Youtube comments of marisafari (@marisafari1806).

  1. uh oh. he said the naughty no no word “MARX” therefore he is a dirty commie and you should disregard everything he says because marx was a dummy whose critiques of capitalism are completely invalid because capitalism is perfect and sacred.
    40
  2. +Back Space we're closer to corporate fascism/corporatism/crony capitalism. but whatever word you want to use, its all still centralized pyramidal power structures, just as yuri described.
    30
  3. +Bear Soetero 16:50 “BOTH political parties have drifted towards the right”
    20
  4. Bernie Sanders is more libertarian than Rand
    20
  5. Bernie is a populist, standing for We the People. He is beyond the left/right dichotomy because he understands that the Big Money special interests and ultra top 1% of the 1% donate to BOTH parties to Hedge Their Bets, and incrementally screw average working class people
    17
  6. "The Soviet Union thus portrays itself as socialist to protect its right to wield the club, and Western idealogists adopt the same pretense in order to forestall the threat of a more free and just society. This join attack on socialism has been highly effective in undermining it in the modern period." - from The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Chomsky - critic of corporations AND GOVERNMENT AND THE COLLUSION OF BOTH (i.e. fascism, inverted totalitarianism, the corporate state, corporatism, or CRONY capitalism) If you doubt this, watch Yuri's interview "Deception was my job" - At the beginning he describes the Soviet Union's economy as STATE CAPITALISM and SO CALLED communism. And here he describes socialism/communism as any centralized and pyramidal/HIERARCHICAL structure. But this can be FASCISM too. In fact, ANY system that is AUTHORITARIAN with CENTRALIZED power can fit this description. What can NOT fit is "WORKER CONTROL OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION." This definition is the exact OPPOSITE of hierarchy. It is DEcentralization with a HORIZONTAL structure. So whether it be consolidated governmental power or consolidated corporate power or the consolidation of power of corporations COLLUDING with government (what we have) - ANY consolidation leads to what Yuri warns against. The problem is that too many people get caught up on the WORDS and miss the UNDERLYING MESSAGE.
    16
  7. Back Space yep, there are plenty of "subversion processes"  like Edward Bernay's Propaganda. subversion/manipulation/propaganda/doublespeak-  this stuff aint new.
    16
  8. The Walking Flier they've drifted towards the right if you define the right as corporate fascism. both parties prop up the interests of the fraction of the population who give them the largest campaign donations. for hillary, this is media conglomerates and wall street. the majority of both parties support TPP/Obamatrade and strong military. obama has sent in drones to replace the boots. even fox news' mann coulter said she would vote for hillary because of her strong militarism.  coulter considers hillary conservative (but don't tell the fox news viewers) fascism is collusion of corporate and militarized state. it is right. the biggest issue is not israel, but i'm neutral on that anyway. the biggest issue for me is the growing divide between the wealthiest fraction of the population and the rest, and the collusion of big corp and the state. government should represent All of us- We the People- Not just the "opulent minority"
    12
  9. +GreyWolfLeaderTW our GDP is based on lies and corruption- like the .01 percent buying influence from BOTH parties. we are an Oligarchy. FACT- only the richest decide on policies. meanwhile, those other countries are the happiest in the world, while we work ourselves to death. all for that puritan work ethic, huh? what about having the time to raise your kids? if taxing a fraction of the population at 50 percent leaves those few with everything they could need and desire, then why would it be called slavery? there are only so many yachts and mansions a person can buy.
    11
  10. Bernie for 2016!
    10
  11. love ya abby :)
    9
  12. +dudev if he was truly confident he wouldn't need to compensate. his compensation shows he's really a fragile little baby inside.
    8
  13. We're on our way to corporate fascism- the complete opposite of Representative Democracy.  Studies prove that only the wealthiest fraction of our population affect government policies. The majority of Americans have Zero effect. You can call this all sorts of "isms" because isms have been twisted throughout history, but I think corporate fascism, corporate welfare, or OLIGARCHY fit best. And just like our policies, so too are most politicians and their campaigns heavily influenced (i.e. BOUGHT) by the smallest fraction. These candidates (including Clinton) are not Beholden to you, but to their biggest campaign donors- the too big to fail banks, big pharma, big oil, big media, big everything.  But NOT to We the People.
    7
  14. government policies cant stop monopolistic monsters because there are no incentives to stop them. not while government and private sector elites continue to benefit from each other. the only hope is to revolt.
    6
  15. HELL YES! VOTE FOR BERNIE- NOT HILLARY!
    6
  16. at 14, I came to the same conclusion about pattern seeking ability being the reason for superstitions and religion. so I figured thom, being older and wiser than me, would have known this too.
    6
  17. exactly- steal some of the donald's votes- not bernie's! WE NEED BERNIE!
    6
  18. AKAMrWobbels exactly. and I think this is Chomsky's point. even if 9/11 or jfk or whatever else was a false flag, what good will it do to focus on it? Chomsky is all about taking PRODUCTIVE ACTION rather than endlessly looking for evidence that such and such a conspiracy theory is true. he even says that the pentagon occasionally puts out info about jfk's death and probably 9/11 classified material some time in the future, just to keep peoples attention away from CURRENT corruptions. we should be focused on combatting PRESENT corruptions- not on 9/11 or jfk or whatever other Past conspiracy, because its TOO LATE for those- no one's going to jail, even if our government was involved. let's focus on what we can change NOW.
    5
  19. Fascism is defined by its Authoritarianism more than "left" or "right" and Mussolini defined fascism as the merger of corporations and a strong militarized state to protect corporations. this describes us. just as Bill said "the USA turned for the worse long before Trump entered" we have corporate welfare, cronyism, at least one third of "government" workers are actually private contractors, and our banks are too big to fail. trump retweeted a mussolini quote, but he is not a fascist. trump says he's the most militaristic, but says nothing about corporations getting involved, like oh say, weapons industries or oil industries, so clearly he's not fascist. he has spoken about the corrupting influence of big money in politics and has admitted to buying both parties to hedge his bets, which is why his campaign is mostly self funded. mostly. so i mean, of course trump has no ties to big business whose interests he would feel obligated to prioritize over the interest of ordinary americans. and he supports the government's desire to hack iPhones to see everyones data and he wants to execute that snowden whistleblower guy who exposed that the corporate state spies on us, and he wants to keep a database specifically on all muslim americans, so see- in no way is trump like any authoritarian fascist dictator. hitler was a political schizophrenic. trump has been a republican, independent, and a democrat a few times and has flipped on most issues, but he is clearly a conservative republican now. i mean, clearly?
    5
  20. Instead of looking at your fucking Facebook page, detached from the plights of the poor and working class, you should try doing what Russell Brand does- actually spending time with everyday people in their real lives.
    5
  21. +Ryan Sandoval i think the true dichotomy is not republican and democrat, but Centralists and DEcentralists  Bernie is for We the People, rather than for just the wealthiest few who buy influence from BOTH parties (as Trump has recently admitted)  Bernie is all about helping the middle class have a chance, but studies prove that only the wealthiest few affect government policies. average americans have Zero effect. so what that makes america is an Oligarchy, and that needs to change. we need to bring back Representative Democracy!
    5
  22. woah. he reached alex jones level.
    5
  23. The top marginal tax rate under republican Eisenhower was 92 percent. It was around 70 under republican Nixon. Obama has kept a similar top marginal tax rate as W Bush- around 25. Bernie has proposed 50 for just the wealthiest FRACTION of the population- the fraction of the population that buys out candidates from BOTH political parties to hedge their bets and undermine the rest of america. The fraction that has turned our Representative Democracy into an OLIGARCHY.
    4
  24. +Marina A well then, i guess small business owners will have to start protesting like the minimum wage workers have been doing. everyone who feels they are being taxed too much will need to start protesting and it will be a domino effect of protests up to the top. and at the very top, those guys don't pay ANY taxes, so FUCK EM. what is the uk calling cameron? dodgy dave? FUCK DODGY DAVE!!! but what you shouldn't do is blame those suffering MORE than you. thats what the guys like dodgy dave want you to do. they divert your attention. and they divide to conquer. don't fall for their SHIT. they say "the rising tide lifts all boats" well it fucking HASNT. the richest are getting richer and everyone else poorer. but you can help change that. join the protests!!!!!
    4
  25. +Nicolaas Van de Houten alex jones and followers see or hear the word SOCIALISM and their fucked up wiring causes them to short circuit and explode.
    4
  26. ***** few years ago :P yes, there's a lot of political correctness right now, and i think "safe spaces" are dumb, but it will pass. the PC police come in waves.
    4
  27. kazooga 1234 well, a book or site or person saying something is true doesn't always make it true.  that's why its good to study more than one source - to get a broader perspective. its also why when you write a paper, you need to cite more than one source- so your claims, theories, or ideas have more credibility.
    4
  28. kazooga 1234 the dictionary is not claimed to be the word of god. it was written by fallible people. people capable of being "debunked" http://theweek.com/articles/466957/how-wrong-definition-literally-sneaked-into-dictionary i noticed you pasted only the first two definitions from dictionary . com i suggest you go back and follow the links for 3 and 4- 3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist Party. 4. communalism. and watch both the khan academy link and read or watch Richard Wolff. ill give you a clue- stalinism was not socialism, it was state capitalism. im sorry kazooga, but according to Marx (perhaps youve heard of his work Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto?) and according to Richard Wolff (the leading expert in Marxism/socialism) - both define socialism as worker ownership of the means of their production. Not statism. Not central planning. Not stalinism/state capitalism. worker ownership of the means of production Wolff clarifies that socialists and communists differ only in what they believe is the best way to implement "democratic control of the means of production"- by evolution- ie transforming the State, or by revolution- ie capturing the State. the USA is said to be a representative democracy, or a republic. but studies show that average citizens have no effect on public policies. that we are instead an Oligarchy. people can continue calling the USA a representative democracy or a republic all they want, and on paper (or an online dictionary) they will be correct. but not in Practice. same for the history of socialism and communism. even Nazi was short for National Socialist, but we define them as Fascists. i suggest you also read some Noam Chomsky to further widen your understanding beyond online dictionaries. here is a short clip to start- watch?v=K4Tq4VE8eHQ
    4
  29. why is there so much disagreement about these words?! i thought marx envisioned communism as stateless and just the end result of socialism- the natural transition from capitalism (private/ rich capitalist ownership) to socialism (worker collective ownership) to communism (no need for work so no need for money so no need for a state- i.e. star trek/free time to explore the galaxy). thom says the middle ground between total state control and total private control is some state regulation of private enterprises, but i think this is a false middle because pure state control and pure private control are both forms of centralization and therefore both totalitarian a true middle would seem to be where there is some centralized private/state control, and some DEcentralized / worker control. but everything's becoming centralized within the corporate state- monopolies, corporate lobbying, revolving door, TPP, etc. we are an oligarchy/plutocracy. i've also heard richard wolff explain that the only difference between communism and socialism is the method of how to achieve the end result- through revolution or reformation. I support Bernie so I'm leaning towards reformation (but with my pitchfork ready in case we get clinton :P )
    4
  30. MattyBlue99 and personally, i think right wing libertarians such as Ron Paul and progressives/socialists/libertarian leftists like Bernie or Ralph Nader have far more in common with each other than either do with rand or the even more establishment/corporatist candidates. nader and Ron paul even have a left right alliance to dismantle the corporate state. we should all be against the corporate state. take care.
    4
  31. there are the oligarchs / corporatists - and then there is Bernie, the populist. #feelthebern
    4
  32. people should stop breeding so that there are fewer bodies to warm. im serious. stop having babies. breeders are assholes. adopt instead.
    3
  33. he forgot the most important- real libertarians, aka libertarian socialists.
    3
  34. 25:20 if people are voting for trump because they oppose corporatist "free trade" deals like the TPP, then they should vote for bernie sanders. also, they both opposed the iraq war. and i don't support bernie because "i want to bern the system down" i support bernie because he is the only candidate that can restore our representative democracy/republic that has become an oligarchy due to the corrupting influence of money in politics. paul joseph watson thinks we can turn our corporatist system back into a fair free market, but without regulations and redistribution, the system will ALWAYS turn corporatist. even "libertarian" alan greenspan admitted on trial that he "found a flaw" in his ideology and realized that regulations are necessary. why? because power/money begets more power/money. its self reinforcing. therefore, extreme economic inequality will always lead to political inequality, which is why We the People must be vigilant in demanding our government work for all of us (a representative democracy/republic) rather than being corrupted by an elite few (oligarchy). and this is what bernie's political revolution is all about- We the People must take our power/democracy back and bernie is the person to inspire and help us to do so.
