Youtube comments of (@thehumanity0).
-
3700
-
2200
-
1500
-
1500
-
1400
-
936
-
889
-
735
-
716
-
711
-
701
-
689
-
668
-
625
-
616
-
612
-
507
-
490
-
486
-
481
-
469
-
442
-
442
-
436
-
396
-
359
-
359
-
355
-
338
-
301
-
282
-
277
-
274
-
269
-
268
-
262
-
257
-
256
-
249
-
241
-
235
-
223
-
212
-
210
-
209
-
207
-
192
-
184
-
183
-
183
-
182
-
181
-
180
-
177
-
175
-
173
-
172
-
171
-
168
-
164
-
163
-
161
-
159
-
152
-
151
-
150
-
150
-
149
-
148
-
145
-
143
-
138
-
136
-
132
-
129
-
127
-
125
-
121
-
118
-
117
-
114
-
112
-
108
-
108
-
108
-
105
-
104
-
104
-
104
-
103
-
101
-
101
-
100
-
99
-
96
-
96
-
94
-
94
-
94
-
94
-
92
-
92
-
90
-
90
-
90
-
90
-
89
-
89
-
89
-
87
-
86
-
86
-
85
-
83
-
83
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
79
-
78
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
76
-
76
-
75
-
75
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
69
-
69
-
68
-
68
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
65
-
64
-
64
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
Pretty much sums up the Jimmy Dore crowd these days. Not to mention, I've visited his channel recently, Jimmy keeps them all woefully ignorant to important issues & even lies about the way people vote sometimes (whether knowingly or because he's a huge dumbass who doesn't understand how the House and Senate work).
For instance, there was that giant push for $2,000 stimulus checks, which Bernie & Josh Hawley pushed for originally & then after Trump vetoed the bill, the House passed the checks & then Bernie nearly single-handedly tried to filibuster the Defense Budget & keep the Senators there over New Years so they would be forced to vote on the checks (in doing so he also cornered the Republicans & hurt the Georgia Republican incumbents). You look at Dore's channel, not one word about Bernie & Hawley pushing for stimulus checks, not one word about Bernie & a bipartisan coalition in the Senate trying to force McConnell to give survival checks to Americans while also fighting against the Defense Budget (another issue Jimmy claims to care about a lot). The only thing Jimmy ever mentioned about the issue was when he gave Donald Trump credit for vetoing the bill. If you were a Jimmy Dore viewer & that's all you ever watched, it would be easy to think that Donald Trump is somehow the only one in favor of stimulus checks - he doesn't cover any other movement on it, he doesn't cover Bernie (the only reason we got $600 to begin with & might even get $2,000 soon) because he's already condemned Bernie as thee "sellout" one. It wouldn't make Dore look good if he had to report about the guy he claims is a fraud & sellout literally working to give you & your working class families money for rent & bills. Jimmy won't ever report on any positive things Bernie, AOC, Ilhan Omar, Justice Democrats, or any Progressive he's already personally condemned, because at the end of the day, Jimmy only ever cares about his own image; the only time he ever gives a shit about the policy is to either yell at Democrats (& now Progressives) over or when it's his idea that's he's pushing. Otherwise you won't hear a peep about it from him, especially from anyone he's called a "sellout".
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
@TrashpandaNVGs Since the US pays twice as much on healthcare than any other country with far worse outcomes (30,000 to 45,000 people dying ever year from lack of healthcare and over 85,000 medical bankruptcies per year), while American citizens get price gouged by a for-profit mafia-like middle man that gets in-between you and your doctor. Insurance companies made $100 billion in profit last year, that's all because you and your loved ones got sick, they price gouged you, and then, in many cases, pulled the rug out from under you, refusing to pay for your treatment when you finally got sick or got cancer. You don't make the "government" argument when it comes to the fire department, because you likely see them as necessary, so why is it so hard to imagine that healthcare should also be taken off the table just as fire and police services are. (just as every other 1st world country does with a Single Payer system).
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
+HelloThere - As I said before, I'm not a fan of Sam Seder. I understand the problem with both Sam and Jimmy and they both basically have the same problem just in opposite directions. Sam seems to want to only back Democrats based on logic and the 'lesser evil' argument, which is a real argument that even Noam Chomsky is in agreement with, but he goes too far in that direction in my opinion, to the point where you do need some accountability for these people especially corporate Democrats who most deserve to lose if they cannot back policy that the majority of people want. However, Jimmy goes too far in the opposite direction (which was not always the case) and basically swears off the entire Democratic Party without even looking at the individual and any one politician that even slightly conforms with Washington or 'plays the game' of politics. If a politician does something he personally does not like slightly, he starts smearing them on his platform even if they're actual progressives and have all the right policies and all the right goals such as Ocasio-Cortez.
Sam and Jimmy also both voter shame, which is something I highly disagree with, and again, they do it in the opposite directions. Sam does it to tell people to not vote for the 3rd party because 'they will lose anyways', but then Jimmy does it in the opposite direction and tells people to DemExit and not vote Democrat because 'they will never change' (even if they're progressive Democrats). At least Sam's voter shaming has logic attached to it, because he is mostly right from a rational standpoint, but it still lacks any sort of empathy for what the voter wants. Jimmy's voter shaming is just straight wrong though and it seems to be in line with his own personal vendetta against the Democratic Party and Bernie Sanders than it is with any sort of logic besides "Some Democrats are fake progressives and wolves in sheeps clothing". This is not an excuse and a giant false equivalency if you base all Justice Democrats and Our Revolution candidates off of one of them out of 150 total that ended up switching their policies after the primary or seemed to just be pretending to be progressive. They're both wrong and their voter shaming is both equally bad especially Jimmy's.
Even though I do not particularly like either of these political commentators I can at least tolerate Sam because he mostly tries to make logical sense. Jimmy, on the other hand, is just leading his viewers down a dead end road that doesn't actually lead anywhere and is not productive in any way. The logical conclusion of ONLY voting 3rd party, starting a 'new party', and completely abandoning any progressives that run within the Democratic Party would just lead to corporate Democrats continuing to have full complete control of the Dem Party and it would just split the leftist vote and lead to Republicans having a majority vote in the country. His "solution" is a bad one that even Kyle Kulinski and all other progressive media understands would not work, which is why Jimmy Dore is the only person that backs it.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
I'm a 126 year old "coot" minus 100 and I can proudly say the first ballot I ever cast was for Bernie and it won't be the last. The man inspires countless Americans to get involved and stand up for what they believe in. If you agree with him or not on his policies, you have to admit the man cares deeply about the American people and is a real American hero. He's marched with Martin Luther King Jr., aggressively worked to desegregate the South, spoke out against the Gulf War claiming it would cause decades of more conflict in the region, spoke out against the Iraq War as a travesty, stood against the overwhelming amount of greed, crony capitalism, and corruption in politics for the last 40 years, and has similarly worked hard to strengthen workers' unions since as early as the 1960s. Bernie himself doesn't just deserve to be President, but the American middle class and poor deserve this man to be our leader and bring honor back to the Oval Office. His entire lifelong achievements, history and compassion towards the people should give every American deep pride in their country.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
@300PIVOTMASTER The relevance and stakes are subtle but they are entirely present & even have layers to them. After several episodes of exploring the mysterious city and events in the sky, the protagonists become motivated by adventures of treasure (i.e. the theme of the arc, set up in Jaya, "The Dreams of Pirates" as laid out by Blackbeard himself). & honestly, this should be enough on it's own - you're literally watching a 1000 episode series about pirates, treasure hunting has always been a core plot device and it's worked all the way back to Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island.
However, by the time the Golden Belfry is mentioned, Luffy reminds us of his own more complex and emotional motivations and why he really cares so much. He tells Nami that if they just leave and let Enel take the Golden Belfry, Cricket and his friends (the guys who selflessly helped them get to sky island and achieve their own dreams) will be searching for the lost city for the rest of their lives. The events in Jaya have portrayed Cricket as a man who has spent a lifetime trying to deal with the open wounds of his ancestors and has broken his body searching under the ocean to the point where he can't even fight off a few punks such as Bellamy and his crew. Luffy instinctively understands the importance of the Belfry and puts everything on the line just to make things right both in Skypeia and on Jaya.
In other words, even if you disregard all the events in Jaya, how the crew gets the funds to fix the Merry, the Poneglyph that Roger signed, the character development of the crew that solidifies Robin as a crewmate and friend (which is incredibly relevant to Water 7), the Jaya+Skypeia arc works very well entirely on it's own and doesn't need to stand on the legs of the overarching plot of the series - there is a set up in Jaya and a payoff in Skypeia and it's all underlaid with a 400 year old mystery.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@GardEngebretsen Yes that study was actually peer-reviewed as well. In regards to the current cost of healthcare, the gov'ts own numbers from the CRFB state that we already spend $3.5 Trillion on healthcare per year (18% of our GDP) & this is total expenditure with Private + Public spending = Total spending. So that's $35 Trillion over 10 years without even factoring in the increases in spending we see every year in healthcare spending (between 3.9 - 5.8% increase in costs every year, also according to CRFB).
On the flat cost by itself, the Mercatus Center's (right-wing think tank) own study saying M4A costs $32.6 Trillion, would already be $2.4 Trillion LESS than the current $35 Trillion cost if for some reason healthcare costs stop rising (unlikely though).
When you factor in the rate of increase (we'll say 4%, even though it's the lowest estimate), that comes out to $42.02 Trillion over the next 10 years with interest. That's $9.42 Trillion MORE than the Mercatus Center (again right-wing think tank) found the cost for Medicare for All would be at $32.6 Trillion. That's a big difference with $9.42 Trillion of SAVINGS under Medicare for All, and I don't know why more people don't point this out considering the data is totally public from the CRFB, the "Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget".
Again, I'm not the one conducting these studies, I'm just connecting the dots between the costs determined from a right-wing think tank's own study versus the CRFB's own statistics under a right-wing Donald Trump administration.
These numbers suggest Medicare for All is far more economical than people think, and you might be second-guessing these stats at first glance, but then you realize the US spends far MORE on their healthcare than every other country with a Single Payer system. If we spend over twice the amount on healthcare than the UK spends per capita, then these numbers seem to fit in with that trend & how Single Payer massively cuts costs by eliminating wasteful overhead from the system & the hundreds of billions of $$ that the insurance & drug companies make every year.
Graph showing total healthcare expenditures per country: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/OECD_health_expenditure_per_capita_by_country.svg/600px-OECD_health_expenditure_per_capita_by_country.svg.png
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@joebradford7334 First of all, he's consistently beating Trump in every head-to-head matchup. He's even beating Trump in Red states like Texas and swing states like Ohio and Iowa. All the other Rust Belt states, he's beating Trump by 8-12 points, these are all the states that lost Hillary Clinton the election. Secondly, if you're referring to the Democratic primary, the primary is a different election than the general election. It's the same reason why Hillary Clinton was popular within the Democratic Party, but then once she ran in the general, she was far more despised. It's the opposite with Bernie, where the limousine liberals, Hillary supporters, and neoliberals essentially loathe him within the Dem Party, it's his biggest obstacle, whereas running in open primary states and running in the general election is far easier for him because he has a higher favorability rating among Independents and Republicans than any other Democratic candidate.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
porter9494 Wow, there's so much wrong with everything you just said both factually and morally. Hamas was last elected in 2006, he hasn't controlled Gaza, Israel HAS, that's why they were instantly able to shut off their power, water, fuel and any trade routes for food and humanitarian aid. Also, 2006 was before most of these Palestinians were even born, especially the 5000+ children that have been indiscriminately murdered, who you think it's okay to draw no distinction between Hamas fighters and Palestinian civilians, ie. children that have absolutely nothing to do with the conflict, much less the women or men that are not a part of any military power. You act as though this isn't an asymmetrical war where Israel has all the power and artillery & the other side is anything but an underground resistance militia that does not actually run or speak for Gaza or its people. Israel is NOT the victim getting blitzkrieged by the Axis powers, they ARE DOING the blitzkrieging. The fact that you don't see that is mind boggling.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
@Derya Alkan What misinformation? Your not elaborating at all or saying anything to counter my arguments. You're just saying "he does have a plan, look at his website". The VAT is a tax on goods (some even argue that it's regressive), a 10% tax on goods is something the ultra rich and corporations can just shrug off at our current level of gross wealth inequality where 3 people have more wealth than the bottom half of America, it doesn't fix class inequality at all, at least not in any significant way that would impact us, and if anything, it puts a burden on small business and manufacturers who are trying to compete with big business. Not to mention Yang also wants to put a sunset clause on all regulations, even Wall Street regulations which are incredibly important and should NOT be set to expire. Imagine if Glass Steagall had not been repealed by Clinton, that regulation is getting close to 100 years old, but it would still be incredibly necessary. Also, I've seen his website page on foreign policy and my first thought was "is there more?". It's just a few paragraphs, has no specifics, and does not even come close to Bernie and Tulsi's foreign policy and their records on it. That alone should be enough to not dub him "the best candidate by far on policy". You guys are overreaching here and it's just coming off as delusional, especially after the debate the other night.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
To be fair, I did skip your intro where you said they might be reasons some people may not want to move there and skipped straight to your 10 reasons. However, you obviously have issue with the reasons you mentioned by your tone (about not wanting to see old ladies rip bongs and not wanting to see naked people that weren't beach supermodels) and Portland itself considering you gave 10 reasons not to move there and another video with only 5 reasons why people should move there. I honestly thought some of your "reasons" not to move to Portland on this video were better "reasons" for the other list than most of the ones you listed on your Top 5 reasons to move to Portland.
I don't want to get into a huge debate with you on marijuana, but it is arguably a huge reason a lot of people might want to move there both for recreational purposes but also for business opportunity, employment, and the overall weed culture. It has boosted the economy and slashed the unemployment rate in Oregon and instead of giving these as counterarguments or placing them in your Top 5 list to move to Portland, you only give examples of people not wanting to see your grandma take a bong rip. Same thing goes with nudity. Instead of mentioning that the relaxed view of nudity in Portland parallels that of Europe and shows that the people here have open minds towards the US's usual demonizing views towards nudity, you just state that people wouldn't want to see it because the average person is not a Sport's Illustrated supermodel and you stereotype the women as "unshaven" and "doughy".
I'm sure a lot of conservative type people would agree with your reasons though, such as the people in the comment section saying Portland is a "liberal cesspool" and such. For the most part though, I think your "top reasons" videos misrepresented Portland with the exception of the homeless and rain, which I have to admit there's a lot of homeless and rain. Although, if it didn't rain so much here, it wouldn't be so green and beautiful.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@trapd00rspider Not sure why you're trying to directly compare 2 obviously different scenarios, but did the girl attack the man in that instance? Because if she did then she's directly involved in the domestic violence. If the guy purposefully suplexed her or some shit, then that's obviously different & more severe on the man's part, but saying you can't shake or push someone off of you who has an arm around your neck, in a case of actual self-defense, also seems like a problematic stance to have, or at the very least it's necessary to acknowledge that the woman is culpable for her actions just as men are. This is kind of what I'm talking about. We just assume it's almost always the man's fault in a case of domestic violence or that men can't be victims, such as my friend who was stabbed by his girlfriend and just shrugged it off (he was cheating on her btw, but that's no excuse for violence). However, if you look at the actual statistics, 1 in 4 men have been victims of domestic violence, while 1 in 3 women have been victims of DV. That's only a difference of 7 percentage points, yet we act like men are incapable of being victims or the assumption that 90% of all DV is done by men, which is not the reality.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Kyle Kyle Kyle you completely tip toed around the giant elephant in the room concerning "white privilege". Literally the only time I ever hear people talk about white privilege is almost always right after a black kid or a black man get shot by a cop in ridiculous circumstances. It seems to be the main concern of black minorities in this country, just the fact that they don't want to have to worry about getting shot to death every time they're stopped at a traffic light by the cops. Philando Castile, for example, was licensed with a firearm, literally did everything he was supposed to do with telling the officers he had a firearm and then the cop shot him 7 times because the cop was jumpy and he knew there was a licensed firearm in the car. The guy had his girlfriend and his child in the car, was calm as hell and got killed anyways after taking all the right steps. To make it worse, the NRA, who are supposed to defend this sort of crap, didn't make one statement about the whole case and ignored it completely. If that's not an example of white privilege that black men aren't ever afforded, then I don't know what is. Those shootings happen so often too. I literally never think about white privilege until something awful happens with the cops, which would've never happened with a white person.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@jamesburgess2k "Black cred"? No, it's about how it shows him as being RIGHT about the issue since the 60s. What were Hillary, Biden, Kamala Harris, or Pete Buttigieg doing when they were younger? Also, there are continuous speeches and moments from the "70s, 80s, 90s, and so on" where you can see Bernie's integrity surrounding black issues shine just as much as his actions in the 60s. The conversation around Bernie and black issues is becoming so disingenuous that now people are dismissing the fact that Bernie participated in the Civil Rights Movement and was arrested because he was protesting segregation. You got to be kidding me. It's amazing how you were able to flip that issue on its head so it's somehow a bad thing he did those things in the 60s. And for the record, Bernie's platform and his biggest issues for the last 30 years are things that would overwhelmingly help black folks, so your entire argument just comes off as being uninformed about the candidate.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@thinkingmachine354 The United States yields far more CO2 emissions than India, check your facts, and you're missing the point entirely. The United States has direct ties to nearly every single company that is responsible for the majority of CO2 emissions. The top 100 companies in the world account for more than 70% of all the emissions. The US has the capacity and influence to change this. You're not comprehending the seriousness of the situation. This is an extinction-level event, and at the very least it's going to cause a gigantic refugee crisis, mass drought and mass famine, and more than likely warfare over dwindling resources. Do you want to prevent even more caravan's from coming to the US's southern border? Because you haven't seen anything yet, and this doesn't just effect countries south of us, it affects US coastal cities and states like Florida, Louisiana, Texas, etc. who are incredibly vulnerable to extreme natural disasters and flooding we haven't even seen yet. The ones most vulnerable are Red states, so are you seriously willing to put their national security in jeopardy over being stubborn about climate change?
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@bluesrockfan36 Yeah bullshit, even if you were to, for some reason, just ignore all the people swamped in medical debt and who spend thousands on their medical bills every year (that would simply just offset what they receive from Yang bucks), it would still be a fucking disaster once rent goes up, food, *prescriptions, electronics, consumer goods, etc. all go up in price due to rampant inflation. Also, you're a fool if you don't think inflation would happen; even Yang admits it would at least partially occur though tries to make the argument "the market will fix itself" like a Reaganomics talking point. Not to mention, his regressive VAT tax would ensure prices go up in addition to any inflation. You would have added taxes that would be regressive in the sense that the working class would be paying more back into the system than the wealthy and continue to shift the tax burden MORE onto the working class over time.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@joebradford7334 It's not just about polling, it's the fact that in 2016, Trump won because he undermined Hillary's "moderate" positions by embracing a fake populist message where he claimed he would give everyone healthcare, the working man would never be forgotten again, and we would end all the wars. None of that has happened, but it's still the main reason why he won. Even though Joe Biden is currently also polling ahead of Trump, I do not believe Joe Biden would win considering we already have seen what happens when Trump does his populist song and dance versus a moderate, Joe Biden is a person who was in office when we bailed out the banks and Wall Street, and specifically a moderate who has corrupt dirt on them that Trump can hammer away on.
Now, compare this type of race (similar to Hillary vs Trump) to a race where Trump's own populist message is undermined by a Bernie Sanders who, whether you like his politics or not, comes off as more honest and more authentic than Trump (the same reason why many people liked Trump over Hillary), he has a far stronger populist message and record, he has no dirt that can be used against him, he doesn't take money from corporations or billionaires, he actually wants to give everyone healthcare, and he's unwilling to get into gutter politics with Trump and would have a pinpoint focus on policy. Trump will try to fearmonger about the scary S word "Socialism", but at the end of the day, Bernie will focus entirely on policy and the American people care far more about substance than they do about vague labels. It's the same reason why Hillary's corrupt past mattered far more than her saying she was a "moderate".
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@xBradsrucax You should look at the specifics of his platform. There are some serious issues with his policies. He's for more deregulation and sunsetting all regulations (regulations regarding Wall Street are incredibly important and should not be removed and set to expire). Also, when you take a deep dive into his UBI, there are a lot of downsides to it. He makes people choose between things like V.A. checks and disabilities versus his $1,000 a month in Yang bucks, meaning a veteran already receiving $1,100 a month in disabilities would get absolutely nothing from Yang's UBI, while Jeff Bezos would receive more than the most vulnerable people in society.
Also, his VAT tax (for paying for UBI) is arguably regressive, it places a tax on goods instead of going after corporations and the 1%. Richard Wolff and other economists have gone into detail on how Yang's UBI would do next to nothing to fix class inequality and it could potentially cause a worse situation where a large portion of the workforce are unemployed and living off of $1,000 a month, which barely anyone can survive on nowadays. The real solution is to give workers a larger say in their companies, so automation leads to more profits and less work for all workers, rather than just benefiting a few people at the very top who own the means of production.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@Derya Alkan What would you say to the criticism that the VAT helps the rich by appeasing the poor with a small sliver (10%) of the wealth? Yang's main argument for the freedom dividend is that automation will displace a gigantic portion of the workforce in years to come. However, if a large portion of the population is out of work, $1,000 a month is not going to fix their problems, it doesn't get them a job because it doesn't fix the embedded systemic problem that displaced those jobs in the first place, it only cleans up the mess afterwards and appeases workers so millions of people do not take to the streets in yellow vests when 20-30% of the population is out of work. I would also argue, that for these unemployed workers, $1,000 a month is not even close to enough money to actually live off of if these people are unable to find jobs, not even for a single person living on their own without children. I just don't see how Yang's logic flows when he wants to prepare for automation, but his problem doesn't stop the negative devastating effects of automation, only cleans up after it to prevent the ugliest scenario where workers actually demand to be given equal representation in companies and given control over their jobs aka Democracy in the workplace.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@bluesrockfan36 Bernie has been public with saying he wants to free Julian Assange (and whistleblowers AND calling for Lula da Silva), you're just factually wrong here. Also saying Bernie has "corporate donors", which donors would that be? The ones who want a wealth tax put on them? What a ridiculous claim that is not true at all. "Stopping all military aid is dangerous", that's also just complete bullshit. And to be clear, Bernie has stated that he wants to leverage the billions in aid we give them to force them to comply with humane international law, Yang outwardly said he has no idea why we would ever stop giving them aid. The differences are there, stop lying and contorting the issues to make your own candidate look good and dismiss his short-comings. I would never try to claim Bernie is correct with opposing the filibuster, because I believe he's wrong on that. Stop doing apologetics for yang on issues where he's absolutely WRONG about, especially Assange, especially Israel and many other things I've seen from him. If you don't criticize him, he won't be pushed Left as Bernie supporters have done with Bernie over the past 5 years and gotten him to a place where he leverages aid to stop the civil rights violations and massacres in Israel.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@reforest4fertility Yeah, thing is, I personally don't even think voting for the CARES Act is a necessarily bad thing, at the very least I personally don't think it's not a black mark on your record. I could be alone in this regard, but it included the only stimulus checks workers saw in 2020 (also an eviction moratorium which was only 1000% necessary), the issue was that our corrupt officials, of course, attached a giant bailout to corporations onto it & was likely the only way it was ever going to pass our disgraceful legislative branch.
There are some people I respect in Congress that actually voted for it - it was very clear they had to weigh the well-being of working families in the short-term vs the greed & corruption of corporations & a more long-term issue of worsening wealth equality (something that always occurs no matter what). That's a choice I don't envy having to make & if anybody is being serious about politics, they would know it's hard not to prioritize the people & your own constituents first & their desperate need for survival checks & aid. We didn't get another stimulus bill for the people for 9 months & the last one that passed nearly passed with $0 in Stimulus Checks & has crumbs in unemployment benefits. Compared to this bill, the CARES Act looks like a life preserver, sad to say.
The people using the CARES Act as a 'gotcha' don't seem to me like they're serious about politics, or at the very least aren't in it to help people as their main priority, otherwise they wouldn't be attacking ordinarily good-intentioned politicians for a tough vote in tough times. The most ridiculous thing about this though is that AOC was one of the only people that actually FOUGHT AGAINST the CARES Act (another position I can respect & is just as tough) & took a more principled stance against corporate greed. So attacking her over supposedly supporting it & lying about her vote on it when she got a ton of shit in actuality for opposing it is just shameful & pathetic - enough said.
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Hey Kyle I really like how to point out that America was bombing 7 countries under Obama and 8 countries now under Trump, but I think it'd be even better if you point out how the severity of the bombing has ridiculous increased more now under Trump and the civilian casualty rate is now through the roof. Airwars, a UK journalistic monitoring organization, reported that under Obama's 8 years 2,300 to 3,400 civilians were killed in total, and now under Trump's control of the military and airforce/CIA drones, they estimate that the coalition airstrikes have killed 2,800 and 4,500 civilians total, which BEATS Obama record for his entire 8 years and this report was done in October of last year (2017). There were more airstrikes in Yemen last year alone than there were in Obama's last 4 years in total. Let me remind everyone, Yemen is the country where there is a genocide going on right now and mass famine and the US is bombing the absolute shit out of them. There were 50 airstrikes in March alone, and 125 airstrikes targeted specifically in central Yemen.
Sources: https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-12-19/counterrorism-strikes-double-trump-first-year
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@michaelfoley3879 I'm talking about Net increases or Net decreases. If you're in the 1% your taxes will most definitely go up as a net increase, but that's primarily because wealth inequality is ridiculously bad right now where CEOs make more than 300 times that of their average workers' salaries. If you're in the middle class or lower class, you will have a Net DECREASE in your taxes/expenses overall. You remove all medical bills and premiums when you adopt a Medicare for All system. I don't think you realize how many people get screwed with their health insurance in this market and especially the one before the Affordable Care Act that Republicans want to regress us back to. It's already been proven by a right-wing study by the Koch Brothers (who were trying to smear Medicare for All, but ended up proving it's point) that it saves the American workers an average of 2 Trillion over the next ten years compared to our current system. That's a $2 Trillion DECREASE in taxes and expenses for the American workers, do you understand that?
Also, making public colleges tuition free barely costs anything. The amount that Congress just increased the US military budget by this year alone was more than enough to pay for bettering our education system and making public colleges tuition free, which is only about $47 billion per year. Why don't you ask how we're going to pay for the increase in budget they just did on the military, which was twice that and didn't help American workers or children even in the slightest? Did they raise taxes on us for that? No, they're just blowing up the deficit, something you seem to be completely ignoring and focusing on a bill that gives everyone healthcare. They literally just spent $2 Trillion on a tax bill that doesn't work and now we're seeing the markets head towards a Recession. 93,000 jobs were outsourced in Trump's first year in office and it's impossible to ignore now with the events that just happened with GM. If those plants were "making vehicles that weren't selling", then why did GM just open up a plant in Mexico that manufactures the Blazer? Your points are hallow as fuck dude. I doubt you'll admit anything when we're neck deep in the Recession either as your in denial right now as well.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@danielshepard2315 I support sending aid to all those countries. If you're voting on an aid package as a Congressperson, most of the time you don't get to pick and choose which specific parts you support. This is why using AOC as a target for this protest is just kinda dumb, just like using Van Gogh for climate activism was dumb. She's not writing the bills for the aid packages and she's definitely not making the decisions the Biden administration is regarding the US's level of involvement.
Honestly, I would vote for most aid packages to desperate countries if they included food, medicine, & help for citizens to survive, but yes if there was a standalone bill to send arms to Yemen for them to defend themselves (without all the other aid), I probably wouldn't vote for it on principle, but I also wouldn't demonize the people that did vote for it, because at the end of the day, it's meant for defense not aggression - that's not an unsympathetic cause, yet you act like it is and heap on hyperbole about nuclear armageddon to boot. Russia invaded Crimea 8 years ago, yet they're now at it again. You really think if Russia annexes more parts of Ukraine today, everything's going to be fine down the road? Russia already broke a treaty between themselves and Ukraine, so it's just foolish to think bending over would solve anything in the long term.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@LD-tn6ff The Green New Deal is an investment, it's something that experts in the field have stated will fully pay for itself within 15 years and firmly position us as the leader in green renewable energy around the entire world. This is not hard to understand, all you need to do is look at how the success of the original New Deal led to a golden age of economic expansion, that New Deal did not come without an initial price tag either. If you want to know how he plans to pay for it in the short-term (until it completely pays for itself), he explains all of it if you would just give a shit to listen. It's done through a combination of tax reform on corporations, new taxes, fees and litigation against fossil fuels companies, some of the most wealthy corporations in the world, cuts in military spending related to U.S. reliance on oil, and savings across the economy. Not to mention 16 Trillion dollars is not going to be spent in full up-front, but collectively over the next couple of years while it's being implemented. This means that it will start paying for itself long before the infrastructure plan is completed and will slowly but steadily begin offsetting the cost altogether.
You should try reading his plan, he has, by far, the most ambitious plan on Climate Change with incredibly comprehensive details and you seem to be stuck in a broken state of not knowing whether to call it 'too expensive' or to claim it doesn't go far enough. Also, I don't ever remember there being a "debate", and the fact that you know barely anything about Bernie's plan is pretty solid evidence that you didn't even watch the town hall to begin with.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@investigate3113 The majority of everything you posted is either pulled out of context, completely misleading, or just a straight lie. Just to name one, "the Libya War Resolution"; that name you pulled out your ass gives it an entirely dishonest meaning along with the fact that the resolution Bernie co-sponsored had no actual effect, it was a non-binding statement "condemning the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya, including violent attacks on protesters". To twist that into some kind of "War Resolution", which sounds like some declaration of war, is pretty fucking suspect.
"Voted to finance the Iraq war" neglects the fact that he voted AGAINST financing the war nearly every single time in all his years in Congress and the one to two times he did was because slimy politicians attached the financing bill to a Hurricane Katrina recovery relief (in 2006 literally the first time he ever voted for any kind of financing). The other time he voted for it was because of an amendment he inserted into the bill giving a $1 million grant to the Vermont Department of Veterans Affairs to help returning veterans cope with their health care and mental health needs upon returning home. The fact that you're just ignoring all these facts speaks to how loose with the facts you're being.
The Iraq Liberation Act was signed during the Clinton administration long before the Iraq War and had nothing to do with military action, so I have no idea why you're even citing that. Sanctions on Saddam Hussein's Iraq would've been equivalent to putting sanctions on Israel today for their gross violations of human rights, you're acting like the sanctions are what destroyed Iraq, not the gigantic US invasion that took place years later that Bernie vehemently OPPOSED.
"Voted to bomb Kosovo" which was in response to a country committing a genocide and doing fucking ethnic cleansing, literally the only time it's morally okay to intervene and does NOT violate international law. Along with the fact that this was done through NATO since this was actually happening on European soil to begin with and started when one country invaded another in Europe for the first time since WW2 and started doing mass murders. Just perhaps Bernie felt like a genocide, ethnic cleansing, mass murder in Europe deserved to be confronted considering Bernie's entire fucking family was wiped out by Nazi Germany. Ever think of that?
As you said "I could go on", I could also go on debunking every one of your misleading and dishonest statements (that I would probably call smears, more than anything), but I think I've gotten my point across. If you didn't know any of the stuff I just said, maybe you should actually do 2 seconds of research on the things you said and figure out WHY Bernie voted to "fund" the Iraq war for the first time 6 years after it started or what the exact "resolution" was that he co-sponsored on Libya. If you already DID know these things, then it's pretty clear you're just trying to smear him using twisted half-truths and out-of-context political history from 40+ years in politics where there are bound to be mistakes or situations where he was cornered to vote a certain way, such as with the Crime Bill because of the Violence against Women Act paired with it so it would pass. He's overwhelmingly done the right thing all through history though, so to not even acknowledge or give him credit on his otherwise impressive resume in politics (when nearly no other politician WAS doing the right things) is just disingenuous to say the least, and I think you know it is.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@honeybadger5835 First I want to mention something I personally see as a hole in Yang's logic, and it has to do with how Yang constantly alludes to the fears of automation taking American jobs. However, Yang's UBI bill does nothing to actually prevent automation from taking jobs, it only works to clean up the mess and problems that automation will cause. Does Yang not believe that automation can be dealt with by reconstructing our current system? There are ways, described by modern economists, that lead to an economy where automation HELPS workers and leads to shorter workdays and bigger payouts to employees, however, the current system is harsh towards workers and automation currently leads to unemployment. Yang's idea seems to be to let that unemployment growth happen, but just give everyone a federal salary to appease unemployed workers. And from the way Yang talks about his UBI, he literally admits that a huge portion of the workforce will be unemployed due to automation, so are we to believe that workers are going to somehow survive on a $12,000 yearly salary? I would not consider $1,000 a month a livable wage, in many parts of the country, government-aided affordable housing make a 1-2 bedroom apartment $1,000 a month just for rent alone, so how are people going to live when they're inevitably unemployed and can't find a job due to automation? I don't understand how more people don't see this dilemma that Yang presents when he talks about up to 30% of the workforce becoming unemployed. $1,000 is NOT a livable wage when it's your only income, even Milton Friedman and Charles Murray's UBI was paying out more than Yang's.
I want to also point out that Yang's version of UBI is paid for with a VAT, something that is partially levied against the people (which is why some people refer to it as a regressive tax). I don't see any issue with a VAT on it's own, but why exactly is Yang using a VAT to pay for UBI when we have this gigantic class inequality issue where the ultra wealthy have exponentially more than the 99%? Why does he not use a top marginal tax rate, a capital gains tax, a wealth tax, one of the many ways you can tax Wall Street? This is just speculating, but maybe the answer is that Yang doesn't want to fix the wealth gap and UBI on its own will likely help many on the bottom, but it won't work to shift the balance of wealth in a way needed to fix our current system that has become a corporate oligarchy.
I have more criticisms of his UBI such as being used to decrease the influence of our current social programs by making people have a choice between programs instead of it being supplemental on top of things like SSI or disabilities, however, I will stop here since I've already written so much.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@Badatallthis Stuff And pretty much everything you just said is bullshit because at the end of it all, it's a minor with an illegal AR-15 that it clearly took it out into a crowded area to start some shit. There's dialogue from him only a few days before saying he wish he had his assault rifle to shoot people [he politically disagreed with] at CVS in addition to having a history of violence where he recently beat up some girl at his school. That's textbook school shooter mentality and behavior. You're painting him as some hero for "protecting" anonymous property on the street, but it's beyond obvious he went there because he's a pissed off 17-year old with a gun & extremely weighted political views driving him to show up to a political protest with an illegal assault rifle.
Also, "Huber had hit him in the head 2x with a skateboard" - yes, a fucking SKATEBOARD, not a bat, not a gun, some kid had a skateboard and used what he had in his hands to try to unarm a kid who was, at the time, recklessly shooting into a crowd of people. You don't have to think of the kid as a hero or whatever (I'm not trying to paint one side or another as heroic like you), but it's a kid with a fucking skateboard versus a kid with one of the most dangerous firearms you can purchase in the entire world. That's such a bullshit comparison and you know it. I don't care what happened with the other two people, but Rittenhouse should've gone down for Involuntary Manslaughter against Huber, a fucking kid with a skateboard and fuck you if you think it's "heroic" to gun down people with a board with wheels that even 10 year olds use to play with. You gift a skateboard to your 8 year nephew, whereas an AR-15 is an extremely deadly assault rifle you can only purchase in America after going through training and getting a gun license, something Rittenhouse didn't have for his assault rifle. I like how you and every other person just glosses over that fact as if it's not relevant and we don't have gun laws for a reason - that fact alone qualifies him for reckless public endangerment (knowingly going to a crowded area with an illegal assault rifle) and then it gets upgraded to Involuntary Manslaughter when you kill 2 people while recklessly endangering the public. This shit isn't hard to figure out, but I'm sure your jumping for sicko joy that the whole trial was a farce and the judge had incredibly extreme political leanings that led him to fix the whole court case from start to finish. Congrats on thinking you achieved some type of "victory", oh, and two people are dead. Another day in America.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
+Elpeo Puru - Look, I don't know how to make this any clearer. Gutting Net Neutrality is GOOD for companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. because they can give money to ISPs like Comcast to help snuff out their small time competitor websites. The ISPs will be able to even censor their competitors so that Comcast customers can't access Bing if Google has paid Comcast under the table. These companies (Google, Twitter, etc.) are FOR Net Neutrality because they realize gutting it is a scary prospect that will possibly change the Internet into something along the lines of Cable TV. They think it is immoral and wrong and that is why they are FOR it even though they understand gutting Net Neutrality will increase their profits and will stop any competitors from ever surpassing them.
If you still don't think it is a big deal, then understand that this affects small time news outlets that YOU might watch, read or listen to like InfoWars, Breitbart, Drudge Report, Alternative Right, The Daily Wire, TheBlaze, Observer, etc., etc. etc. All of these are small time websites that could be snuffed out by Fox and all the media owned by Sinclair Broadcasting Group because they could be censored by Comcast.
Even worse for you, there's a possibility that left wing media conglomerates could make back room deals with ISPs (Comcast, Verizon, etc.) that would slow down bandwidth for right wing media or even censor/ban them for Comcast/Verizon customers altogether. It works both ways! That's why both aisles of the political spectrum should be against this!
5
-
+Tamila Shulz - You're still living in an era of reefer madness lady. If you had ever smoked weed or known anyone that has, you would know that people can have really successful careers and lives even if they smoke 24/7. If you were really in the health services and medical industry, you would know the reality that marijuana helps an overwhelming amount of people with countless types of physical diseases and you should know, *since you're in mental health services*, that it also seriously helps people with depression, bipolar disorders, *PTSD*, you name it. You are either lying and have nothing to do with the mental health industry, or you are the worst medical practitioner alive (or in Samoa, not sure how things are done in Samoa). We don't demonize people here in Oregon, though, for wanting to live their life in a healthier state of mind and/or body if they have some type of physical condition such as chronic pain. Although, I'm sure you would rather just prescribe Oxycontin since you sound like a shit director of mental health services.
By the way, being Samoan isn't a valid excuse for being obese. You sound like the worst therapist in the world.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@Nandini Lovely Without banning duplicative care, which is predatory by nature, and without putting all people in the same pool to ensure the system works/balanced IS a public option. It's the exact same thing that Buttigieg, Beto and Kamala are doing, you're not fooling anyone and this is indefensible. She was claiming to support Medicare for All for 9 months, that's not a concept or "framework" (like Warren says), it's an actual BILL, a bill that is proven to work as many studies show, cut down our cost by nearly half, and save poor and middle class families thousands of dollars in total costs. Also, I'd love to hear your actual, non-bullshit, explanation on why Bernie is "terrible on whistleblowers and civil rights", when he's literally called for the release of Julian Assange, said Snowden "did this country a great service" and said he should come home, has condemned the Espionage Act, and just today made a statement about Net Neutrality, an issue nobody else is talking about, but vitally important to our civil liberties.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@benk79 From what I've seen Jimmy has been extremely toxic for the Left lately. Basically attacking everyone's intentions & baselessly accusing them of being bad faith actors because they dared to disagree with him on strategy & debate him on the merits of a symbolic M4A vote. It got so bad that the people who agree with him on Force the Vote came out & started saying "certain people" need to stop attacking other Leftists, calling everyone 'sellouts', & have some emotional maturity if they're serious about pressuring politicians. I myself actually support leveraging Pelosi's vote (or not voting for her at all), but this shit is not hard to understand. Challenging your politicians = GOOD, maligning everyone that disagrees with you = BAD. Smearing everyone's intentions as bad faith for a reasonable disagreement in strategy = BAD & counter-productive to your own goals. Everyone should be united on this front, but that's literally never going to happen with the way Dore is conducting this shitshow. I hope people realize this before Dore successfully fractures us into even more pieces, making us even easier to oppose in Washington.
I also visited his channel lately & noticed that he's devolved into attacking people like Cenk Uygar directly, making videos about how he's "shamefully squeezing money out of his followers" & attacking their intentions as a fellow Leftist YT channel. He's even attacked people like David Sirota, who actually agrees with Force the Vote, but because he called the M4A vote "performative" at one point, he got attacked & maligned as a 'white moderate' trying to hinder progressive. This shit is utterly childish & absurd. I can't believe people are going along with this foolish nonsense. Jimmy is going to lead the Left into the ground &, by my estimates, he honestly doesn't give a shit if he blows up the Leftist movement in the process (I think he'd rather have that than people still supporting Justice Dems & a Leftist takeover of the Democratic Party).
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
+FoxxehBunneh - You're wrong. I'm a computer programmer (not just technician apprentice). In a few decades, maybe even several years, we're going to get to a point where there will be a mass shortage of jobs. Next thing to stop being a career are cab drivers, truck drivers, bus drivers, baristas, shop clerks, receptionists, and many many more. Programmers and robotics experts are never going to stop innovating just because it's the future no matter how you wanna argue with it, so it will eventually lead to massive numbers of people without any jobs. The only thing that makes sense in a future society where people will have to work half as much or even a third as much is to eventually initiate a UBI where people can decide on what they want to pursue most in life without having to put food on the table. In 10-20 years, if this is not the case, there will be mass homelessness and starvation if we keep living in the sad excuse for a society we live in now.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Your math is slightly off, it's actually more:
It's 420 lies an hour,
10,080 per day,
3,681,720 per year,
265,083,840 over his entire life (if we assume he was lying straight out of the womb)
You forgot to count leap years.
If we count the days since his last birthday it's actually 266,202,720 lies his whole life including today.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Establishment Shill-Troll It's perfectly okay to disagree & criticize Sanders on his strategy, but smearing his intentions as a "sellout" is disingenuous & makes you sound like a Qanon nutjob, who has less than no evidence Sanders has ever taken a dime from lobbyists, corporate interests, or embezzled money from his campaign funds, yet still push the insane notion that he sold out so he could buy his 7th house & lambo.
I'm unhappy he didn't make public demands either for the endorsement, but the reality is it was either Trump or Biden & the Biden team knew all the candidates had no choice but to support him in the general considering how dangerous his opponent was. There is also no such thing as "demands" or "guarantees". I didn't trust Hillary Clinton to carry out her promises to Bernie in 2016 & I wouldn't trust Joe Biden just as much. For all you know, the Labor Secretary position was offered to Bernie behind the scenes as motivation to give his endorsement when he did. If that was a "demand", then you can already see how that turned out. Bernie could've demanded free college, no more trade deals, & lower drug prices be added to Biden's platform (just as was done for Hillary), but Joe Biden literally had a $15 minimum wage & a public option in his own platform & look what happened with that - he barely talks about either anymore & at most they're going to do tweaks to Obamacare (if we're lucky). If Biden ignores his own policy goals, how well do you think he would've pursued Bernie's "demands"? The truth is there is no such thing as assurances with Hillary, Biden, or any neoliberal corporatist & the only way to win on those issues is to WIN the election, otherwise you lose everything & you'll have 2 years of people infighting & calling each other sellouts when they're ideological allies.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@michaelb7228 Really nice strawman. I literally just said it wasn't a crime cause it objectively isn't and even added that it's creepy (if they're not just fake screenshots), but yeah looks like I'm defending pedophilia now, you're so smart buddy. The guy factually hasn't been proven to have actually done anything, just been accused by random internet accounts (more accurately, I'm only advocating for people just to take a step back & wait until something is actually proven or verified by professionals). The only verified accusations were thrown out by the DA a month ago and that leaves the only valid one as him being a shitty and lazy boss from complaints of co-workers. What we know so far is that people cancelled him initially for domestic violence, something that ultimately didn't even make it to a judge's desk, so you'd think that would actually prompt people to take a step back and not jump to extreme conclusions about how someone is a "pedophile" or "groomer" based on unverified screenshots and essentially what amounts to internet justice.
Also let's assume those screenshots from random Twitter users were 100% verified and true, was it ever even addressed or asked about if Roiland even met with any of these girls or even asked to hang out? (btw most of them were even like 24 & in their early 20s iirc, while one in question was 16). Unless he's actually pushing them to meet in person, those messages can easily be interpreted as Roiland trolling and saying dumb crazy shit while drunk, which doesn't mean he's either a pedophile or groomer, just that he needs to put down the bottle - if you've ever actually known any alcoholics in your life then you can understand how someone could easily say some crazy shit to random people messaging them on their phone. Imo it just seems like people are going out of their way to interpret Roiland's behavior as the worst possible scenario and not even acknowledging the fact that these could be fake messages created for internet clout - the internet is a vast place full of endless amounts of fake stuff. It just seems irresponsible to act like everything is 100% in the direction of all the screenshots being real and 100% Roiland guilty and only saying stuff cause he's some pedophile and groomer. Ya'll need to calm tf down and stop thinking someone is the next Kevin Spacey or Jeffrey Epstein cause of a few cringe texts that may or may not be real in the first place.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@yapy326 Yeah it's definitely a subject that requires a lot of nuance, & I don't think you're necessarily wrong either. Though even if Roiland is one of the beneficiaries of the show, he's nowhere near the only person who works on it & needs it to support their livelihood. Knowing that, it's just kind of hard to weigh 100 peoples jobs versus 1 man's livelihood who may or may not have done some bad stuff.
At the very least, these realistic repercussions (along with all the workers at Squanch Games) should've given people pause before trying to judge the man without any of the details of the case or without waiting for the case to be resolved first. Roiland might be the head of Rick and Morty and Squanch Games, but the show and company also basically depend on Roiland and his brand of comedy & voice acting to survive and thrive, especially Rick and Morty where he literally voices the 2 main characters - the show is basically done for without him.
Also I'm not sure how comparable the Depp trial is to Roiland's case either, but that's because we know pretty much none of the details around Roiland's case and that's kind of the problem. Depp knew he'd be able to broadcast his trial knowing he'd have the charisma and love of the public to get through the exhausting ordeal, Roiland & most people don't have that luxury though, which is likely why he'd keep it private even if he was completely innocent - it's a lose-lose situation for him either way unless you can do something monumental like Depp did to prove his innocence to the public. In no way, should that be the standard.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@peepeevs Lol what!? Quote the moment he says ANYTHING like that and please do not take statements purposefully out of context. Fairly sure I know what you're trying to do and it's pretty sleazy. At one point he says "Mr. Speaker, clearly there are people in our society who are horribly violent, who are deeply sick and sociopathic and clearly these people must be put behind bars in order to protect society from them, but it is also my view that to the neglect of our government and through a grossly irrational set of priorities we are dooming today tens of millions of young people to a future of bitterness, misery, hopelessness, drugs, crime and violence. And all the jails in the world, considering we already imprison more people per capita than any other country, and all the executions in the world will not make that situation right. We can either educate or electrocute. We can create meaningful jobs, rebuilding our society, or we can build more jails."
It's kinda pathetic the only way you know how to refute Bernie's arguments is by taking him out of context. He EVEN brings up how Congress is spending 11x more for the military that year than for education. That's what you call consistency.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Kyle's always been on-point. He still probably sticks to the prediction Trump will be indicted the moment he's not president (he's said this numerous times and just said it the other day). Dore has not done this though and has not pointed out or even mentioned Trump's war crimes, unconstitutional violations of the emoluments clause, personal financial crimes, and generally just done deflection for Trump for the most part, making it seem like he's not part of the problem. The only pushback I've seen from him on the Trump administration is on the issue of immigration and, in those videos, you can see his viewers go nuts and say dumb shit like "you're no better than tyt now". And yeah, he's definitely off the deep end on a lot of other topics as well like MagniGames touched on. There is a MASSIVE difference between Kyle and Jimmy, don't be fooled by commenters placing them in the same category as if they belong there together. Kyle is still far more in-line with other progressive news outlets, while Jimmy has far less in common with all of them, Kyle and Jimmy only slightly aligned on the issue of Russiagate, but still Kyle's views on it were far different than Jimmy's.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@SpectatorAlius They're literally courting Republicans to be in a Joe Biden administration. How are they not allied with the Right? Save the bullshit pal. You're saying this garbage at the same time a Fox News poll was just released showing Medicare for All has 72% popularity & as far as you thinking it doesn't "even have a chance of working", go live in another country dipshit. Every 1st world country has Universal Healthcare. Even Mexico just passed Universal care where it costs $0 to receive healthcare & you're sitting here claiming it won't work? Based on what? US propaganda & Trump zingers about "Medicare for All is actually Medicare for none"? Gtoh dude. Go learn about the actual policies you're trying to smear & then come talk to me.
& as far as neoliberals beating Trump, they just barely squeaked out a victory after Trump bungled COVID, 225,000 people dead, got COVID himself to prove his arrogance, ran a terrible campaign compared to 2016, & he STILL overperformed massively based on what the polls showed Biden winning by. They even lost seats in the House & failed to with the Senate so gee whiz how thankful should we be for the neoliberals again? If not for COVID, Trump would be cruising to reelection & this is exactly what happens when you run a candidate who doesn't actually campaign on policies & things to believe in, but just an anti-Trump vote & a "return to normalcy". The failed Blue Wave is your proof of that. The working class is still sick & fed up, even after a pandemic & financial disaster, the Democrats in leadership still come off as establishment corporate elitist hacks. Oh & would you look at that, Left-wing policy agendas passed overwhelmingly in states where there were direct ballot initiatives. Decriminalization of all drugs, legal recreational Marijuana (which Biden is strongly against), allowing felons to vote, & a $15 min wage in Florida, where Biden lost, but Left policies ("that could never work") won.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
+ Wendell - Also, the fact that they are paying almost nothing in taxes is hugely problematic as well. They made a wildly successful profit of $5.6 billion last year (2017). That's billion with a capital "B" and that's not revenue that's *profits*. And then after making money like that they STILL only paid things like payroll and sales tax, but didn't pay a dime in federal corporate tax and got out of most of their state taxes due to incentives and other loopholes. They don't even need to hide their money in the Cayman Islands either, because their global headquarters is officially located in the tax safe haven country of Luxembourg, which is just as bad as the Cayman Islands, and Amazon only has 1,500 employees total working there when they have 40,000 in their Seattle location and hundreds of thousands working in the rest of America. On top of all of that, they pay their workers like crap and a study showed that 1 in every 10 Amazon workers are using government assistant programs like food stamps to get by. THIS all from a company owned by the richest man in the world and record breaking profits. They pay next to nothing in corporate taxes while my company is forced to pay all of my taxes, because I can't afford a CPA that specializes in dodging taxes for me, and many of those loopholes are geared towards gigantic monopolies anyways considering Amazon had to setup their headquarters in Luxembourg for their biggest (and most unethical) tax break they benefit from. It should rightfully be the other way around where smaller companies can get away with paying next to nothing in taxes until they begin to see higher profits or profits at all. It just makes absolutely no sense and tells you all you need to know about the massive corruption in this country.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
+jhonny maarch - Unlike you, my perspectives are sculpted from many different sources, not just Betsy Devos's personal website. In fact, most of my information on this matter in particular has been from watching Betsy Devos herself unfold her dangerous reforms in our education system.
Let's take a look at your Betsy Devos fan page for a second. It says "Betsy has been a national leader in the fight to boldly reform America’s broken education system by giving parents more options for their children’s education." If you were to actually take a look at Devos's policies and look at her from an outside standpoint, not just from her fan page, which says absolutely nothing about HOW she plans to implement her education reforms, you would be able to realize that she is for diverting federal funds that go towards public schools towards charter schools and private schools.
If we look at Devos's track record, you will notice that she ran a line of charter schools in Michigan that were run into the ground, in which the schools under-performed in countless ways and the students tested the worst in the state. This was a result of her deregulating the education system and allowing for-profit operators to dominate these alternative schools that allow for "options among parents" like you say. Here's a link of my own by the way: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/betsy-devos-michigan-school-experiment-232399
Its been highly debated around the entire country that charter schools generally just don't work and give consistently poor test results while draining the life from public schools in the same districts because it takes funds away from public schools. Now for Devos making private schools an option, this is even more of an issue because it would lead to all the wealthy families in districts sending their children to the private schools instead, separating the financial classes and successfully taking away any donations these families may have made to their districts and the public schools that would've given all children in their district a better education. Even if these schools are run primarily on tuition, Devos may end up putting federal funds towards new private schools so her "options for parents" goal can be achieved, which would, again, result in taking away funds for public schools.
Her policy for our primary school education system is very simple: take funds away from education for the poor families and give them to education for wealthy families, whilst also giving the funds to for-profit operators that will send poor students to schools with even worse education. Devos's views and policies on our college funding is even worse considering she just removed regulations protecting grad students of harassment from debt collectors for their college debts.
Besides her dangerous and backwards-thinking policies, which the vast majority of professors and education experts have agreed are very bad for our education system, she is completely unqualified for her current cabinet position in all aspects. Besides her failed charter schools, she has never held office, never run any type of trust or bank (she is in charge of the entire education budget now), never attended public school, her children have never attended public school, she has never had student loans, her children have never had student loans, and never had any professional, personal, or first-hand experience with any of the education issues at all. You can now start to understand why she doesn't like public schools and is deciding to defund them in favor of starting wealthy private schools and soon-to-be massive charter school failures.
Two other separate egregious issues involve her openly stating that guns possibly have a place in schools. Her explanation was for in case the teacher had to defend against "grizzlies." I won't even go into why that is so wrong. Secondly, (and I said this before) she essentially had bought her way into the Secretary of Education position. Her family has donated around $200 million to the Republican party and she thinks she's "entitled to some form of payback". This fact actually starts to make sense of why she was even nominated by Trump in the first place, but nevertheless, this is completely corrupt, unethical, immoral and wrong. Is this really the best example to be giving to children since she's now the head of education? That it's OKAY to be corrupt and buy your way into political office (a very very important position too).
Now, if you took the time to read my comment, you might actually see that I have focused on Devos's history and policy points, not just the "About Me" section on her fan page that explains a lot of nothing. If you want to call me closed minded and in a "prison of the mind" again, you might want to start looking inward towards yourself and contemplate whether you're actually the closed minded one who wants to just believe anything you see on a betsydevos.com page.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
+Mike B - You and many other posters on here might as well just be vomiting diarrhea out of your mouths. Portland is in the top 20 highest economy cities in the USA with a GDP that equals more the entire country of the Czech Republic. It has one of the most thriving tech centers in the country known as "Silicon Forest" spanning from the districts Beaverton to Hillboro that hosts Intel, IBM, Nike, Infosys, Hewlett Packard, Xerox, and many many more including large branches of Yahoo!, Google, eBay, and Apple. Portland grows larger and larger every year because it knows how to adapt to the future which cannot be said for many cities located in the heart of conservative America. So yeah, Portland is doing just fine, and naive dumb-asses like yourself who think Portland is just made up of "stoner SJWs" who need their "hands held" can go suck a fat one and pray to your lord Trump who, if you ask nicely, might just bring back a few coal jobs in your town if you let him shove his orange dick down your throat.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Annie you just still don't get it. She "encourages others to speak up" on twitter and in her speeches because it helps her politically, but the stuff that we keep finding out about her, in which this particular story was about how she refused to fire a man after multiple claims of sexual harassment and then stayed friends with him afterwards, have continually showed us that she genuinely doesn't give a shit about women being assaulted and harassed in the workplace and that her support for women is actually almost completely hallow since its all nice words, no actions, and she never even owns up to when she has done something wrong and has collectively offended all the supporters of the MeToo movement. She knew that man was a sexual harasser, didn't fire him and even with it being a smart political decision to stop being friends with him after even more controversy, she still stayed friends with him meaning he must be the greatest BFF in the world or she truly doesn't give two shits about if he's sexually harassing women or not. It's not shocking to me though and probably many other people, because it's the type of behavior that fits so well with Hillary, who, to this day, is one of the biggest hypocrites and hallow politicians in the Democratic party. Her personality and the way she speaks about the working class and average Americans give you the general impression she seriously doesn't care about the general population and the more stories that we learn about Hillary, the more this narrative comes true and resonates with the people who had to watch her crash and burn in 2016 and leave all of us in a huge dumpster fire that is the Trump presidency. And one last thing: Bernie would've for sure won.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
As a millennial male maybe I can give a bit of insight on this, because despite being a progressive Independent (sort of Democrat but not really) I, in some form, have also felt the invisible push to want to go to the other side of the aisle where, even though it is full of disgusting human beings, it still gives men respect no matter the circumstance (which should definitely not be the case either). But honestly I feel like it has less to do with Republicans and more to do with the environment Millennial men are dealing with right now more specifically the single dating world and the push pull struggle between men and women in relationships. I can't speak for women in other generations or if this even pertains to ALL millennial women, but a lot of millennial women have been generically hostile towards men just for being men. If you are a millennial woman, this statement might enrage you considering you don't like men telling you how you think or categorizing you, but let's look at the facts. Many studies have come out that detail just how large of a percentage of millennial women are feminists and how many scale more towards extreme feminism. Apparently 1 in 4 millennial women think that a guy asking a girl out for a drink or approaching them in a bar to ask to buy a drink is sexual harassment. Now I personally don't do this to begin with, but I think this statistic gives you a broad understanding of the shift within millennials. Also, look at the recent case with Aziz Ansari where he had no idea he was doing anything wrong, but then the girl he was on a consensual date with suddenly ousted him for being a sexual predator. This type of story would've never happened with a man and woman above the age of 30 or 35. This type of broad attitude towards men and essentially telling them they are garbage because all men are garbage, is what is seriously wedging a divide between men and women who are millennials. Of course, it is not the only factor, but I think it matters greatly.
I can tell you personally, I have been in many relationships with millennial women and have truthfully never been violent in any of them, yet have been hit, had dangerous objects flung at my head, and attacked many times by ex-girlfriends, which strangely occurs only with the women from America, and still through all of this, I and many other men I know have been constantly belittled just for being men. I had a friend who was stabbed by his girlfriend as well even though never being violent towards her whatsoever. It comes from a place where many women in my generation think that a man should never hit a woman, but apparently it is perfectly fine for a woman to physically lash out against a man in one way or another, but then turn around with the stance that men and women should be completely equal, which I whole-heartedly agree with, yet I think there is a large amount of over-privilege that many millennial women take advantage of either consciously or unconsciously even when they are with men who truly believe in equality. At least I can say this is why I have felt the temptation of being a part of a party that gives men more respect, but at the same time never would join them because they don't believe in equality between genders and races and are generally wrong morally, ethically, and logically on almost everything.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@jacobphillips9845 I'm not trying to defend Jonah's behavior at all, and I would honestly argue it's far more manly to feel secure with your partner, whether she deserves that trust or not. Living in a relationship with jealous paranoia is simply no way to live. It's not healthy for the relationship, it's not fun for the partner and most of all it's not pleasant for people like Jonah himself who likely uncontrollably obsessed over thoughts of his girlfriend hanging out with buff surfer guys, even though Jonah himself is a famous celebrity & has a lot going for him even despite getting typecast as shitty characters. It's definitely stemming from insecurity issues & simply not loving yourself or even respecting yourself. However, we all have our own shit and issues that sometimes tend to pile up and eventually emerge in ugly ways such as controlling behavior. I would recommend any man or woman falling victim to irrational and emotionally-driven behavior like this to take a step back, get out of your relationship and work to improve yourself, find a way to love yourself (whether it's through therapy, meditation, or self-improvement), and then finally once you love yourself for who you are, you can finally learn to adequately love another person.
We shouldn't accept this behavior as normal or acceptable (as it's not good for Anyone) but we should at least understand it to a certain degree & know that it's initially driven by normal human emotions that, if left unchecked or unaware, can snowball into much worse or even hurtful behavior. Based on everything I just said, I find that I at least have a certain level of understanding and empathy for Jonah's clearly deep seated insecurities & he obviously was not happy with himself. However, in the girl's case it's much more difficult to relate to & feel that same type of empathy for why she would feel the need to advertise their private relationship years later in a seemingly hurtful way towards someone who is clearly in that process of trying to improve himself and find a way to be a happier, more secure person. Maybe she felt hurt for all these years, but I highly doubt it. It seems much more likely it is just for attention & internet clout (or even possibly vindictive spite she's held onto for all this time), and if that's the case I just find it far more disgusting human behavior than any actual mental problems and deep-seated issues Jonah was trying to actively work through for the past several years.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@TCt83067695 Wow seriously? I make a point about how both sides were insulting each other (it CLEARLY wasn't just one sided), and you're response is to call me a "Pakman apologist". I'll say it again, Get a Grip dude. I'm not defending Pakman on his AOC hitpiece, I honestly haven't even seen it because I don't watch his show enough, you're the one bringing that up. Now that you mention it though, Jimmy Dore made several hitpieces on AOC and Justice Democrats, does that put him in the same category as Pakman for you then? Just to be clear, you're not playing favorites are you?
My original POINT being that there was shit-flinging on both sides. I know you're triggered and angry about Russiagate, but you're being biased af with your argument. You're claiming that "Kyle's comment section was being smeared", which the same can probably be said for both Pakman's and TYT's comment sections as well. Excuse me if I'm trying to defend all sides of this, but there WAS "smears", as you put it, from both sides of the conversation, you're just being dishonest by saying otherwise. I remember when Jimmy Dore literally put TYT's comment section up on his big screen and started scrolling through calling people "brainwashed idiots". Did Pakman or TYT ever do something like that to Secular Talk's comment section? Because I Don't remember that shit going on at all. I remember Kyle and Cenk having a civilized debate over the issue, not attacking each others viewers. Stop acting like it was only going on towards Kyle, this was a widely argued over issue for 2 years and you wanna play the ultimate victim. ME, YOU, Kyle, Pakman and TYT were all guessing all along, they were predictions based on something that was up in the air. Are you trying to say you knew for a FACT what the outcome would be?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@raider968 Didn't even know Jimmy was saying crap like that on vaccines, but I can believe it entirely. He also seemed extremely biased regarding the Afghanistan withdrawal. He either beat around the bush on the withdrawal refusing to openly support it since Biden was the one who ordered it, or he was even making videos attacking Biden right alongside mainstream media attacking Biden (who were desperately trying to shame Biden into stopping the withdrawal). Incredibly disappointing stuff, & it's all because Dore is extremely biased against things/people he has a predisposition to already hate/dislike such as Joe Biden, the Democrats, and more recently that's expanded to include Leftists such as Bernie Sanders, Nina Turner, Congressional Progressives, otherwise he would've made a single video or comment about the $3.5 Trillion spending bill, an issue I haven't seen him acknowledge even once, much less give any shred of credit to the Progressive Caucus for their actions in "forcing a vote" (irony intended).
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
+Che e - Just so you know, I agree with you, but "Wong" is right that the civilian deaths are closer to 4,000-6,000 in 2017. However, that is something like 3 to 5 times more innocent civilian deaths under Trump than Obama and Obama was already a monster with drone strikes. Yemen is by far the biggest disgrace in my opinion, because not only are the US providing arms, support, and in some instances military aid to the Saudis and UAE in committing mass genocide all across Yemen, but the US is bombing the absolute shit out of Yemen. More US bombings and airstrikes were done in Yemen alone in 2017 than all of Obama's last 4 years in office combined in total (ALL Airstrikes). That is insane, and the US are basically the biggest war criminals in the entire world right now because of what's happening in Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-12-19/counterrorism-strikes-double-trump-first-year
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Pippie5555 I love how no matter what anybody says to you from an unbiased perspective regarding Democrat vs Republican, you continue playing this "Anybody who disagrees with me must be a Democrat & Obama worshiper because I myself am a Trump worshiper". In nearly every one of my posts I've emphasized how all modern US presidents have similar foreign policy and continue to do the bidding of the Pentagon and military industrial complex. Additionally, in response to your Trump bootlicking, I'll list out & explain Trump's own war crimes and disastrous policy, & you respond by talking about Obama, Libya and Benghazi as if I give a fuck about defending Obama or any other Democratic president in the last 40 years. Nobody here is defending Obama, yet you continue to act like a fool as if you're having an argument with yourself or with your Democratic imaginary friend. Meanwhile, back in reality, Trump and Obama are two sides of the same coin, neither actually challenged the status quo or military industrial complex, & much worse, they both helped to expand the MIC & Pentagon's influence. Trump specifically, increased the military budget to the Pentagon by 40-90 Billion $ every year of his presidency, Obama lifted up the Pentagon's drone program, and Trump increased it by five-fold, more than tripling the amount of civilian casualties.
Wtf don't you get about what people are saying here? You sound fucking brainwashed or something, or at the very least intellectually impotent & completely unable to respond with a single original thought about the influence of the MIC & how every US President objectively serves the Pentagon & defense industry in countless ways. I've seen numerous examples of this regarding Trump specifically in this very comment thread (I've listed many myself), yet you continue with this delusion that he's somehow the only president who defied the MIC or governed differently on foreign policy when it's literally just been more of the same & today the US is in the same position militarily as we were 10 years ago.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Establishment Shill-Troll I didn't say you were one, I said it makes you sound like one. Just blanketly calling him a "sellout" doesn't even fit in with the general Leftist criticism about leveraging the endorsement. It just sounds like hyperbole in the context you're giving unless you have some type of proof that he dropped out for his own personal financial benefit rather than for a strategic one you simply disagree with.
Like I said before, it's perfectly fine to disagree with Bernie & push him to make better strategic decisions, but throwing out baseless hyperbole is neither accurate nor productive in the least. Also, I'm not sure how anyone can call an endorsement of Biden as "Faustian" when his opponent is literally Donald Trump a neofascist authoritarian who was doing everything in his power to undermine American democracy. Polls proved to us that the majority of people that voted Biden did so because they thought Trump was a disaster not because Biden was a good candidate, but somehow you fault only Bernie for employing this logic.
Additionally you also knew Bernie endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016 to try to thwart Trump's chances to do endless tax cuts for the rich, ramp up drone strikes by 500%, & potentially kill 275,000 if a crisis occurred in his tenure, so why are you suddenly "betrayed" by a totally predictable decision he made & warned you about 1,000 times during the debates & primary he was going to make if he lost the race. You're being incredibly silly with your logic, or you're just being deliberately obtuse to stay angry about something that happened nearly a year ago.
4
-
Establishment Shill-Troll Okay, once you start throwing out the "Trump might be better than Biden" nonsense (and still claim you're a leftist to the left of Bernie), you just sound like an idiot.
There is no amount of pretzel tying in the world to ever make this argument sound reasonable from a Leftist point of view. 500% more bombs being dropped, assassinating an Iranian general who was basically their Vice President (a potential World War scenario given Iran's allies), likely orchestrating a CIA attempt at a coup in Venezuela, vetoing a bipartisan bill that could've stopped a literal genocide in Yemen & you're here saying "He didn't actually successfully start any new wars" despite all his efforts to do just that but failing. This is especially true in regards to Iran, which very easily could've been Trump's Iraq War 2.0 at any moment Iran decided to stop incessantly & reluctantly tolerating Trump's constant human rights abuses & casual violations of international law - most notably stopping the importation of life saving medication into the country just because.. & this is just his foreign policy, which is miraculously somehow less shit than his domestic policy & especially his ability to govern at all - evidence being the 275,000 dead Americans from COVID where we now have 100,000 new cases a day, while Australia have 0 new cases a day currently. Not to mention that Trump has put the wealth inequality problem/crisis on steroids & was basically the second-coming of Ronald Reagan on the issue of trickle down bullshit.
I'm not quite sure why I'm even entertaining this ridiculous argument, but every single serious Leftist political scientist, analyst, pundit, or commentator has agreed on the basic fact that Trump is worse & utterly terrible as a point of simply common sense. Noam Chomsky has gone as far to say voting for Biden to remove Trump is common sense, a point I don't even totally agree with but it shows you just how wrong & misguided you are & still claim to call yourself a Leftist. Did I even mention how Trump was literally trying to subvert the results of a Democratic election by throwing out every single mail-in vote in the states he lost or how that was his plan since Day 1 to delegitimize mail-in-voting during a fucking pandemic so he could try to claim fraud when there was inevitably & predictably a Red mirage on election night. He's an authoritarian goon & conman drunk on power and you couldn't get any more clear about that reality unless Jair Bolsonoro was our president, another authoritarian neofascist who utterly failed to respond to the COVID pandemic.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@BruceTheDeuce85 "as though this conflict started just upon Russia most recent invasion" True, Russia invaded Crimea 8 years ago because they discovered off-shore oil. Russia's invading Ukraine in large part now because they have large shale oil reserves & are threatening to become a 2nd European petro state, yet you seem to have no nuanced opinion or acknowledgement whatsoever about Russia's own imperialist intentions & ACTIONS in their own illegal offensive invasion. It's just "NATO started this years ago" even though there are numerous variables for this conflict & I'll tell you right now "Nazis in Ukraine" does not even make the damn list, yet people like you keep bringing it up as if it makes invading another country perfectly okay or rational even.
The war in Ukraine IS dangerous and should be negotiated to end it, but giving in to the demands of an authoritarian regime (with clear imperialist ambitions) doing an illegal invasion is also dangerous as history has taught us time and time again. This guy brings up Tulsi Gabbard multiple times, but her position in the past has literally been the "disarmament" of Ukraine followed by them bending over - imagine if someone said that to America if America was being invaded and their sovereignty was under threat. And from the way this protestor talks, you'd think Ukraine were the ones that invaded Russia. You also act like Russia and the West haven't been in a "proxy war" for almost a century and this is some new thing - I believe they called it the "Cold War". All that aside, if this guy wants a peace negotiation, AOC is beyond a poor target for his yelling. Her part in all this is narrowed down to voting FOR or AGAINST aid packages to Ukraine. She doesn't even write the bills, so it actually just seems like this guy has AOC derangement syndrome or something, when there are legitimate criticisms of AOC to actually make & I wish someone less tone deaf & idiotic WOULD make at her town halls.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Catlady-mw4en What a strange question. The fact that he's even pressuring Biden & the Senate to lower the age in the next reconciliation bill is the definition of fighting for people ages 55/60 to 65. You think they're going to put that stuff in the bill or even debate the issue without the Senate Budget Chair forcing the issue? Also bringing up Bernie's efforts on the $15 min wage is the worst example you could've given. When the Senate and Biden camp were trying to get the vote held up by the parliamentarian, Sanders went outside the scope of even his own authority as Budget Chair to force the vote through the Senate, when it really should've been up to Kamala Harris to do the right thing & overrule the parliamentarian or fire their ass. The bill ultimately failed, but Bernie had done everything in his power to make sure the bill had a vote in the Senate, when people like Biden would've preferred it got shot down by the parliamentarian as an excuse to quietly change it without holding people like Krysten Sinema accountable for her vote.
