Comments by "DynamicWorlds" (@dynamicworlds1) on "The Rational National"
channel.
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@indymarrow8050 "give all the money to the government" wtf does that even mean? Money exists because the government spends it into existence to pay public servants, has universal value because it's what the government accepts as payment for fees and taxes, and exists in between those steps as a representation of debts paid (dirrectly or indirrectly) to those who work in fields outside of normal markets to make a society function. Since the very invention of coinageb "giving all the money to the government" is a concept that makes no sense if you understand what money is.
As to wages, do I want government to have total control over them? No, that level of micromanaging doesn't really work. Do I want the government to do some things about income inequality? Yes, because as I've stated and you haven't refuted, people need to organize in some way outside of markets to put a check on the inevitable trends of markets. People organizing to collectively decide on rules for a society to be run by isn't tyranny; it's democracy (representative or otherwise).
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group,” -FDR
As banks were able to force our government to bail them (instead of the people our government is supposedly by, for, and of) out of a crash they created themselves, by FDR's (and Mussolini's) definition(s) we're already bordering on fascism, and it isn't because of people wanting to limit economic inequality.
Sorry to tell you, but you've been fed a line of BS because it was to certain people's advantage to have you spouting off unintelligible nonsense and ignoring sound reasoning against what you've been taught to believe like it was a religion.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
To answer the question, it comes from the fact that a lot of the early voting states where Bernie did poorly, due to not having any name recognition by that time, had large black populations.
There's also the fact that at the beginning of the primary, Hillary was coasting on some manufactured illustration that the Clintons were good to black people and some twisting of some things Bernie said.
Given time, however, Bernie showed he was willing to respectfully listen (even when he could have been excused if he didn't), his history of marching with MLK became public knowledge, people came to understand what he was saying better, and Hillary's "superpreditors" quote came to light and she showed complete disdain for those that challenged her on it (in complete contrast to how Bernie handled black people that challenged him on racial issues).
After that, one after another, black community leaders came out in support of Bernie, but many of the votes had already been cast, and the great spin machine took that and went to work.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4