    3
  35. ah yes, mr disinformation gatekeeper chomsky- spreading KGB NWO illuminati freemason disinfo and keeping watch of those gates at the prime age of 86.
    3
  36. ***** maybe Freedom/Decentralization can be our uniting religion? a sort of Revolution to get back our Representative democracy/Republic? with the transnationals pushing to pass TPP/Obamatrade, and socialism for the few Bailouts, and cronyism/revolving door between washington and wallstreet- it seems the route to freedom is obvious, but there is so much doublespeak and censoring from the mainstream media. but ron paul and ralph nader have united to combat those who wish to take away our power- and if people as diverse as libertarians and progressives can find common ground, perhaps there is hope.
    3
  37. ***** if youre interested- on most fridays Bernie answers callers questions on the live thomhartmann podcast
    3
  38. check out the Reddit post "I'm a tea party republican considering Bernie Sanders and i do not believe I'm alone"
    3
  39. so the jobs of tomorrow will be to create the tech that will replace all other human jobs. awesome. looks like it will be a race towards the cliff. ಠ_ಠ
    3
  40. if you find the orwellian doublespeak confusing, just picture the internet as it is now- Free and Open and Equal for All (NET NEUTRALITY) and then imagine giant corps taking all of that away and fcking you in the ass while screaming "PROTECT INTERNET FREEDOM"
    3
  41. +marisafari in other words- stop electing corporatists, and your government will once again represent YOU.
    3
  42. was she bashed? I hope this fucking bitch was BASHED THE FUCK OUT- BASHED ALL THE WAY BACK TO HER PRECIOUS RACIST NINETY FIFTIES!!!!
    3
  43. Bernie is a true liberal populist - a man who works for We the People - and his stark contrast against corporate owned and manufactured Hillary and Obama (and all of the Republicans) is like a light in the dark. Hopefully people will turn from the shadows on the cave wall and step out into the sun!
    3
  44. alex is incapable of nuance. his one lifetime breakthrough was discovering that socialism, communism, and fascism are all the same in the respect that authoritarian leaders have co-opted the terms "socialism" and "communism". but he's never realized that there are Other definitions of socialism and communism. so its pretty pathetic that he equates bernie's brand of FDR new deal type democratic socialism to authoritarian globalist centralized nwo type "socialism" there must be some crazy wiring going on in his head causing him to overheat and short circuit any time the SOCIALIST button is pushed. the guy needs an intervention. someone PLEASE help this man.
    3
  45. ***** they had no money because they had replicators which made resources abundant. and yet, they were still motivated "to boldly go..."
    3
  46. alex jones gets his "insider" info from RT and then peppers his show with david icke shit for his conspiritard followers
    3
  47. Middle Out, Not Trickle Down - "jobs are Not created when there is an abundance of profits, but an abundance of Customers"
    3
  48. is this the twilight zone debate? dodd frank was a response to the Too Big to Fail banks and their risky speculation that contributed to the 08 crash. only it doesn't go FAR ENOUGH in preventing future crashes because it was WATERED DOWN by wall street lobbyists. Yet they say they want to repeal it! if they want to repeal it, i hope they mean they want something stricter to put in its place, such as the former glass steagel act. and of course we need political and electoral reform to prevent wall street lobbying/bribery. having no reform will just lead to more wall street corruption and more crashes. obama's administration is full of former wall street bankers, so how do you suppose our government can be impartial with wall street insiders? they CANT. so what we have is a revolving door and CRONY CAPITALISM. and it seems these candidates also have crony wall street advisors. shame.
    3
  49. ***** what did bernie say? 90 percent of the gains have gone to the top 1 or .1 percent? this seems to prove that trickle down doesn't work. the big money buys out both parties and they pass legislation that they themselves write! so only they get the benefits, while small business and average americans suffer.
    3
  50. Hillary isn't likable because she is FAKE. She is a corporatist D.I.N.O.- Democrat In Name Only. The majority of her campaign donations come from media conglomerates and WALLSTREET. You know how much of a democrat she is? So much that Fox News' darling Ann Coulter said she would vote for her. But being a chick doesn't mean you have to vote for a chick. Sara Silverman has endorsed Bernie Sanders. And I'm a chick and I'm voting for Bernie too. I #FEELTHEBERN and it ain't a UTI.
    3
  51. hello +matt w - try the Reddit post "I am a Tea Party Republican considering Bernie Sanders and I do Not believe I'm Alone"
    3
  52. +austen hult HELL FUCKING YES! also, check out the post on Reddit "I Am a Tea Party Republican considering Bernie Sanders and I Do Not Believe I'm Alone"
    3
  53. I guess davos wouldn't agree with nick hanauer's pitchforks coming for plutocrats article
    2
  54. 51MontyPython“What, in your view, would constitute a "progressive" tax policy?” Bernie’s tax proposals which include a top marginal tax rat of 50 percent and elimination of loopholes that allow the wealthiest to not pay. It still wont be anywhere near republican eisenhower’s levels, but its a start. But Obama’s and Bush’s and most likely Hillary’s are/were too low for the very top. as much as faux news and the rest of the reich wing like to claim obama is a FAR LEFT SOCIALIST, he is a MODERATE. Obamacare is almost identical to the proposed Romneycare. As Flourideina said in the debate- it is CRONY CAPITALISM- written by big pharma and insurance companies.  This is what i keep saying- we have CORPORATE FASCISM. OUR government- which should be representing US - are only representing the big corps and the megarich. they are CONTROLLED by the megarich. Only political and electoral reform- AS BERNIE SANDERS HAS PROPOSED -  can reverse this. check out feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-political-and-electoral-reform/ Which candidate are you in favor of? I gather youre a conservative/classical liberal, or a tea partier? Does this mean you want Rand? “I'm saying that "Reaganomics" and "Trickle down" are two different things.” ok. this is news to me. Reaganmomics, to me means supply side or “trickle down” ie you keep giving more and more tax breaks to the wealthiest so that they will supposedly be “incentivized” to loan more or to keep business in america, thus their wealth “trickling down” to the masses.  But i completely disagree with this premise. it doesn't happen this way. the economy grows from the Middle Out- not from the Top Down or from the “Supply Side” not all entrepreneurs wait for handouts from the wealthy overlords. Rather- if the middle class and lower are PAID MORE, they will have MORE TO SPEND, which will INCREASE BUSINESS, and also free people to have the TIME and ENERGY to create- to INNOVATE. Have you heard of Dan Price, the CEO who decided to pay all of his employees 70k, including himself, which meant he gave himself a pay cut from his multimillion salary? His business is booming and his employees are happy. Why? because there is a big difference in quality of life between 30-40k and 70k, but any more than 70k is redundant- it adds NOTHING to well-being, so its ridiculous to assume that cutting the top marg tax rate or corp taxes more would be of any benefit. henry ford was smart enough to recognize that paying his employees more would ALSO benefit his business, but the megarich are short term thinking greedy psychopaths. they don't see or don't CARE to see the benefits of redistribution.
    2
  55. im tired of your video skips!!!! record it separately from your livestream!!!!
    2
  56. "the inseparable twin of racial injustice is economic injustice" - MLKJr. Bernie marched for civil rights with MLKJr.
    2
  57. bob joe “in order for workers to control the means of production, workers must control other workers i.e. slavery.”  Wrong. Worker cooperatives are non-hierarchical or have limited hierarchy. Everyone has equal ownership (of the means of production) and often there is direct democratic voting/decision making. Democracy means rule by the people, not “mob rule” and worker cooperatives prove that democracy works in capitalist or mixed economic countries/systems. check out the wiki list of cooperatives around the world.  What you fail to understand is that there are multiple definitions of socialism. You are defining socialism as STATE ownership, or rather STATISM or AUTHORITARIANISM. But socialism can also mean WORKER ownership, like I previously described. Yes, thanks to propaganda, socialism has come to mean for the majority of people- soviet style statism. But there were no worker cooperatives under ussr, were there? I dont think so. The STATE ran the businesses- the state officials were just as despotic as their former Private despots. only worker cooperatives change the structure from hierarchical despotism (state or private doesnt matter) to horizontal and democratic.
    2
  58. can a third party win with our rigged First Past the Post voting system which only allows for a "choice" between the two corporate controlled party candidates, as well as our rigged electoral college system, and rigged Commission for Presidential Debates (owned and operated by the two corporate owned parties)? socialist Kshama Sawant won. populist syriza won.  if youre tired of the elite Minority influencing our politicians and prioritizing their interests over yours, then yeah, I think Jill Stein could win.
    2
  59. she would be polling higher if she received the hartmann bump
    2
  60. ***** i was responding specifically to darth's "Destroy the American economy you destroy the AMERICAN MILITARY!" i would counter that our military in many ways props up our economy- through wars for oil, through investments in high tech to advance the weapons of war. through the military industrial complex as eisenhower warned against. check out yuri's interview and my post on that- at the beginning of the interview he refers to ussr in many ways, one being as State Capitalism. the state owned the businesses. but what we have now in the U.S.A is the state Colluding with corporations. this is fascism. or more accurate- corporate fascism. our government props up and bails out the big private institutions, like the big banks. i.e. we have socialism, but it is mostly for the corporations and their rich owners. and that wealthiest fraction of the population in turn buys out both political "sides" to keep the status quo- to keep the government working in their favor. Orwell was opposed to both. he was opposed to all forms of Centralization or Authoritarianism. he was an anarchist (in the political sense). i.e. a left libertarian. or anarcho syndicalist. he preferred the workers to own the means of their own production, as opposed to private Or State ownership. such as in catalonia. and yes, i have read 1984. lol. try his Homage to Catalonia. we have 5 media conglomerates controlling and narrowing the realm of discourse, and dividing the masses so that the corporate state can continue as they do. this is our propaganda. it is our manufactured consent. it is our brainwashing. thankfully we have a free internet to combat the brainwashing- for now at least.
    2
  61. Ōkami-san why are electronics prices deflating when cost of necessities are inflating? if inflation is only due to QE, then shouldnt inflation be occuring equally? until tech can increase the production of homes, food, and medicine - and thereby supposedly making such things cheaper (3d printing is great, but not perfected) - why not let government step in to provide these basic necessities? you cant expect productivity increasing tech to magically appear as soon as all regulations were eliminated. it takes time. maybe one out of a million people make these profound contributions, but if we dont give all one million the same opportunities, then we'll be waiting much longer for these breakthroughs.
    2
  62. ***** yes, I do. and he is not a "lair" or a liar.  see for yourself- ontheissues (dot) org he also has no SuperPAC or Clinton type foundation to funnel in secret funds. it seems it is you who has not done the research
    2
  63. ***** and considering the TPP , I would suggest careful evaluation of his stances on previous "free trade" agreements / corporatism 
    2
  64. no rosario, we are not even a representative democracy/republic- we have become an OLIGARCHY! true democracy would be ideal, but we at least need a RETURN to representation. currently only the RICHEST FEW are represented. and how does bernie define democratic socialism? MORE DEMOCRACY!
    2
  65. Prowly-b http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/29/1078852/-75-Ways-Socialism-Has-Improved-America
    2
  66. if republicans can't understand this, they are hopeless.
    2
  67. there are MANY reasons a person may join a terrorist group. marie even said that "because they have no jobs" is a "GROSS OVERSIMPLIFICATION" but even so, there is Some truth to it. people arent BORN wanting to behead other people. people are COMPLEX. and to disregard the broad range of factors- to blame it all on "EVIL ISLAM" -is extremely narrow minded.
    2
  68. some republicans do #feelthebern ! check out reddit's post "i am a tea party republican considering Bernie Sanders and i do not believe i'm alone"
    2
  69. if by communism you mean direct democracy (as he has stated numerous times), then yes.
    2
  70. STOP BEING COY WITH SANDERS! EMBRACE THE SANDERS! HE IS THE ONLY HUMAN BEING RUNNING! VOTE FOR SANDERS!!!!!!!
    2
  71. "you turn into russian tv today, and its like I'm hosting" you know, alex references RT news a lot, but isn't RT politically progressive/social democrat/democratic socialist? example- thom hartmann and formally abby martin? is alex... confused?
    2
  72. introducer needs to stop with the steroids/workouts. gross.
    2
  73. what if you retire to volunteer at food banks and homeless shelters?
    2
  74. MattyBlue99 yes, according to the compass, he is just slightly right of center. but compare him to politicians in all other states- he is further left and further libertarian than all of them. and in comparison to the establishment candidates- romney, obama. and now hillary and most of the GOP candidates, he is far Far more libertarian. also, keep in mind that vermont is (i think) a conservative state, and that bernie is practical and able to compromise. so under a bernie presidency, we would not get a libertarian/anarchist utopia, such as what noam chomsky or the like advocate, but we would most definitely have more freedom under bernie than under one of the corporatist candidates.
