matters to them. take over the world and death to all others.
America has been trying to destroy them for decades. Of course they hate america. It won't stop attacking them. The moment you rule out diplomacy, you are guaranteeing war.
they will only comply when forced to or if it furthers their cause. They have a long term goal.
The same can be said for the US. The same can be said for pretty much any country.
hey will get a nuclear weapon eventually, they know this, they will pretend to go along with whatever plan eases sanctions so they can get what they want. Once they have it, game over.
With the nuclear deal in place, that day was a long time away. Without it, that day is much, much closer.
this really is just like many strategy games, except with real people.
This isn't a game. Trump's decisions will ruin lives. He is getting real people killed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
But the general is responsible for the killing of many Americans. You can be skeptical of the thread posed to strike an attack, but he has killed many Americans. Bonified terrorist
Boeing has also killed alot of Americans. So has Trump. If all you need to justify murder is that they have killed some Americans, then that list will be a mile long.
But that is beside the point. How bad or good he was should not be the primary reason America attacks foreign countries. The argument they are making is that this makes america safer, but it is 100% the opposite. It makes america much less safe. Iran will counter attack. Americans will die. Someone else has already taken Solemani's job and is planning attacks to avenge their predecessor.
America hasn't saved any lives by carrying out this murder. But they will definitely get people killed.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Doesn’t Bernie Sanders self identify as a socialist?
democratic socialist (although he is really more of a social democrat). But those are very different from a socialist.
Also, no current politician is pure socialist, but wouldn’t you say nationalizing industries is a socialist concept?
Not inherently, no. Is it a socialist policy to nationalize the police, military, fire fighters, prisons etc. All of these things are run by the government because it is in the national interest that the government do so. Nobody bats an eye.
For example, universal healthcare seems to be a socialist policy. That is a fairly mainstream view for Democrats now, too.
It is not a socialist policy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
so you don't believe this general is responsible for 1000's of murders?
I am not denying the possibility. But the US has provided no evidence that this is true.
or if he was no one could do anything about him because of fear from retaliation?
That is exactly how this works. I'm sure there are lots of countries that would love to assisinate a member of the US government. Many of them certainly would deserve it since many of them are war criminals. But they don't because america would retaliate. Unfortunately, America thinks it can just do whatever it wants.
he was retired and done murdering people? terrorist will be terrorist?
He wasn't retired. You say terrorist, they say freedom fighter. The same way they say the US is the terrorist for drone striking civilian targets and Americans say "defenders of freedom".
have they stopped their support for terrorism/terrorist, human rights abuses etc that sanctions should be eased?
How do you expect to negotiate without offering anything? You seem to be under the impression that America has the power and authority to just beat countries into submission and never have to actually talk to them. That isn't how the world works.
what if everything that is being claimed is true, would you still oppose the actions taken?
Yes. Because the negative consequences far out weigh any positive ones. This action puts us directly on the path to war. It will kill large numbers of people and will save none. Even if he is the monster the US government would have you believe he was, killing him will still cause far more problems than it solves. It was objectively a terrible idea.
these "deals" can only be enforced with sanctions and violence.
You have to actually make a deal before you can talk about enforcement. The Trump administration is making no effort to get a deal. They are just massively increasing tensions and causing people to die.
Created:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
please point to any politician who advocates for public ownership of the means of production. I'll wait..... You aren't going to find any because they don't exist. The idea that the left are socialists is a bad joke.
Created:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
God, being a leftist must be so tiring. Just sitting there trying to defend terrorists and coming up with as many ways to f up america as possible.
Being a rightist must be relaxing. I mean anyone who doesn't agree with you, you just call them a communist. Any country that doesn't immediately do what you want, you just call them evil.
Life must be so simple when you don't stop to think about anything.
Created: