Comments by "EvilGuacamoleGaming" (@EvilGuacamoleGaming) on "CNBC Television" channel.

I mean, relatively I suppose. Republicans, with a much deeper well of dark money, are more dependent on buying ad space to get results. Considering Zuckerburg is both rich and a Republican, I'm not sure what you are suggesting.
4
@protorhinocerator142 I mean, Biden sucks. But like, nowhere near the abject horror of failure and death that is Trump and his presidency.
3
With a barrage of dishonest ads? That is the usual Republican strategy. I don't know if this will change that, though.
3
@krasmussen7514 radical liberals... lol. Anyway, 2016's election was altered heavily by influence outside our country, so yes- we would like a fair election this time.
3
I mean, the NYT has not been particularly kind to BLM or Antifa. Just because they sometimes call out overt fascism in the republican party hardly means they are far left.
2
I think they mean they lack the courage to risk the money to do anything. At least, that's how I took it.
1
@Sirdontrip If the standard applies equally to all parties how is that tampering?
1
Why would a giant corporation like FB be left leaning? It's owned by a rich republican.
1
@fonyterguson562 I mean, it's not correct. It won't only be Republican ads. It will just effect Republicans more because they can't change minds with honest discourse and have to resort to overwhelming, undemocratic pools of money from rich donors who are the full purpose of the party.
1
I mean, while true, Biden at his worst is nowhere near the buffoon Trump is all the time.
1
VIII Elstaroth PaganGrinder VIII Hmm... no. You are listening to idiots if you think those numbers are anything besides under reported. Discussions with scientists, statisticians, doctors- they'll tell you the number is only counting confirmed cases.
1
VIII Elstaroth PaganGrinder VIII it verifiably true. I'm sorry that you have bad information, but the reality is that the number is higher than reported, not lower. There is no reason to suspect anyone reported as a COVID death would not be a COVID death. Meanwhile, anyone who died of it who was not tested, even in the hospital, is not counted.
1
VIII Elstaroth PaganGrinder VIII Ah yes, a funeral manager. A person who gets full medical details of the dead. Oh, wait, no. They don't. They get casual mentions unless it's relevant to how someone is interred. Anyway, you are basing this idea that we really don't have 185k+ dead from Covid from your aunt? Like, that's not 'verification', that's 'found someone to tell me what I wanted to hear'. That's assuming she actually said that and not something like 'well, some of these Covid deaths had other illnesses that I've seen' and you went 'yes, my conspiracy theory is correct!'.
1
VIII Elstaroth PaganGrinder VIII Cool, so you believe every dumb line of thought I figured you would. 1) Fauci said that 2 million was a worst case scenario; not impossible but not reasonable to prepare for. He predicted at the end of March that the middle of the road estimates would be 100k-200k deaths... which we are about to overcome. All this dodging the point- you said the numbers were fake, and they aren't. You can't reply to that because there is nothing to suggest less than the reported number have died from the virus.
1
@Christopher Vanasse So like Fox news, who defends Trump, who has discussed how he likes girls and how he enjoyed peeping on teen girls and who has stated how he likes to sexually assault people. Indeed, I would not trust anyone who defends such a man.
1
Russia's role in 2016's election is indisputable. They made a major sway that helped Trump win an election he couldn't win otherwise. That's just fact.
1
I've never seen anyone more anti-free speech than Trump. FB is a mega-corporation and by definition anti-communist. What a private company does with their product isn't a matter of free speech. If you want speech protected on FB it would need to be a system controlled by the government. At any rate, limiting the use of money to influence an election seems like an obvious good, since it equalizes people's voices.
1
@tpks2542 I'm not sure I ads as information, particularly ones that lie. Limiting an unfair advantage based on money is a good thing. I want an election based on facts, information and the nature of what the candidates claim are their positions. I've seen Trump ads and they fail this standard. Further, I want an election that is not manipulated by money. Money should not be considered speech. It is anti-democratic. It is an attempt to create oligarchy (or more specifically has created oligarchy). Effectively, being able to overwhelm an opponent with money limits the speech of those with less money. This takes the will of the people away and gives it to corporations. Which, certainly, is the way capitalism goes- it will destroy democracy eventually... if it hasn't already. And, as democracy dies even the pretend version of free speech we have now will disappear.
1
@tpks2542 Corporations make money on the excess value labour produces. I can work for ten dollars an hour but the company makes thirty dollars in that hour from my work. Some amount of that money goes to other costs of the business but in the end a big chunk of the value of your work is taken and then given to either the owners or the stock holders- people who, by definition, do no work. They get money for gambling money they already had. The government, which has no inherent interest in profit but in whatever maintains the government- in a democracy this is approval of the masses, more or less, through votes which means they generally are more efficient, more concerned about externalities and pay better. My greatest concern about politician pay is not them getting money from the government but getting money from corporations- which they do, which they then use to maintain their positions. Which leaves us with politicians caring more about corporations than people. Personally, I'd eliminate all public funding for political campaigns. If you are approved as a candidate you get a certain amount of money. Nobody can advertise on your behalf. Nice and simple. This protects free speech by not allowing the richest person win through overwhelming resources. But... this country has always been designed to help the richest people. Many of the 'founding fathers' specifically disliked democracy because they didn't want the common people having a say. Washington was the richest person on the continent because his family exploited indentured servants for the previous two generations and owned like, half of Virginia. He was a terrible military leader with a losing record. He likely was single handily responsible for the French & Indian War because he couldn't do his job right. He didn't become the first president because he was a good general, he became the first president because he said he wanted to and no one thought they would be able to counter the power of his estate. Anyway; this pattern is pretty consistent with most of the founders. Rich assholes who were racist and anti-democratic. Little has changed. Anyway, even with that weak defense of the government I gave I'm not most interested in the government solving things. I want people to solve things through controlling their work places and controlling their governments.
1
Man, if only anything near communism was being done in this country.
1
I mean, they weren't in the first place nor do BLM or Antifa 'loot and burn'. You should consider a more reliable news source.
1
@PaulLorenzini-ny2yw Wasn't that a Trump suggestion? Regardless, antifa acts to deter fascist actions, such as those of the police. BLM is involved in protesting police violence. Outside of that, people have protested and rioted in response to injustice that is never corrected, a reasonable reaction. It isn't a planed or organized action, but a reaction to having no power.
1