    2
  75. the RSA video on motivation debunks milton's greed premise
    2
  76. quality of life is better in more secular areas. alternate conclusion- comfort keeps you nice
    2
  77. "modern research is designed to assert that it is doing research- not to cure diseases"
    2
  78. lessig will not be taking votes away from clinton, only from bernie. the people that vote for clinton will be the low info voters who will vote for her because she is a woman and/or because she's well known. biden might steal some votes from clinton, but not lessig. however, lessig WILL take votes away from bernie, because lessig is another revolutionary/populist/anti establishment/anti cronyism/anti corruption candidate, and because he is likely to have bernie or warren as his vp. so bernie's only chance now is to make this reform his top priority. but he CANT make it his Only priority because he is not a referendum candidate. which means lessig is not going to back down. so unless lessig drops out of the primary before election, he is making it more possible to give the win to clinton or biden. i think im right about this, but im willing to be convinced otherwise because i agree that we need to reform the system.
    2
  79. Politicians serve the wealthy instead of the underclass because they are beholden to the wealthy for their large campaign donations and because bigger companies can afford better and more lobbyists. Those wealthy donors end up with special privileges that allow them to make even more money, leading to a consolidation of wealth and power. This is the inevitable outcome of Capitalism.
    2
  80. "Paul said that "income inequality is worse in towns run by Democrat mayors than in towns run by Republican mayors." He has a point that one credible study shows a fairly strong correlation between low inequality and a Republican mayor. But experts say it’s a stretch to draw conclusions from this. The claim inflates the actual powers of mayors to shape inequality in their cities and it ignores the role of population size and suburbanization in driving inequality. It also glosses over the fact that metropolitan areas, as opposed to cities, show no such relationship. The claim is partially accurate but leaves out important details, so we rate it Half true." -Politifact But Rand is completely correct that QE devalues the dollar, which decreases purchasing power and increases inequality because the financial elites hoard the excess. I mean, come on- larger supply = less value. Duh.
    2
  81. mika brezenski disgusts me
    2
  82. GreyWolfLeaderTW fascism is more like what we have now- the collusion of corporate and state. Bernie calls himself a Democratic socialist, which is not like stalinism (which was actually not socialism, but state capitalism) but more like the Scandinavian countries. a representative democracy IS a republic. thats what it means. (as opposed to direct democracy which would be anarchy- no hierarchy, or various forms of socialism) but like i said, we are currently an Oligarchy. this is not up for debate. the studies prove that only a fraction of the population affect policies. we are Not represented as we should be in a Republic- a Representative Democracy
    2
  83. William Smith We're both a Constitutional Republic and a Representative Democracy, but not in practice. Studies show that policy decisions are only affected by the wealthiest. Government only represents the elites, so we are mostly an Oligarchy.
    2
  84. +Pratip Ghosh Dastidar he thinks religion will prevent excessive consumerism which is part of the demoralization process (taking us away from the immaterial to the material, and from community/family to isolation/selfishness), but what he doesn't know is that buying crosses and bibles and WWJD bracelets is Christ like, and Jesus - as all good Christians will tell you - was a capitalist.
    2
  85. the cognitive dissonance is working overtime for the conservatives- one minute i hear fox news saying that what the pope is really against is not capitalism but corporatism (implying that that makes his views compatible with the conservatives), and the next they are calling him a marxist.
    2
  86. the only way to stop the "growth" (or is it more descriptive to call it the "corporatization"? "sovietization"? corruption?) of the state is by preventing hierarchy where it starts- in the workplace. you can't have private ownership of the means of production and expect those at the top of these hierarchical power structures not to use their power to expand their power further- to either control of the state or through collusion with the state. or in the case of a stateless society- to private totalitarianism which might as well BE "the state" - thus starting the cycle anew. anarchy means without ruler- i.e. NO hierarchy. this means every Worker (not one private owner and not state bureaucrats) owning equal shares of their workplace. i.e. worker cooperatives, of which there are plenty of around the world.
    1
  87. russell mentioned joseph campbell, author of hero with a thousand faces which explains the allegorical "truths" of all major religions (which are similar to hero journey stories such as harry potter, star wars, wizard of oz, dune, etc) - that the hero's journey is a metaphor for the journey through life we all must take to learn, suffer, share and thus grow/be "reborn" in this respect, the truth of religion is similar to the truth of dreams- there are dream archetypes/symbols that are meaningful/ "true" because we connect with them, and they tell us things that our waking minds cannot. the problem is when people start thinking the archetypes/symbols/metaphors are real in the literal/concrete sense. no, they are only real in the sense that they help explain aspects of reality and life which dry words alone cannot explain (or have yet to fully explain) and they help to guide us through life.
    1
  88. all Mormons are gay :P
    1
  89. watch this instead of stefan molyneaux's blabberings
    1
  90. is this guy related to stefan molyneaux? just imagine him without the glasses...
    1
  91. i don't buy this, and I'm a bernie supporter who will NOT be voting for trump. but trump's appeal is similar to bernie's appeal in the respect that both are different from the norm i.e. the "establishment". we're all sick of the establishment republicans and democrats because neither side has been representing WE THE PEOPLE. both sides have become beholden to the special interests of the super wealthy and big corporations. both sides are now mostly NEO-LIBERALS (try george monbiot's "Neoliberalism the root cause..." or "wisecrack south park neo-liberalism"). studies prove that only the wealthiest affect policies, which means we are no longer a Representative Democracy/Republic. we have become an OLIGARCHY. both bernie and trump have explained this. but bernie would work to get our representation BACK, while trump is a wildcard. trump seems to be an Opportunist who will SAY whatever will appeal to his angry supporters (and this is not an insult- the anger of We the People IS JUSTIFIED!), but if elected, will most likely cater to the corporate and republican establishment that offers him the most rewards. neither trump nor clinton can be trusted to work for WE THE PEOPLE.
    1
  92. those 400 down votes are from the 400 americans that have more wealth than half of all americans combined.
    1
  93. the current effective tax rate allows warren buffet to pay less than his secretary.
    1
  94. 51MontyPython because he has said so. and how do you figure the top marg. tax rate was not paid during eisenhower?
    1
  95. 51MontyPython his tax return papers prove it? and i ask my question again. it is not a straw man because you're the one who used it as an argument in your first reply. you seem like a troll. grow up.
    1
  96. 51MontyPython a "fair" tax is orwellian. its UNFAIR. i call bullshit on conservatives taxing the top more in effect . conservatives have parroted the trickle down lie for decades and you want to claim that their policies really tax the top MORE? HA! and more doublespeak- progressives aren't out to PUNISH the rich. they are the ones who want the richest to pay their fair share.
    1
  97. 51MontyPython “If what you call "progressives" are really truly about a tax policy that is really most fair, then, to them I say, Welcome to the TEA party.“ sorry to break it to you, but the tea party was a astroturf koch creation, ie it was a corporate fascist creation. “So are you saying that the rich are already paying their "fair share" under our now 'progressive' policies?” of course not because we dont have progressive policies. obama is a moderate that is captured by corporate interests and the corporate fascist majority. jeezus. how much more obvious do i have to make it? how many times do i have to repeat myself? im sorry, but its getting late. like i said in OP- obama’s tax rate is almost identical to bush’s “so-called "trickle down theory" is actually a product manufactured by the left. “ dude, im about done for tonight. are you saying supply side REAGONOMICS is LEFTIST? i cant. sorry. im done. its beddy bedtime for me.
    1
  98. WHATISUTUBE so thanks to corporate fascist "free trade" deals like nafta and tpp, you want the middle class to compete with the slave wages of the third world? sorry, but i prefer to build up business in america rather than increase the already extravagant profits and power of transnational corporations.
    1
  99. WHATISUTUBE sorry if it gets your panties in a bunch, but ill use corporate fascism because it fits. TPP and the like give far too much control to corporations and they undermine the power of any government to Protect its People. the TPP protects corporate “people” not We the People. so fascism fascism fascism it is, along with oligarchy, plutocracy, socialism for the rich, corporatism, and the corporate state! all of these words are descriptive of our system, and are the Antitheses of what Bernie wants. the claim of “free trade” agreements used to be that they would add jobs and would not depress wages. now they sometimes admit that they take away more jobs than they add, and that the majority’s incomes are stagnant or decreasing with respect to inflation.  but theyre using the new retarded argument that that doesnt matter because-  “wah wah wah increased purchasing power wah.”  uh, FALSE. - all “free trade” does is increase the profits of the corporate fascist bosses.  prices only fall when new products arise and/or supply is greater than demand. dur. and this, even coupled with no tariffs, is still not enough to offset decreasing incomes and the rising costs of Basic Necessities. what good is a cheaper iphone made with chinese slave wage labor if you cant afford Rent?  and why do you think there’s so much secrecy and fast tracking for the TPP? if it was good for the majority of americans, corporate MSM wouldnt be trying so hard to avoid mentioning it and our government wouldnt be keeping it secret from all but a select few. it is secret because it only benefits the top FEW. read the wikileaks. and that was a lame joke, but you know whats really funny? so called “middle class” service sector jobs often pay Less than the dwindling manufacturing jobs! hardy har har.  and this, coupled with the fact that there are more college educated/higher skilled people than ever means there’s an over supply of service sector employees which just decreases wages/salaries even more.  so again, youre wrong.  plus, both service and manufacturing jobs are being Automated as well as outsourced. face it- “free trade” deals just help the megarich get richer and everyone else poorer. you said it yourself- our government Subsidizes big corporations- that IS Corporate Fascism.
    1
  100. 51MontyPython Wrong. Paying his employees more prevented high turnover which delayed his car production. So even though his intentions were for profit rather than to benefit his employees, it had the end effect of benefiting employees similar to the way "socialist"/socialist dan price benefited his employees.  "but the megarich are short term thinking greedy psychopaths." You mean like Henry Ford?  O_o  So much for your "redistribution" argument.” no, not like Ford. you missed my point- currently most of the financial gains are going to the very top. nothing is trickling down the way supply side economics claims to work because too many employers are greedy selfish psychopaths who also happen to not have the long term thinking skills of henry ford.  so what do we do in this situation where the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer?  well, more socialist/“socialist” unions to bargain for better wages and conditions, and a socialist/“socialist” president who will increase the minimum wage to what it would be if it had kept pace with inflation- to 15/hr.
    1
  101. 51MontyPython“You mean like the financial gains of lower production costs?  I'm pretty sure that benefits the consumer.”  you mean like increased Purchasing Power? if so, companies are keeping their prices stagnant but subtly shrinking the size/amount of their goods, so no- consumers aint benefiting. the extra profits from lower production costs just gets pocketed by the owners. nothing trickles down. about dan price- im pretty sure he cut his own salary so that he Does make the same amount as his employees. watch his recent interview on the daily show. WATCH IT. the ceo to average worker ratio used to be 20 to 1. now its 300, 400, all the way up to 1000 or more - to 1. so how old are you? why are you NOT complaining? dont you understand that when people have extraordinary wealth, that they will often Use that wealth to buy out politicians and thus UNDERMINE OUR REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY? do YOU not udnerstand how the world works? it seems Not. on trickle down- ive explained my definition of this as supply side. ive defined supply side, you didnt seem to object before, and now youre saying i dont know what it means? it seems you just have your panties in a wad because you are offended by the phrase. too bad. it fits. look up reaganomics. and yes, it is true that the wealthiest fraction of the population are getting richer and that adjusted for inflation, minimum wage has DECREASED. “your solution is to mandate the goig market rates?” can you clarify please.
    1
  102. 51MontyPython “What in my view would constitute a "progressive tax policy?  One that more seeks to tax the "rich" over those who are not simply for the reason that they make more money, -- as if by the very fact they wouldn't already be paying more by the very fact.” except currently the tax policy only benefits the richest. they pay less than lower income brackets, in effect. havent we been over this already?    and when you couple these zero taxes with political clout, you get corporate fascism and oligarchy. this is what we have. the richest have too much money/power that they use to influence politics. the studies prove that only the wealthiest affect government policies. average income americans have zero effect. we are an oligarchy. do you want us to remain an oligarchy? if you are not for progressive taxation, you are for the status quo oligarchy and CORPORATE FASCISM.
    1
  103. 51MontyPython _"Eisenhower's level of loopholes?  Or top marginal tax rates?  Let's be clear now."_ Come now, montypie- surely you know by now that i meant republican eisenhower’s top marginal tax rate of 92 percent, just as Bernie mentioned in the last debate.
    1
  104. 51MontyPython _“So just where would you have (the top marginal tax rate) be?”_ didnt we discuss this? scroll up. ”Oh, yeah, because Romney, much less *obamneycare," is a "conservative" much less "conservative" policy,  Are you seriously trying to make me laugh?” i cant always tell what type of “conservative” im speaking with- apparently romney’s not your type of conservative. fair enough. “Welcome to the TEA party.  Wow, you're more conservative than you even knew.” youve tried to convince me that im a tea party conservative, but it aint gunna work. perhaps it is you who is more SOCIALIST than you know- try  https://www.facebook.com/republicansforbernie or this article-  https://www.laprogressive.com/more-republicans-for-bernie/ and sorry, but i would never associate myself with a group that was funded by the billionaire koch bros- whose goal is for america to become even more of a corporate totalitarian country than it already is. disgusting. check out the BBC documentary Tea Party America to learn what the Tea Party is really about. basically, you've been suckered. i know there are decent people within the Tea Party and there are points of agreement between some tea party libertarians and progressives, but im sorry, you guys have been suckers. the tea party is not a grassroots organization- it was astroturfed by the kochs. i prefer representative democracy. and like ive tried to explain to you before, a certain degree of economic equality is required for democracy to work. if you still cant udnerstand this, if you still cant see how big money undermines our political and electoral systems, well, then, this is very disheartening :(
    1
  105. 51MontyPython _”Supply side" is more correct, for lack of better term(s), though I really don't even care for that one, but, it will do for now.  "Trickle down," on the other hand, is, as I said before, a misnomer created by the left.”_ no, its not a “misnomer” your panties are just wadded up. But because supply side economics has Not led to any “trickling down” of wealth like it Claimed, ill use it only in quotes. and you can think that i mean “supply side doesnt work the way it claimed to- ie supply side only benefits the super wealthy and their corporations” “Obviously, if tax incentives incentivize (HEH) companies to make their profits here rather than abroad, then it is only natural (and common sense) that they will do so.” and this is why you are a corporatist and i a democratic socialist- because i believe that People should come before corporate Profits. its We the People, not Corporate “People” check out the charlie rose interview with sir james goldsmith where he explains how former pres clinton’s “free trade” GATT would undermine the rest of america- basically, we keep giving tax breaks and other profit incentives to big business with the delusion that this will help our economy, but it only benefits those top corporations - and a fraction of the population. the rest of us are getting shafted because of corporate fascist policies. so yeah, maybe we cant stop globalization or “free trade” deals, but you cant expect to lower taxes so fucking much and expect that to benefit workers. workers will CONTINUE TO GET SHAFTED- WITH OR WITHOUT GLOBALIZATION- if we end REGULATIONS AND REDISTRIBUTION _the economy grows from the Middle Out- not from the Top Down or from the “Supply Side” How about from the bottom to top?  Have you ever studied the water cycle, by any chance?  Meaningless (political) terms._ check Nick Hanauer. we are a CONSUMER based economy. if the middle class doesnt have enough to CONSUME, we dont GROW. DUH.
    1
  106. 51MontyPython“what do you not understand about the fact that what you call "trickle down theory" is in no way anything ever come up with much less purported by supply economists?“ of course “supply economists” wont call their precious theory “trickle down” but thats what it is. how can you deny this? just do a search. trickle down equals supply side/reaganomics/voodoo economics. ive heard this over and over again. watch bernie’s trickle down video. he says SUPPLY SIDE. and besides- if you disagree that the term “trickle down” doesnt mean supply side (contrary to everything ive heard and read), why havent you defined supply side? you say i dont udnerstand, but offer no understanding. this is suspicious. 
    1
  107. 51MontyPython thanks. really appreciate it. my understanding is that you agree with the koch funded tea party and rand paul’s policies (you havent said what specifically, but rand is for reducing the already low taxes on the wealthiest and for privatizing social security even though SS is doing fine and actually has a SURPLUS. and its only recently that he has flip flopped to now be opposed to the TPP). and you said you may even support corporate tool ted cruz even though he supports the TPP and is anti free internet. and you claim that i too am also a teatard like you. or did i somehow confuse your "WELCOME TO THE TEA PARTY" comments? you CLAIM that we are in (partial) agreement (yippee- we’re both against corporatism), but your solutions are idiotic and PRO-corporatist.  you think rand paul or ted cruz is the answer? you think the koch astroturfed tea party has the answers?  thats fucking retarded. cruz and rand’s policies would only benefit the corporations/wealthiest. sad that you're too fucking stupid and full of yourself to realize it. #FEELTHEBERN
    1
  108. 51MontyPython ["but any more than 70k is redundant- it adds NOTHING to well-being," uh WHat??  O_o] check the Deaton and nobel prize winning psychologist Kahneman research that shows that after one makes 70-75k, well being Does Not Improve. sorry to burst your bubble. money isnt always the motivator- once you have enough for a decent standard of living, Higher purposes tend to replace the monetary incentive. for more on this, check the RSA video on true motivation. but you seem like a right little asshole, so go ahead and block me.
    1
  109. 51MontyPython pretty sure I've already explained or insinuated what i mean by trickle down. if you couldnt catch it, try bernie's speech on trickle down. and doesn't paul's tax policy include FLAT TAX? so, no , not exactly a strawman. also, isn't paul backed by the kochtopus? the kochs who support TPP? might want to investigate that. but there doesn't seem to be much point bickering over paul, considering it looks like marco is going to be the corporate/establishment nominee because no one likes cruz. "And I just love how you use this catchall phrase "corporations," as if that in itself is supposed to be a bad word, or all bad or corrupt." i think I've mentioned this to you before, but i simplify assuming you understand I'm not speaking of small business, but rather the transnational corporations such that are involved in the TPP, such that want to have our government (which is designed to represent We the People) work for only them. so take care, my tea party sucker.
    1
  110. 51MontyPython and no, i wasn't joking about internet freedom/net neutrality. i swear, you are so fucking brainwashed. good day.
    1
  111. 51MontyPython youre back? gross. the structure of the internet leads to monopolization. internet is a natural monopoly and monopolies shouldnt be FOR PROFIT. besides, calling the government a monopoly is absurd and its doublespeak. the government is supposed to be representative of WE THE PEOPLE. it has the POTENTIAL to be so if idiots would wake the fuck up and DEMAND representation. so why would you want to give monopolies the ability to divide up the internet similar to how cable tv is divided/"bundled" where the premium subscribers get the most access? entertainment isnt a necessity, but the net is more than that. it provides information- you know, that thing that people Need to learn and innovate. so it should be equally accessible/equal speed for ALL. and that is what we CURRENTLY HAVE- ie isps are common carriers ie we have NET NEUTRALITY. net neutrality is just regulating and classifying them as such, to prevent any more inequality. anything else you've read to the contrary is corporate propaganda. and stop bullshitting- i DID explain what trickle down is. go read my posts again or watch bernie’s trickle down speech because i cant be bothered with your trolling. you disagreed with my definition. if you had been nice, i wouldve c/ped it, so your loss.  im not going to play the repeat game with you because youre a troll. the TPP is corporate fascism. it is corporate control over governments. it gives transnationals the ability to sue governments if government regulations (you know, those things that protect the Health and Safety of people- even trolly people like You) get in the way of profits. it is corporatism. or to use a teatard word- crony capitalism (which is really just what capitalism naturally devolves into without taxes and regulations, as I've explained to you numerous times before). when Bernie Sanders got the federal reserve audited, they found that it provided 16 trillion in financial assistance to the biggest corps. bernie called this “socialism for the rich and rugged youre on your own individualism for everyone else”.  any corp that is contracted by the government or any private institution that spits out politicians, or has a continuous revolving door-    like between wall street and washington- is suspect of fascism. and the bigger the corp, the greater the ability to bribe the state for more special favors. thats what big money does. thats why inequality is so dangerous. fascism is authoritarianism and centralization.  libertarians want DE-centralization. power should be DE-centralized. government should work for ALL, not for the FEW. a governmnet, unlike private institutions, at Least has the POTENTIAL to be representative of all, IF we are VIGILANT in Maintaining our Representation. we haven't been vigilant, which is why we now need a revolution. and the kochs are NOT libertarians. sure, they SAY they are, but they are corporate fascists. and the TPP is corporate fascism. so, can you connect dots? they dont want fewer regulations and lower taxes for the good of We the People. they want fewer regulations and lower taxes for THEM and THEM ALONE. that is what happens when you allow the super wealthy and big corps to bribe politicians. theyre not bribing for some ridiculous tea party idealogy, but for THEMSELVES and themselves ALONE. they want consolidation of wealth/power. they want centralization.  OPPOSITE of what libertarians want. and i cant remember what video source i learned it from, but a quick search pulled these up- ohiodems (   DOT) org /koch-industries-spent-up-to-40-million-lobbying-on-pacific-trade-deal/ examiner (   DOT) com /article/behind-the-obama-koch-glenn-beck-collaboration-on-international-corporate-rule http://wetlands-preserve.org/phpUpload/uploads/Koch_TPP dot PDF and koch funded ALEC- alec.org/model-policy/resolution-urging-congress-pass-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement-tpp/ “RESOLUTION URGING CONGRESS TO PASS THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT (TPP)” is that clear enough for you? so im not sure what your problem is. maybe next time try pressing the ENTER button after you type in your search.  or maybe obvious troll is being obvious? and check out koch bros exposed to see what else the kochtopus has their slimy tentacles in, like wanting to resegregate schools. you want to segregate schools? why are YOU a racist? and if you think you need more money than 75k, you might be trying to fill a bottomless greed hole, because according to the deaton and kahneman study, well-being does not improve after that amount. and piketty’s stats prove that return on wealth grows faster than the economy. the richest are getting richer and the rest of us poorer, thanks to decades of stupid supply side/trickle down/low taxation and low regulation reaganomics. also check out the RSA video of true motivation. clue- monetary incentives DONT ALWAYS WORK. smh.
    1
  112. how about everyone joining co-ops ? wouldn't more involvement and control over your work lead to more involvement with your community, and more incentive to be involved with and ability to control your local government? and how would thom want to increase the size and power of gvt? more representatives? more programs? more military? and how does he think the revolving door would be affected?
    1
  113. if raising wages incentivizes corporations to automate, then BRING IT. if thats the ONLY thing preventing automation, then BRRRIIIING IIIIIT OOON. you shouldn't try to stop the MARCH OF PROGRESS
    1
  114. Cudder Budder and find out the rules for your state's primary here - http://voteforbernie.org/ DONT DELAY! some states have CLOSED PRIMARIES and so you MUST register as Democrat NOW in order to elect Bernie!!!
    1
  115. "temporarily embarrassed millionaires"? no- you will probably never be rich because the already super rich pay politicians to prevent that from happening. thanks trump. and thanks corrupt system.
    1
  116. wahwahwaaah. just because you have a vag doesn't mean you have to vote for one. and yes, i'm allowed to say that. #BERNIE2016
    1
  117. hurray cenk!
    1
  118. Sarteck do you have a link to trump's and bernie's tax plans? my understanding (from berniesanders. com) is that employers would pay 6.2 percent and only those making 250k or above (far above the poverty line) would have a rise in their top marginal tax rates. and the very top fraction would pay 52% at the top margin, not the 90% of their total wealth that the MSM likes to say, or even remotely close to republican eisenhower’s top marg tax of 92. plus, the middle and lower income brackets would be getting returns in the form of college and improved infrastructure and better healthcare. single payer would be cheaper and more efficient than the obama/romney/corporatist care. also, there's the idea of "velocity of money" which wall st godfather asher edleman pointed out when he endorsed bernie. over 170 top economists have endorsed bernie's tax plan. they say clinton’s plan is too weak on wall st and trump’s plan would create a YUGE (ten trillion plus) deficit. and by taxing wall st speculation and reinstating regulations, you tax the unproductive part of society and you prevent any more future bubbles which would lead to crashes.
    1
  119. 2nd- i do understand the fear of government having too much control, but no normal person wants an authoritarian/state capitalist system like the soviet union- of which bernie is unfairly compared to. bernie’s idea of "socialism" is that of the social democratic scandanavian countries. those countries have private enterprises and we would continue to as well. the thing is, we dont even have too much government control- we have too much corporate state control.  i.e. cronyism/corporatism/oligarchy. we know that the government and the big corps collude and have fused together- especially in the financial industries. but keep in mind that even “libertarian” milton friedman thought that the military, courts, and roads should never be privatized. and former republican president eisenhwoer warned of the dangers of a military industrial complex. only, i don't think health care should be privatized either. obama/romney care is bad enough because it benefits the drug and insurance corps more than people. we don't need any more corporate welfare. (to paraphrase bernie and MLK Jr- "we have socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for everyone else" ) and just look at the abuse of big pharma and people like martin shkrelli who jack up the prices of life saving medicine 5000 percent.  what do you think is better for people- hedge funders who jack up prices of life saving medicine far beyond a reasonable rate, or democratic “socialists” like jonas salk who refused to patent his polio vaccine so that he could save lives?  this is the type of "control" that bernie wants. bernie's definition of democratic socialism just means more democracy- more rights for people. we had a representative democracy, but thanks to the ever inching takeover of our government by the powerful- through legal bribery and regulations written by and for the corps- we now have an oligarchy.
    1
  120. George Monbiot's "Neo-Liberalism- The Ideology at the Root of All Our Problems"
    1
  121. Flavius Belisarius Flavius Belisarius has been objectively wrong on so many things. He is a delusional youtuber who has no worldly experience or perspective. Chomsky, on the other hand, has had incredible influence on linguistics and political activism and understanding. His linguistic ideas have been used in a wide range of disciplines including mathematics and computer science, and he has been a long time teacher, critic, and activist- including being arrested multiple times for anti war protests. Sadly, there are many like Flav who still are herded by the corporate fascist mainstream media propaganda.
    1
  122. bob joe “just because someone can do X doesn't mean they can do Y.” true that. for instance, it seems you can respond to my comment to Flav, but so far seem incapable of responding to my comment to You.  try reading next time- i wrote “and political activism” and “he has been a long time teacher, critic, and activist” furthermore, his work- both on linguistics and politics and media propaganda- has been widely cited, and he has given lectures and has been interviewed on these topics around the world. “He disagrees with me, he must be brainwashed by propaganda. LOL nice logic” the same can be said about flav’s comment, hence my sarcastic reply- he gave no evidence of chomsky being “a delusional linguist” or “lacking worldly experience or perspective.” its just his unsubstantiated opinion.
    1
  123. Flavius Belisarius so i read the first (#10) “lie” and im sorry, but its ridiculous. it misses chomsky’s point and its out of context. i cant even.  and again “left cover for communist purges and genocides” wow bruh, you clearly dont know chomsky. try manufacturing consent. or you seem to be a molyneaux fan? try watching his interview with chomsky- results?search_query=molyneux+chomsky take care.
    1
  124. Flavius Belisarius show me where he defends “communist scumbag regimes” if its anything like how he “defended” it in that first “lie”, then you miss his point- being that he was NOT defending authoritarian “communism” (really just statism or state capitalism) but rather Comparing the atrocities of the US to the atrocities of the Soviet Union. and besides, whether you agree with all of his positions or not, you detract from my OP. my OP was not a defense of chomsky, rather just using One of his quotes to explain that authoritarianism/totalitarianism/statism/imperialism have nothing to do with such things like worker cooperatives. even right wing “libertarians” like molyneaux accept worker cooperatives within their “anarcho” cap utopia. the difference is- i and other left libertarians like chomsky believe that equality must come before a removal of the state, otherwise the richest/most powerful will develop a state apparatus or hire private institutions to once again gain Authoritarian Control. and then we’re worse off than before. “the government has a defect: it is Potentially_ democratic. Corporations have no defect: they are pure tyrannies”
    1
  125. you are wrong. gutfeld believes in the almighty unicorn.
    1
  126. and who's the bigger neocon? trump opposed the iraq war. hillary was for it.
    1
  127. welders DONT make more money than philosophers
    1
  128. hillary is a warmongering corporate shill. her top donors are wall street and media conglomerates. thats who she will be Beholden to. NOT to the majority of people. on the other hand, bernie doesn't even have a superPAC. his average donation is like 40-50 dollars- money from We the People, not from special interests. republican fox news "darling" ann coulter said she would vote for hillary. in my experience too many liberal females seem to want to vote for hillary just because she is female. but i'm a female, and i am voting for Bernie!
    1
  129. darthvader5300 you sure you own us? america has spent more on defense than the next 7 countries Combined. russia has a puny military in comparison to us. 
    1
  130. Some degree of wealth equality is needed in order for democracy (representative or otherwise) to work. We no longer have a representative democracy/republic. We have an OLIGARCHY
    1
  131. ***** we have a corporate state tyranny. corporatism/corporate fascism/crony capitalism/oligarchy/plutocracy. collusion of corporate/wealthy interests and government. only They are represented. We the People are not. which is why we need to elect the antithesis to the corporate state- Bernie Sanders.
    1
  132. Ōkami-san if wages dont rise with inflation and productivity- which has been the trend - then having cheap electronics wont matter much; not when the costs of basic necessities are so expensive. :/ and the luddites werent just against new tech taking their jobs- they were against their shitty working conditions and low - non livable - wages angrybearblog (dot) com/ 2012/ 08/ the-luddite-fallacy-fallacy(dot)html (edit- sorry I cant link)
    1
  133. Ōkami-san i think some sort of basic income would lessen the typical government bureaucratic inefficiences. maybe there's some truth to government being too big, but i think regardless of its size, We the People need to organize to make it work for US again- to be truly Representative- rather than it just representing the top (including in effect or real monopolies- whether they be transnational corporations or the government itself) "Yes, the CEO's are paid too much - tax them all you like. It isn't going to change the fact of failing American schools. All that will happen is the money will be taken from relatively productive people and given to relatively unproductive people, wasted, and nothing to show for it." i think you might be looking at the situation too narrowly. this is how i see it- yes, taxing the tippy top 1 or .001 more wont miraculously help failing institutions. (the government is an inefficient bureacracy/monopoly. ok. I concede...maybekindasorta) BUT it will help prevent the small group of elites/special interests from bribing politicians for more and more benefits which lead to more and more consolidation of wealth and power. and without special interests being prioritized because they paid more, us lowly 99 percent's issues would get more attention- studies show that the the average american has No effect over policy changes- that the only policies that change are the ones that the super rich want. and how do you figure that just because a CEO makes 300 (often more) times what their average employee makes, that that makes them 300 times as productive? the average american works over 40 hours a week, and it requires 40 to 80 hours of work a week on minimum wage to afford basic living- that isnt Unproductive, and i feel offended for all the poor people that work their asses off doing all of the PRODUCING but receiving next to nothing pay. :(
    1
  134. you may be with her, but she's not with you- she's with WALL STREET #BernieOrBust #FollowtheMoney #HillNO
    1
  135. PrincessTS01 maglevs and hyperloops ftw!
    1
  136. The pay ratio between CEOs and their average workers used to be around 20:1. Now its more like 100:1, sometimes 300:1 or 900:1. Are CEOs 100 or more Times as superior to the average worker now than in years past? This guy isn't giving common sense- he's giving B*S*
    1
  137. ok, lets do that
    1
  138. ***** Because more people work for the CEOs. But if celebrities and sports stars want to pay their housemaids 30 or more an hour, i'm all for it.
    1
  139. on ethical capitalism- youre forgetting that sometimes "ethical" means more expensive, which makes being ethical a Luxury.
    1
  140. looks like the Doublespeak is strong here. while I don't think this is a perfect explanation, it may help with Some of the confusion-  watch?v=MmRgMAZyYN0 and if anyone is interested, Richard D. Wolff is a or the leading expert in Marx and Socialism. he knows quite a bit more than a few rudimentary online definitions.
    1
  141. the pope is against authoritarian socialism and corporatism (pope calls this capitalism, but the right says he means corporatism). these are the excuses the right uses to claim that the pope is NOT a socialist like bernie. yes, it is true that the pope is conservative on social issues, and if the right wants to claim the pope for their own on these issues, fair enough. but we know that bernie identifies very strongly with the pope's economic stances. so what this tells me is that there is an overwhelming amount of doublespeak/newspeak/propaganda being used to keep the right and left divided, and the right fighting against their own interests. but some on the right seem to be coming around to bernie- https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/3djn72/im_a_tea_party_republican_considering_bernie/ "What I did not expect from this event was just how much a self-described democratic socialist could identify with somebody like me who detests the word socialism." and therein lies the problem- many are quick to judge based on scary no no words like SOCIALISM, but that's the game- thats what MSM uses to keep the status quo cronyism/corporatism/oligopoly alive. also, by calling obama a socialist- when in reality he is a corporate loving centrist- they make anyone to the left of him appear an extremist. but its all bullshit. obama has never really benefited the left except on a few social issues like gay marriage. meanwhile, incomes have stagnated and declined, and the middle class gets hollowed out while the top get 90 percent of the gains. both sides have been fooled or are doing the fooling, except for the pope and bernie. :)
    1
  142. extreme inequality is immoral and more equal (developed) countries are happier. and while there may be plenty of moral billionaires, there will always be some who use their great wealth to influence politics in their favor and against the interests of the less wealthy majority, and this again is immoral. money shouldn't equal speech.
    1
  143. Dcup thanks
    1
  144. yeah! how dare women attack hillary for sucking up to wall street and other big money donors! women would still hate her if she didnt suck up to wall street. wait a min... ¬_¬
    1
  145. stop this shit. the right buys hillary too- murdoch, murdoch's son, newsmax, donald trump to name a few. and don't forget Wall Street. everyone except BERNIE is bought.
    1
  146. ***** with a user name like yours, I'm surprised you would even consider him. but out of curiosity, was there anything specific about that speech that made you distrust him?
    1
  147. ***** don't see how that answers my question 
    1
  148. ***** ffrom wiki- "In the context that the NCLR uses “La Raza”, it means “The Race,” or “the Hispanic people of the New World”, not "El Pueblo", "The People" is not a direct translation. [11] — people of Chicano (i.e. Mexican American) and Mexican descent and the Hispanic world, as well as mestizos who share Native American or national Hispanic heritage.[citation needed] The concept of inclusiveness was initially promoted by Jose Vasconselos as part of the phrase and title of his essay, "La Raza Cosmica", the mixing of white, black, and native, in the Western Hemisphere.[12] "
    1
  149. +Levi Appenfelder being an expert on one subject does not make you an expert on ALL subjects
    1
  150. Levi Appenfelder you first stated that one cannot attack or question a neurosurgeon's intelligence unless the attacker is also a neurosurgeon. this is just as illogical as claiming that being ignorant in one subject makes you ignorant in all. but if part of intelligence is knowing your weaknesses, then carson does not have this. his hubris will get him in trouble.
    1
  151. ugh, these PC Police checking everyones privilege and spreading their cultural marxism. oh wait...
    1
  152. no of course the host is not familiar with the powell memo. thats why he's on faux news. 90% was under republican eisenhower. bernie advocated a 56 top Marginal tax for the very top .1 percent. how can people listen to this shit infotainment.
    1
  153. "“Neoliberal democracy. Instead of citizens, it produces consumers. Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls. The net result is an atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralized and socially powerless." -chomchom
    1
  154. there's an app called buycott that can scan food barcodes and tell you whether or not its gmo, or whatever else
    1
  155. ***** create one
    1
  156. "just about everyone believes hillary will be the nominee" REALLY means that faux news NEEDS her to be the nominee because she is a "democrat" that is BOUGHT OUT by the Big Banks and Media Conglomerates who give the Majority of her Campaign Contributions and let us not forget about the donations that RUPERT MURDOCH- OWNER OF FOX NEWS - has made to the clinton foundation
    1
  157. they gain magic powers by smelling their own farts
    1
  158. PRHILL9696 bravo for living up to "do not turn the other cheek" :P
    1
  159. "you're very good at twisting the truth" Thom admitted he didn't know the History of democratic socialism. and SO WHAT? if democratic socialism is NOT what it was in the past, then why dredge up the past? "this is what conservatives do- theyre very good at using history to confirm their bias, and avoiding other history thats inconvenient for their bias"" at least some on the right are willing to consider supporting bernie- https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/3djn72/im_a_tea_party_republican_considering_bernie/
    1
  160. Best Snowden interview! John Oliver FTW!
    1
  161. Rush Limbaugh and Bernie are both against the TPP/Obamatrade- a trade deal which is just CORPORATISM and which will destroy Small Business. and before Alex Jones went apeshit when he heard the word SOCIALIST, he showed clips of Bernie taking down former "federal" reserve chairman Greenspan. and many vermont veterans have voted for Bernie- http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-military-and-veterans/ and check out ralph nader speaking with ron paul to hear progressive and libertarian points of agreement, and their Left Right Alliance :)
    1
  162. Christian dogmatists used to be Apolitical- until the neo cons co-opted them
    1
  163. how come Nick Hanauer's TEDtalk was banned, but this one wasn't?
    1
  164. 1:15- on "why is america backing saudi arabia if not for political bribery?" i thought it was mainly because the saudi royal and all of america benefits from propping up the petrodollar. places like iran want to sell their oil for ruble or yuan, so they are a threat to the stability of america's global economic dominance. and BRICS are a threat. because if the dollar loses its value, we lose everything... amirite?
    1
  165. MOOCs
    1
  166. if bernie isn't the nominee, I'm voting for green party JILL STEIN. there's no point voting for the lesser evil clinton. clinton and the GOP are BOTH EVIL.
    1
  167. Santorum and the rest (including Clinton) SAY they're not corporatists, but a quick evaluation of their largest Campaign Donors prove they are. There is only one candidate who is beholden to We the People, rather than Corporate "people"
    1
  168. 51MontyPython studies prove that only the wealthiest fraction of the population affect government policies. the majority of americans have ZERO effect on policies. so yeah- taking big money translates to prioritizing those big money special interests over the interests of average americans. we are an Oligarchy.
    1
  169. and it seems you have blinders on if you can recognize that the wealthiest can effectively pay zero taxes but not recognize that politicians are beholden to their wealthiest donors and biggest lobbyist bribes.
    1
  170. 51MontyPython There is only one honorable candidate, and he's also the only candidate without a SuperPAC, and whose average donation is 30 to 40 dollars. And it aint Trump. Even Trump has accepted SuperPAC money. Listen to my first reply to you- ONLY the wealthiest fraction affect policies because the majority of politicians are Not honorable. The studies confirm that most of them have a price.  But Bernie will work to end "Citizens" United, to end political bribery. Want to know how honorable your presidential favorite is? Just follow the money.
    1
  171. 51MontyPython how do you define Marxist? 0:)
    1
  172. 51MontyPython  your definition sounds like soviet style planned state capitalism / "socialism" but i define marxism as "worker ownership of the means of production" rather than private OR STATE ownership. meaning less CONSOLIDATION/CENTRALIZATION of power, and thereby- more DEMOCRACY. and a DEMOCRATIC socialist would use the state to shift power from centralized oligarchic corporate control towards We the People. so in answer to your question- would i vote for my definition of a Marxist over a supposed non corporatist who STILL ACCEPTED CORPORATE MONEY?  YES. But would i vote for a STATIST over a non corporatist who accepted corporate money? Id vote for NEITHER because NEITHER would prioritize my interests- they would BOTH be beholden to the oligarchy.
    1
  173. 51MontyPython common ownership- as in Worker ownership- as in worker cooperatives, of which there are plenty of successful ones around the world. check out the wiki page of worker coops. so of course it makes sense. derpity derp, and what i sound like is the opposite of what we have- CORPORATE FASCISM. all of the "conservative" candidates are corporate fascists. why won't you believe me?! :P the problem is that power is so weighted towards corporatism that we NEED a democratic socialist to balance out the scale. i.e. we need STATE intervention to make things FAIR. otherwise a pure "free" market system will ALWAYS devolve into centralized monopolistic control. bernie is a democratic socialist- i.e. he wants more democracy. socialism means no hierarchy. it means everyone having an equal vote rather than the richest having the only political influence. it means DEMOCRACY.
    1
  174. 51MontyPython for a monty python fan, certainly you've heard of anarcho syndicalism?  watch?v=R7qT-C-0ajI i think i said before that i include clinton as one of the corporatists. even right wing faux news darling ann coulter said she would vote for clinton. why? because clinton is right wing. “I think [democratic socialism] means the government has got to play a very important role in making sure that as a right of citizenship all of our people have healthcare; that as a right, all of our kids, regardless of income, have quality childcare, are able to go to college without going deeply into debt; that it means we do not allow large corporations and moneyed interests to destroy our environment; that we create a government in which it is not dominated by big money interest. I mean, to me, it means democracy, frankly. That’s all it means.” - Bernie Sanders i think you're missing the point. our government has been captured by the wealthiest and their corporations. we have a CORPORATE STATE i.e. COLLUSION OF CORPORATE AND STATE i.e. CORPORATE FASCISM i.e. an OLIGARCHY. if you can't understand how a pure free market will always devolve into centralized control, then I'm sorry for you. but if you do want to understand, here is a simple explanatory video- watch?v=OLJvsyAETqc
    1
  175. 51MontyPython did you watch the last link? please watch it, i gotta get some zzz's. ill answer tomorrow dude. you've been fun. truly :)
    1
  176. Moving America Forward your stats are completely bunk. cruz has raised 38 mil from outside/dark money and 26 mil from committee. Bernie a measly 25k from outside, and a whopping 41 MIL from committee. further breakdown shows majority of committee money for cruz comes from LARGE individual donations-  57% or 15 MIL) while a measly 11 mil from small dollars. for Bernie, the breakdown for committee money is 74 percent from SMALL donations, and only 22 percent from large, or 9 mil. also, his large donations come from unions, not SUPERPACS, so they represent WORKING PEOPLE, not CORPORATE "PEOPLE" check for yourself- opensecrets.org/pres16/ and even trump has accepted SuperPAC money, so him being completely self financed is also a lie.
    1
  177. Moving America Forward  1. it says Patriots for Trump (a SuperPAC) GAVE zero, but oddly he SPENT 290,000 from them. hmm.. strange. opensecrets also strangely left out Citizens for Restoring USA, another SuperPAC for trump. also, i thought he promised his campaign would be 100 percent self financed? and you say he’s only 33% self financed? well, so much for that. and his small dollar donors is a measly 19 percent compared to Bernie’s 74 percent for small. why does trump want to be president if he is only 19 percent beholden to ordinary working class people? that seems disingenuous. it seems like he isnt really in it for We the People, isnt at all representing millions of thoughtful voters like Bernie is. it seems like trump just wants to beef up his brand, stroke his ego, all that.  but you know, great if he wants to do that! 2. the “99”% for cruz means from his Committee donations only. but add in his outside dark money and that 99% becomes less than 50% and those Bernie PACs are bunk. he has not accepted any SuperPAC money. as this campaign continues you will see the others spending more from their SuperPACs, but Bernie will not because he refuses to be Bought.  do any of the other candidates have political and electoral reform as one of their priorities? maybe you can prove me otherwise, but i dont think they do because the other candidates can and are bought by big corporations and billionaires- Especially cruz. i mean just look at cruz’s fundraising totals- look at all his superPACs- keep the promise 1, 2, etc) he hasnt spent much from them Yet, but we still have time. and looking closer, cruz’s top donor is a Bank and his 4th top is GOLDMAN SACS. sorry, but this just proves he’s a crony. he’s not beholden to We the People at all.  further evaluation shows that a majority of his funds has come from a SINGLE BILLIONAIRE- Robert Mercer, a hedgefunder who has donated at least 31 MILLION, spread out of course, among cruz’s Many SuperPACs. so what was this you were saying about small donations from cruz? but you know, great if he wants to prioritize the interests of wall street and billionaires! its whats to be expected from the gop. 3. not sure why you keep saying “union bosses” - unions represent working people and it is their Organization who has donated, not “bosses” and they're certainly not billionaires that want to short change the rest of america with corporate fascism. give it up, dude. Bernie Sanders works for We the People and always has. the others are beholden to the big money. they may say they want to help the middle class grow and stop wall street fraud, but those are impossibilities when you get your FUNDS from wall street and other billionaires representing big corps.  Bernie raised 26 million, 2 mil short of hillary, yet his average donation was 30 dollars from over a million donations. he set a record. the largest donation bernie has ever received in his entire career was 105k. from a bank? from big pharma? big media? NO- from a union representing WORKING PEOPLE. whats cruz’s second largest donation? looks like 15 MILLION from TWO BILLIONAIRE BROS. does that seem like democracy to you? rhetorical- NO- of course not, its OLIGARCHY. So, to recap-  Its great that Trump is one third self financed  and lies about accepting SuperPAC money and is only 19 percent beholden to working people, and its great that Cruz has been getting multimillion dollar donations from wall street banks and billionaires, was elected in 2012 with the help of the Koch financed astroturf (ie fake grassroots) Tea Party, has received more from the kochs through their “club for growth” group, and is less than half financed by small individual donations because the majority of his money has come from a few billionaires through dark money and superPACs. not We the People. but a few Billionaire donating to a bunch of SuperPACs that can spend unlimited sums. so thats all fine and dandy, but lets not be too hard on Bernie Sanders who wants to break up the Too Big to Fail Banks, has absolutely zero ties to wall street and other corporate fascist interests, and who wants nothing to do with donations from billionaires because he understands that billionaire and corporate donations undermines our REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. 
    1
  178. 51MontyPython id rather unions protecting the rights of workers and bargaining for better rights than a super PAC designed to gather unlimited amounts of money to protect the status quo power of corporations and the super wealthy. power should lie with We the People, not Corporate "People" it should be more decentralized, not centralized into an ever consolidated corporate state.
    1
  179. 51MontyPython How can you be so against working people? Are you megarich? Do you own a transnational corporation? Yes, unions are like superPACs in that they can donate large sums. But when Bernie speaks of getting Big Money out of politics, he's speaking of ALL big money- including unions! Gawd, you are annoying.
    1
  180. 51MontyPython in other words- it shouldn't be the megarich on the left competing with the megarich on the right. this isn't REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. it is OLIGARCHY. so while i PREFER the big money from unions because unions are supposed to represent ORDINARY PEOPLE (and you should prefer them TOO), i do see how BOTH george soros,  and sheldon adelson and the kochs are two sides of the same OLIGARCHY- the same big money CORRUPTION which undermines the power/the VOICE of EVERYONE ELSE. 
    1
  181. 51MontyPython “The terms "right" and "left" are meaningless.“  not completely meaningless. the “left” still has better social policies- so theyre not full of idiotic hate. but yeah, theyre the same with regards to economic policies because the megarich (who couldnt give two shits about social issues) bribe both parties. are we in agreement here or not? im not sure because if you do agree, i dont understand why youre not also in support of the only candidate who wants to put an END to political bribery. “left” and right arent BECAUSE of the influence of BIG MONEY- which makes our system a corporatocracy/corporate fascism/inverted totalitarianism/oligarchy/plutocracy/socialism for the rich. jeezus. “I also wouldn't equate the Koch brothers with the likes of George Soros.”  i dont think i can debate with you any more if this is what you think. you just seem like a koch shill. figures if youre a “tea partier” let me give you a rundown of the kochs- theyre against social security, medicare, medicaid, environmental protection, public education, unions, minimum wage, and they want to end the already limited restrictions on campaign financing. i.e. theyre against anything that helps the middle class and poor. theyre for a complete “anarcho” capitalist system, which as ive explained, would quickly devolve into totalitarianism of private institutions. right wing “libertarianism” has been tried and has FAILED miserably with the end result being exactly as i've explained. and since the kochs already have too much control, doing away with government regulations would bring us KOCH totalitarianism. they claim to be libertarians, but they fund organizations such as the tea party and anti gay platforms- in other words, they sucker anyone they can to progress their “anarcho” cap/corporate totalitarian system. they dont give a FUCK about true freedom- they just dont want the government in THEIR way because THEY want COMPLETE POWER. “the question of who gives (or is allowed to give) the most money to this or that political campaign is an entirely separate argument from policy in and of itself.  So, can we rather discuss specific policy itself?” i know you hate me conflating issues, but these issues RELATE. how can you not get this? issues arent islands, dude. policies are SHAPED by the WEALTHIEST. average income americans have zero effect on policies BECAUSE average income americans dont have the money to BUY the political policies. we need more WEALTH EQUALITY for policies to work for EVERYONE- for REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY to work. i dont think you have ever offered a reason for why i might be wrong about this. and you just whine about “trickle down” not meaning “supply side” and never explain WHY every political wonk i listen to or read thinks trickle down is the same as supply side/reaganomics/voodoo economics.
    1
  182. 51MontyPython "The left's social policies is one of the main things that makes them so insane, and more commie than 'libbie' in the true sense"  disagree with you on the left’s social policies. how can you say equal rights for marriage and pro choice are more authoritarian statist than libertarian? or by “commie” do you mean actual commie of which there has never been? the more “moderate” left are actually not. clinton is more “moderate”/"right" than sanders, but that just means she’s a corporatist and militarist, closer to the establishment GOP and obama. i think its better to think of political views more like politicalcompass.org - in quadrants, with top authoritarian, bottom libertarian, and then left and right. this still seems simplistic, but offers mroe nuance than “left” and “right” this compass also shows how Bernie Sanders is the most libertarian of all state politicians and past presidential candidates. more freedom under Bernie. seems like you tea partiers would appreciate that. only, i would disagree that there could ever be pure right wing “libertarianism” because it would quickly devolve into private tyranny. concentrated wealth leads to concentrated power. ive explained this to you before and given you links. and i really dont want to get into obamacare, but my undersanding is that the insurance corporations benefit the most because they watered it down with their corporate lobbying. so “ocorporatist” care does seem fitting, only i would not classify obamacare as socialist in the decentralized libertarian sense.   and if libertarian socialism seems like a contradiction to you, try noam chomsky or check out that compass.
    1
  183. 51MontyPython "Do you know what it's like being a part of the minority 1%?  Apparently these days everyone's out to get you, no matter how much integrity you may have or lack.  It's all just, "business owner! = corporate fascist = evil!" " when i or others speak of the 1% we're really speaking of the .1 or less- the Fraction like the 200 or so families that own Half of the u.s. wealth- not towards Every Single Business owner.  but no, of course i dont know what its like being part of the 1%   Do You?  monty, the impression im getting from you is that you feel attacked or feel that maybe people you know are being attacked?  but try looking at it from this perspective- studies show that the richer you are the less empathy you have and the more you cheat. maybe not you. maybe beneath your asshole remarks youre a good person. but on average, this is what great wealth does. and something like 90 percent of economic gains have gone to the top 1 percent. so if people are out to get the 1% ers, its not working. they're getting richer, even under "socialist" obama, while the rest of us get poorer. and it Seems that great wealth disparity is not good for social cohesion. does it not Seem that way to you? i can find stats to confirm my bias- like the studies that shows the lower the gini coefficient of a population, the greater their happiness.  but come on monty, do i really need to pull out the stats? do you really think its good to have 200 families owning HALF of the entire u.s. wealth? cant you see how this might cause problems? tension? pitchforks coming for the plutocrats? and can you not see how great wealth will inevitably be used to influence policies so that those with the most can attain even more, while making the lives of everyone else more difficult? maybe you would never do this. maybe you respect representative democracy, but i can guarantee you that the koch bros and company Do NOT. i think the vast majority of people believe that money should not equal SPEECH. ill give you another possible explanation for why corporations and their wealthiest owners feel the need to bribe politicians so much - the goal of corporations is to make profit. that is their only objective. so when government has restrictions (even if these restrictions are benefiting People) they will do whatever they can to end the restrictions. this may not be inherently evil, but it is at least a FLAW in the system. we're both against the TPP, so it seems you would also agree with me that Profits should never come before People.
    1
  184. 51MontyPython "you say the Koch bros are "corporate fascists" because whatever political influence they are using is precisely to keep even of all people those such as themselves who would choose to do so from doing just that??" err.. can you re word that. thats a mess. but yeah, of course theyre corporate fascists. at least in practice. in idealogy, theyre idiot right wing “libertarians” which is really just private tyranny. they want to rule the world instead of having a government that is designed to represent everyone. government currently represents the oligarchy, but it at least has the POTENTIAL to represent all. private institutions do not have this potential. they're tyrannies by design. but at this point, government has just become a tiny thorn that the kochs must relieve with political donations and think tanks and organizations. they have backwards ideas of freedom, like the freedom to fuck up everyone else’s life. for instance- they do everything they can to destroy unions- ie they want to destroy the rights of working people. and the environment. where do you get your information? one of the kochs many think tanks? the koch created tea party? or rupert murdoch central/fox so called news? come on monty. if youre not a koch shill, then educate yourself on the kochs- try the documentary koch brothers exposed. try some alternet, politico, salon, RT. or watch some thom hartmann. or sam seder. pepper in some telesur and empire files. try any real news source. anything that isnt financed by the freakin kochs.
    1
  185. 51MontyPython "There you go, conflating "wealth equality" with degree of say in politics.  Two different things," are you fucking shitting me? didn't you just admit in an earlier post that corporations/the wealthiest have too much political influence?! the wealthiest decide the policies. average americans DONT. i prefer representative democracy or even better- direct democracy. but we dont have either- we have oligarchy. plutocracy. we have corporate fascism. policies are shaped by the wealthiest and their corporations. they are shaped by the kochs. the kochs buy the politicians that they want, like cruz and rand. cruz and rand do not represent the 99 percent no matter how much bullshit propaganda they spew. sorry, but i do not want this. i want my degree of say to be just as valuable as the kochs and company, but it is not. 
    1
  186. 51MontyPython  "So I take it you don't appreciate the insurance companies giving all that money to the politicians for Obamacare, for which they are now making money hand over fist, raping people all the more?" no, i dont appreciate that at all. did i ever say i liked obama/romneycare? thanks to corporate influence, obamacare is watered down and probably shit. single payer would be better and cheaper. it is idiotic or psychopathic to privatize things like HEALTH. "So you want to talk about "economic policy," or  "campaign finance?"  Again, -- TWO DIFFERENT THINGS." lets talk about BOTH since they RELATE. lobbying/political bribery SHAPES economic policies to benefit the ONES DOING THE BRIBING ONLY. thus creating a system that benefits the RICHEST AND CORPORATIONS ONLY. how can you not understand this?? you think the policies of cruz or rand are to reduce government which will somehow benefit ordinary people? thats what they say, right? “big bad government” “cut spending and regulations and taxes on the rich for this will make teh trickle downs”? and the rest of the GOP are all fakers, right? because theyll really increase teh big bad guvment same as the left?  but who will cruz have to return favors to if he is elected? robert mercer who gave cruz 31 mil? or the two fracking billionaires who gave him 15 mil? or his top donors which are the big banks like Goldman? or the kochs who gave cruz who knows how much out of the 900 plus Mil that they will spend on candidates? and do you think any of these donors are against the TPP? rand says he is against, but do you think he’ll keep his promise if he has large donations from any TPP transnationals that he must repay? obama also said he was against “free trade” and spoke out against it frequently in his first campaign, but ho ho ho look how things have changed. and guess who else supports the TPP? the KOCHS. so do you think cruz or rand who have both begged for and sucked the koch are really going to support policies that would benefit the 99 percent? they can say whatever the fuck they want to on their campaigns, but their funding speaks louder.  and about rand’s flat tax- supposedly that will be more Fair, right? thats the koch backed propaganda- that its more FAIR. but lets look at this. for simplicity, lets say everyone was taxed at 10 % - if it was truly flat then that would mean a person making 15k a year would owe 1.5k which is rent and food and other BASIC NECESSITIES for an entire MONTH. now of course 10 percent of 15 MILLION is much more- 1.5 mil. but that still leaves richman with 13.5 MILLION to do whatever he wants to, including paying poorman’s rent for his entire freakin lifetime. even if richman was taxed at 50 percent, he would still have 7.5 MILLION. thats MORE than enough to have what you need- and for MOST people, what they WANT -to be happy. any extra after 70k doesn't provide any more happiness unless you're an emotional tard.  and richman is just as FREE with 7.5 million as with 15 million, but poorman is less free with 13.5k as opposed to 15k because thats 1500 less he has for NECESSITIES. now does that seem FAIR? ok, but you say your hypothetical flat tax would only start after 20k, so a person making 25k would only get 10 percent taxed on the additional 5k. but still- 500 dollars can make a huge difference for someone making only 25k. that could be rent or medicine or even go to purchasing a television or some other non necessity- actual Growth for the economy, rather than sticking that 500 dollars in an offshore account to collect interest.  and the “left” supposedly wants to increase gov spending, but BOTH parties increase in the areas that benefit the transnationals and the kochs and co. and reduce or throw crumbs at the programs that could benefit middle class and poor. if the “left” has good intentions, they are Watered Down by CORPORATE INFLUENCE. both sides are owned by the richest and their corporations. both sides prop up the CORPORATE STATE. all except Bernie because only Bernie is not owned. his policies are aligned with the interests of ordinary people as opposed to superwealthy financiers- because he HAS NO SUPERWEALTHY FINANCIERS. he has no SUPERPAC. he doesn't suck the koch or any corporation. he is beholden to WE THE PEOPLE and therefore his economic policies will REFLECT THE PEOPLES WILL. FINALLY we have a candidate that has the Potential to reverse the corporate fascism!
    1
  187. 51MontyPython  " [average income americans have zero effect on policies BECAUSE average income americans dont have the money to BUY the political policies.] "Zero," you say?" youre confused about this or youre in denial, so here’s the study. i looked it up just for you- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/15/government-wealthy-study_n_5154879.html i mean really, just THINK-  who do you think will have more influence- the koch bros who are donating almost a billion (probably more if you count dark money) to help their candidate favorites, plus more to their think tanks and groups like their tea party to convince people that the policies they want will also help the “99” percenters? or a 50 dollar donation from a middle income person? keep in mind that the 99% must have the time and energy- in between their 2 or more part time minimum wage jobs -to overcome the koch and co. propaganda. and they have to get their news from places other than the 5 or so corporate MSM conglomerates which limit information, including not discussing TPP. the policies we have- obama's “socialist” policies that are making the richest fraction of the population richer and everyone else poorer- are policies that the richest WANT. maybe we (or should say i, if youre a 1 percenter?) got a few more crumbs under obama, but just look at the stats dude. the policies we have benefit the big corps including the big banks like goldman who heavily funded obama's campaign. i mean, come ON- OBAMA SUPPORTS TPP! do you think the TPP was shaped with the influence of the “99” percent?! “So in other words, your solution is one of 'equal opportunity' cronyism, by making everyone's political contributions the same, and this will happen by making everyone's level of income the same?” first off- “ ‘equal opportunity’ ” cronyism” doesnt even make sense. i mean, WTF? are you training in doublespeak? you really are a shill, arent you? second- my ideas are a bit more nuanced than what you suggest- of course i believe in economic equality, and i believe more wealth equality could be a solution or partial solution to the extravagant bribery going on by the megarich, BUT there are solutions that could be used instead or coupled with wealth redistribution. for one- END CITIZEN’S UNITED. another is public funding of elections here are bernie’s other proposals- http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-political-and-electoral-reform nick hanauer put it this way- “the closer society becomes to a plutocracy, the more likely it is that the plutocrats will deploy the tools in ways which advance the interests of plutocrats and nobody else. and this is why economic inequality and political inequality are so pernicious and self reinforcing and why everyone except the koch brothers has a stake in trying to prevent that.” so you can respond and insult me some more, but i need a shower. ill respond to you maybe in a week or so, after ive scrubbed away my disgust.
    1
  188. we cant have the "same level of opportunity" with our level of economic inequality! "we can have (representative) democracy, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few. but we cannot have BOTH" former supreme court justice luis brandeis “the closer society becomes to a plutocracy, the more likely it is that the plutocrats will deploy the tools in ways which advance the interests of plutocrats and nobody else. and this is why economic inequality and political inequality are so pernicious and self reinforcing and why everyone except (the super rich) has a stake in trying to prevent that.” nick hanauer, billionaire entrepreneur
    1
  189. "a stagnant economy where workers have little bargaining power" does trump support unions?
    1
  190. proof that sean hannity is acting?
    1
  191. gutfeld is a curmudgeon because he cant cut it as a comedian. he cant cut it as an economist either, as you can plainly tell in his recent argument with an actual major in economics on the five.
    1
  192. i voted for bernie and i liked this. i like south park too. usually.
    1
  193. ayn rand is the smug of the right
    1
  194. +Dick Hamilton i don't even think thats the reason. i think its that the right has so effectively co-opted the word libertarian. so most people here see libertarian socialism as a contradiction instead of right wing "libertarian" or "anarcho" capitalism as the Correct contradictions.
    1
  195. MattyBlue99 check out politicalcompass  ( d o t)   org.  
    1
  196. MattyBlue99 libertarians were originally leftists. when the rest of the world says libertarian they think socialist or anarchist or both. check out the books on the political compass site or noam chomsky on libertarianism. we already have welfare/"socialism". but under bernie, we would have more support for All rather than just corporate welfare which is what we have now. we have socialism for the rich only now. and taxing of risky financial speculation and taxing the top fraction of the population closer to what they were taxed under republican eisenhower would be part of bernie's approach to pay for the goods. we would all benefit, not just the very top fraction like what has been happening for the last 40 so years with supply side/trickle down/reaganomics.
    1
  197. MattyBlue99 well, we disagree on the origins of libertarianism. i agree with chomsky on the origins of right wing "libertarianism", so i doubt ill convince you otherwise. but the compass doesn't define libertarianism in economic terms anyways. so in that respect- as for personal rights, bernie is more libertarian than rand. secular talk made it clear that rand is far more authoritarian with regards to personal freedoms. and if you consider rand's superPACs and bribes from the kochs, he seems just as much a corporate fascist as the establishment candidates. he has flip-flopped on the TPP/obamatrade, but the kochs advocate TPP, so make of that what you will.
    1
  198. the human race, the planet earth, the universe- these are things that are greater than myself
    1
  199. if she's beautiful (as many mixed race people are because of the broader genetic variety) then the white (sickly pure bred) people might secretly be jealous of her
    1
  200. PolakFury how?
    1
  201. PolakFury Duane Craig I wasn't very clear, but what I meant is that genetic variety is good for health (as opposed to the opposite extreme of incest) and if you take the average of a wide range of "racial" features, you get a person that is considered ideally beautiful. (the best of all worlds, so to speak) I used the term "race" to explain (poorly, im afraid) the various features/traits of groups of people that have been excluded from the rest of the population for a long period of time so that those groups have developed very specific characteristics to their area. I don't see how this is racist- just scientific fact and observation.
    1
  202. dlevitt0508 his brain state seems to be nothing more than cognitive dissonance. for wouldnt reasoned analysis allow one to see that life after death is "narcissistic" and thus allow one to overcome such a proclivity? take santa claus for instance (another imaginary figure). i have a tendency to want to believe in superhuman/magic things because they are exciting, but my parents' handwriting was identical to "santa's". some investigation of my suspicion led me to conclude, unfortunately that santa doesn't exist. :P
    1
  203. ***** "democracy always leads to an oligarchy" how can you possibly think this? its up to We the People- the democratic "mob" - to keep our state representative of All rather than the Few. unequal distribution of income is what leads to an oligarchy- big money buys influence to make more money. big money overrides the constitution.
    1
  204. an old lady asked me "why do so many millennials wear grey?" she went on to tell me how "back in her day" everyone wore bright colors. i thought she was trying to insinuate that her generation was cooler, more interesting, more "colorful." but assuming she is correct, what possible reasons could there be? i thought it might have something to do with how advertisements began to sell "individualism" rather than just things of necessity, and how the hippies were big into their "uniqueness" and "individuality" (quotes, because hippies all looked like hippies, and yeah yeah yeah, I'm sure millennials all look like millennials, because, ya know, we're all part of the same age group and thus we've had similar cultural experiences and exposure to similar clothing trends, so of course there are similarities) but i think the internet has squashed some of the grip of ads. plus, the net has given everyone a platform for their "15 minutes of fame" or more, so there's less of a desire to stand out/be an "individual" in fact, millennials probably fear overexposure, and worry about surveillance, so wearing grey as way to blend in and be un-noteworthy makes sense.
    1
  205. Donovan Toole of course i don't know if millennials tend to wear more grey than previous generations. but assuming they do, i gave some possible reasons, and an invitation for others to provide their own reasons. jeez. sue me?
    1
  206. Donovan Toole i gave a few other reasons
    1
  207. we might as well define socialism as banana since socialism seems to mean whatever the fuck people want it to mean.
    1
  208. Bernie should endorse Jill Stein or run with her. And while he does this, he should demand that the First Past the Post voting system be replaced with an alternative such as Instant Runoff that would fix the spoiler effect problem. If anyone dares to criticize Bernie for "splitting the vote" like Nader did, then he could direct the blame back to where it truly belongs.
    1
  209. +bluesrockfan36 pretty sure nicholas understands that its a percentage of total income. but he's saying that 14.5 percent of poorman's income is a catastrophe because poorman spends a larger percent- lets say 100 percent- of his total income on Basic Necessities, while richman spends a much smaller percent of his total income on Basics. so even if richman was taxed at 90 percent, he would still have plenty left over to buy many unnecessary items. on paper it looks fair, but its not in reality.
    1
  210. Find out the rules for your state's primary here  http://voteforbernie.org  and DONT DELAY- some states have CLOSED primaries, so you must register NOW so that Bernie has a chance to win! #feelthebern
    1
  211. Charles Gribben "When I was poor and I complained about inequality they said I was bitter. Now I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm starting to think they just don't want to talk about inequality." RB
    1
  212. Also, a question asked to Chomsky-  If you feel so guilty, how can you justify living a bourgeois life and driving a nice car? Chomsky- "If I gave away my car, I would feel even more guilty. When I go to visit peasants in southern Colombia, they don't want me to give up my car. They want me to help them. Suppose I gave up material things -- my computer, my car and so on -- and went to live on a hill in Montana where I grew my own food. Would that help anyone? No."
    1
  213. meme for conservatives? how about giving them the framework for socialism- "worker control of the means of their production" - NOT State control. if they say co-ops don't work, list some successful ones- Mondragon, John Lewis Partnership, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worker_cooperatives say Bernie is against CRONYISM and discuss his pledge to break up the "too big to fail"/ " SOCIALISM for the rich" banks talk about his opposition to OBAMA_trade and how _RUSH LIMPBALLS also opposes OBAMAtrade. (but of course, don't say limpballs) talk about HILLARY's SuperPAC and other CRONY money and that Bernie supports Campaign Finance Reform to prevent CRONIES like HILLARY from abusing the system. you have to use their vocabulary.
    1
  214. i wish the aliens made contact, but tptb probably just kept na zi tech and money and have been expanding on that ever since. but if thats true, then there's a group of people with tech so powerful that they might as well be aliens.
    1
  215. why so mad thom? "all for us, none for you" perfectly fair.
    1
  216. Hurray for Bilal the Tomato Grower!
    1
  217. why bother watching mr robot. evilcorps are real
    1
  218. I guess steve deace has never heard of intersexed people. how would he deal with those "question marks"? did god make them to have their irregular sex organs surgically altered to align with steve's ideal image of xx females and xy males, or did "god make them in his image"?
    1
  219. William Claypoole read chomsky
    1
  220. whiny "libertarian"/"anarcho" cap voice- "but we don't haaaaave capitalism. we have coooorporatism" yeah, and without any government at all - without a government that at least has the POTENTIAL to act as a BARRIER for protecting WE THE PEOPLE - we would quickly devolve into "control by the most successful businesses" i.e. - CORPORATE TOTALITARIANISM. but our barrier is breaking- the corporations/oligarchy are gaining control. they have bought out most of the politicians. we have a COLLUSION OF CORPORATE AND STATE. i.e. CORPORATE FASCISM i.e. CORPORATISM. and part of the solution to reverse this trend is to elect someone who supports WE THE PEOPLE'S interests- NOT CORPORATE "PEOPLE" this person is BERNIE SANDERS. he can be our ALLY in fighting the OLIGARCHY. don't agree? come at me bros.
    1
  221. clinton has always been a republican, and the republicans have become corporate fascists.
    1
  222. check out facebook's Republicans for Bernie. or Moderates for Bernie. or Veterans for Bernie. or the Reddit post "Im a Tea Party Conservative considering Bernie Sanders and I do Not believe Im Alone"
    1
  223. why aren't people protesting for a shorter work week? there's no need for people to work 40 hours per week. the robots can pick up the hours. they can work 24/7.
    1
  224. +blackcatsoda nader likes bernie, so why not vote for bernie?
    1
  225. even TEA PARTIERS are against the TPP
    1
  226. Juscelino Acevedo minimum wage workers do work hard. most min wage workers need to work 60 to 120 hours a week to afford BASIC RENT. its not that CEOs make 400 times more than their average worker because they work 400 times as hard. NO! that is ridiculous!!! the truth is that their boards of directors Benefit from paying their bosses ridiculous salaries. "more for you equals more for me" the ratio of CEO pay to average worker used to be 20 to 1. Everyone was benefiting. but now it is 400 to 1. and studies show that lower paid CEOs are often BETTER.
    1
  227. Juscelino Acevedo yeah. it does make sense. we all want more. and studies also show that the richer you are, the more deserving you think you are. which is why rich people cheat more- they don't see it as cheating, just them being more deserving
    1
  228. inthesetimes article why Chicago wont go bankrupt- and Detroit didn't have to
    1
  229. rubio's mom was a maid and dad a bartender and they could afford a HOUSE? not with today's wages. these guys are out of touch.
    1
  230. blackbette07 and our government is subject to business manipulations
    1
  231. blackbette07 Agreed that government regulation and taxation of Small business is oppressive. Meanwhile, big corporations benefit from the regulations because they already have the money to buy and manipulate their way out of the regulations and taxes (think Too Big to Fail banks). The issue of inequality does not align with Republican (less government power) or Democrat (less corporate power) thought because BOTH government and the large corporate/monopolistic entities are a threat to average americans. You can call it Crony Capitalism, Socialism for the Rich, an Oligopoly or a Plutocracy- it's all the same message. You said "Politicians serve themselves and people who support them" The people or corporate "people" that have the greatest ability to "support" (aka- donate) are the wealthiest. So, in other words- I agree with you.
    1
  232. watch my LEFTRIGHTALLIANCE videos of ron paul and ralph nader. their areas of agreement are also those which Bernie agrees with. Bernie is for We the People, not for the corporate/state cronies consolidating ever more power. we should be a Representative Democracy (aka- a Republic) NOT an Oligarchy. but sadly, we have become an Oligarchy. please try to see past the propaganda/newspeak. edward bernays and his smug disciples were despicable psychopaths who thought/think that most people are like SHEEP that need to be controlled and/or eradicated, but we can overcome their dumb elitist lies. how? we have an uncensored internet! (for now at least) so we can educate ourselves so that we can change the paradigm/status quo that only benefits the cronies. and we can UNITE to FREE OURSELVES!
    1
  233. i have a theory that Trump is giving us Bernie's populist policies, but in a package that is more palatable to conservatives. (difference being that Bernie has held the same positions throughout his career while Trump was once a Democrat) Check out http://freebeacon.com/blog/donald-trump-and-bernie-sanders-are-the-same-person-analysis-finds/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/3djn72/im_a_tea_party_republican_considering_bernie/
    1
  234. Fabio Lopez no of course Trump wouldn't follow through. Bill Clinton and Trump spoke with each other a day or so before trump's presidential announcement. and trump has donated to the Clinton foundation. He seems to be buddies with the Clintons, so he is probably running as a favor to Hillary. but hey, that's just another theory. just don't misunderstand- I am in full support of Bernie.
    1
  235. obama calls himself a democrat, but he has turned out to be in practice a corporate fascist, beholden to his corporate donors and passing legislation such as TPP/ObamaTrade that some on the right And left are against. and he is guided by politicians of both parties who are also beholden to their corporate donors. fact is that all politicians spend the majority of their time raising money, so they do what they can to appeal to the big money rather than to We the People. Bernie wants the big money out of politics so that minorities or majorities can be represented, rather than just the big transnational corps and wealthiest .01 percent.
    1
  236. this isn't mine, but check out the Reddit post "i am a tea party republican considering Bernie Sanders and i don't believe I'm alone"
    1
  237. Please Young Turks- do a clip on Gutfeld's recent argument on the Five with the fill in for Dana -some other blond economist major - about the nature of "the invisible hand" He doesnt seem to understand economics.
    1
  238. maybe youre being cheeky, but if not- redistribution helps to balance the classes. therefore progressive taxation would be a method of attaining egalitarianism/democracy/communism. its also in line with marx's famous "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
    1
  239. 7:40 do the megarich always "buy themselves deregulation" or do they sometimes also buy more regulation/bureaucratic paperwork to shit on smaller business/lessen competition, meanwhile knowing the loopholes for these regulations because they wrote the legislation?
    1
  240. you dont get disqualified for being an atheist- just ostracized
    1
  241. Rand Paul, among other Rs, voted no on fast track/TPA
    1
  242. ***** hello. what times scare you? 
    1
  243. Your two main "choices" will be a corporatist or a corporatist in disguise- Right or "Left", they will both prioritize the interests of their rich donors and special interests over YOU. This means you would not "spoil the vote" by voting for a true candidate of the people (a populist) like Jill Stein, or Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. and if we get another corporatist, well then...there's always REVOLUTION.
    1
  244. Bernie is a centrist. Clinton, like Obama, is a moderate republican. What are you? (politicalcompass) Bernie's top campaign contributors are We the People. Clinton's top contributors are Wall St and media conglomerates. Bernie works for all of us. Clinton, like the GOP candidates and Obama, is beholden to her big money donors.
    1
  245. austen hult hard to believe jillette likes bernie because jillette is friends with fox news sycophant greg gutfeld and gutfeld parrots the fox news "bernie is a SOCIALIST" line. maybe jillette just likes bernie because he believes he is easy to beat? then again, jesse ventura likes bernie and jesse's friend alex jones goes apeshit over the word socialism. (even though he's agreed with bernie in the past) maybe some people just have too much mental discord with the word, and associate it with soviet union state capitalism.  i think its all about the doublespeak. the doublespeak/newspeak is how you manipulate a somewhat free populous. bernays knew this. politicians know this. hopefully more will wake up.
    1
  246. good point- its easy to call americans brain-dead, but they're more brain-Washed/propagandized by their corporate media, and they have little time to look deeper. the elites keep them on the hamster wheels so they can't see the truth.
    1
  247. we're all just "swimming in a fishbowl, year after year," until our alien overlords decide they want caviar
    1