Lastly, you have no idea what you're talking about with the union comments. Go on Bernie's twitter or Youtube page and see just how much he's done in the past week to help the Amazon workers in Alabama who want to start a union. You seem to forget, but Bernie is just one man, he's not a fucking god. Him helping out Amazon workers in Alabama absolutely makes a difference even though it's not the deus ex machina you apparently think is possible & expected from him. This is not the first time Bernie has helped Amazon workers & it's not the first company Bernie has helped to form a union. In fact, I would say the most progress & good Bernie has ever done is when he focuses on changing the lives & working conditions of hundreds of thousands of Amazon, Walmart, McDonalds, JetBlue workers, etc. You're either totally uninformed or a fool who thinks unionizing large corporations or forcing a wage increase on them makes no difference whatsoever (or you're just working backwards from your conclusion because you don't like Sanders & want to pretend everything he does is useless).
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@misstrunchbull3953 How do you get Democracy Dollars? Last time I checked, it wasn't any more popular among the Senate and Congressional politicians than issues like reversing Citizens United, banning Dark Money or removing the use of All corporate PAC money, except at least those issues are already widely known and commonly discussed in election debates. You'd likely have to do just as much work on that issue as well, so if you're going to pick the solution, you might as well go with the one that's guaranteed to work when implemented. Giving voters election money might be an outside-the-box idea, but it's largely untested & likely to have numerous unknown effects, especially on a macro-scale. Like I said though, if you were talking about potentially implementing it after you take corporate money, power and influence out of politics, then we'd be having an entirely different conversation. I'd probably endorse the idea entirely if we were already living in a system that wasn't fundamentally broken and in the late stages of a Capitalist dystopian oligarchy.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
+T Dog - You're being naive if you think this concept of "benevolent sexism" aka what some women like to frame as "traditional chivalry" is only exclusive to "opening the door and pulling chairs out". Those are things you can do for an old lady you don't know and are just common politeness. I'm talking more about the idea that women in modern culture like the idea of being given priority in a relationship, dating, or otherwise and being treated as "princesses" as some would put it from the Millennial generation. If you've ever been in a relationship, marriage, etc. where a woman expected the man to do the gross dirty work, the physical labor, or even simple things like "going to get their purse in their car" because it's "too cold outside" for example if it was say -10 degrees out, these would all be examples of this cultural norm that accounts as benevolent sexism that people will frame as chivalry. These are things that many women expect from men even when they're self-described feminists that preach for total equality both financially and culturally, but the entire concept of benevolent sexism (chivalry) is in total contradiction with the idea of complete equality since it gives the illusion that women can't do these simple to tough things on their own.
And look, I personally, am not offended by these things, I've been doing it my whole life for women, it's just the culture I grew up in, but if we're having a serious debate about these things you have to think about them seriously and ask yourself what are the effects of these types of behaviors. These things could be causing repercussions in our culture that led to things like the MeToo movement, where Hollywood celebrities took full advantage of new female talent they saw as desperate and weak and likely led to silly movements (in my opinion) like Jordan Peterson and his "war on men" narrative and the incels, etc. I honestly think that if we just got rid of the whole idea of benevolent sexism and "chivalry" that extends past simple politeness and common courtesies, then it would just lead to more mutual respect between the genders in knowing they are both fully capable of equal actions and opportunities in our society and in their own personal relationships without portraying the illusion that one is lesser than the other as some kind of pre-programmed mating tactic or whatever it may be for. I think the bond between men and women would only be healthier by just getting rid of the charade altogether since it doesn't really do anything in the first place and is just a cultural norm that evolved involuntarily.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@kundakaps "that's when an individual life begins" - I'm not sure how you think that's a "scientific" statement. That's when a fetus, at it's very earliest, starts developing, that's a fact, yes. Is a fetus in early development alive? Yes. The same way any part of the human body is alive. A kidney is alive, an appendix is alive, and even a tumor is alive. Does that mean you should or shouldn't remove them? Seems like that's up to that person who owns that body and between them and their doctor. However, is it a person if it can't survive on its own without the life of its host along with a great deal of time, investment, hardship, and risk? And should we force that person to be put through that just because we have our own opinions of when "the miracle of life" begins? I'm not sure how anyone is arrogant enough to think they have a concrete answer to this question, because it's a huge ethical dilemma that weighs the human rights of a mother versus a part of their body that doesn't even retain any amount of consciousness until their 24th to 28th week of gestation at the very earliest ie 6-7 months into pregnancy.
The fetus is part of a person's body and is literally dependent and feeding off that person's body until birth & can't live on its own until very very late in pregnancy when it reaches the point of viability. Until then, it is literally dependent on that person to keep it alive, feeding off of her, and sometimes even killing her. I'm not sure how people can't even acknowledge or see the very real ethical issue with taking away the medical rights of one person and their doctor to give full rights to the objectively tumor-like protrusion in their body we refer to as a fetus that will potentially become an independent human life once it reaches the point of viability.
Everything considered, the developing embryo is literally a part of the person's body and should be enough on its own to settle the issue.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@bluesrockfan36 You're inaccurately defining the debate first of all. Bernie doesn't just simply want a Job's Guarantee, he wants a basic standard of living, an Economic Bill of Rights giving people Healthcare, Guaranteed Housing for those that want it, Guaranteed Job for those who want it, Education for those who want to attend public university or trade schools. Yang isn't in favor of any of those things and has already backtracked on his support for Medicare for All claiming he wants a public option like Beto and Buttigieg. This is a social safety net, the same thing that the majority of countries in Europe have to one extent or another. To call that a "dystopic nightmare" is absolutely delusional and ignoring the success of all these programs as they're currently being implemented in Europe. I can tell you've never lived in Europe or outside the US because otherwise this would be common knowledge to you. Yang's version of UBI has never been implemented on a national level, the closest thing we have is the dividends given to people in Alaska and that's about $83 a month, not really what you'd consider a test-run for UBI. If any concept has the possibility for unwanted results, it's the one that hasn't been adopted by any other country, at least not successfully and on a national level.
Lastly, whose "math" are you citing? Yang's? That doesn't seem biased at all considering that's what he's running on to try to become the most powerful person in the world. How about you cite some actual studies on it, because all I've ever seen are studies pouring cold water on the idea of UBI as it would be implemented today. The National Bureau of Economic Research did a long study on this when Yang first announced his candidacy. Their findings did not line up with Yang "MATH" on this, not even close.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Badatallthis Stuff I did watch the trial, and I've been saying this whole time that even if you want to chop up what he did as "self defense" (and I hard disagree about that in the case of Huber who was "armed" with an effing skateboard), he's still obviously guilty for reckless endangerment. Even conservatives I know have admitted he should've been guilty of reckless endangerment because what he did was stupid AND reckless* - going there with an illegal AR-15. Usually when you're guilty of reckless endangerment and people are killed due to your recklessness it gets upgraded to Involuntary Manslaughter. So yes, even IF you come to the conclusion it was self-defense, he's still guilty of, in layman's terms, being a massive dumbass who should've never been there and should've never had an illegal firearm. Claiming he did nothing wrong at all when 2 people are dead, fired his gun into a crowd, & considering that situation wouldn't have happened if he wasn't there with his illegal gun is, in my opinion, just ignoring basic common sense. And EVEN IF you want to say he's not guilty of any of those charges at all, even reckless endangerment, it's still a verifiable FACT he has an illegal firearm that he used to shoot 3 people and kill 2 people, so even then, you have possession and use of a illegal firearm and whatever comes along with that when you use your illegal firearm to kill two people. So CLEARLY he's doing something wrong in that equation and simply ignoring that is just ignoring reality.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@yourerightdawg Republicans main legislation when they had a super-majority was tax cuts for the rich & corporations where 80% of the benefits went to the top 1%. For Biden, it's a spending bill that taxes corporations and the rich back to where it was before Trump, gives working families tax breaks, expands Medicare to include glasses, dentures, and hearing aids, lowers the age of Medicare, gives childcare benefits, & more provisions on education, paid family leave, and more. Yes, the Republicans are really the "practical" ones aka the greedy ones who 100% only care about rich donors.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I agree with "Skyshadow" on what's going on here, and I'll admit, this is a complicated issue, because it has to do with both what is ethically acceptable in art and politics especially because the original bull statue's symbolism has changed over the years of its representation of Wall Street. It was originally constructed to represent an untamed nature of the free market, but it has almost devolved into a greedy and "bullish" representation of Wall Street's hold on everything in this country including the way it slithers into politics. The original sculptor of the bull statue stated that it was installed after the 1987 market crash as a symbol of the "strength and power of the American people". However, this has drastically changed in the last 3 decades considering Wall Street is now commonly known and understood by everyone as being the enemy of the working class and more than 90% of the "American people".
Wall Street, big money, and monopolies have largely ignored what's best for the American people for some time now and done whatever's best for their corporations and profit margins. Even after the Occupy Wall Street protests in 2011, they still have not changed their general agenda and perspective. I think the fearless girl was somewhat unfair to the original sculptor of the bull, but it really had little to do with the bull sculpture at all and was a message for big money in Wall Street putting them on blast for their general disregard for the "American people". The "thing" that the bull statue was original supposed to represent.
When it comes to the pug, that is just a childish way of drawing a penis on someone's art. There's no symbolism behind it besides saying that someone was mad about the statue (being a female possibly), so they took a dump on it in art form.
3
-
3
-
3
-
+James Monteath - You actually make a reasonable point and I respect that you actually used a real study from Harvard and didn't just pull it out of your ass like most people defending Fox or Trump. I personally haven't seen any one news anchor at Fox give any real negative commentary or bad opinion about Trump, but I suppose it doesn't mean that they still don't give coverage that portrays him as negative. Remember this President is his own worst enemy and shoots himself in the foot almost every day, so even just showing his stupid tweets might even be considered as negative coverage. Most shows at Fox News never say anything positive about his tweets, but I swear that I only ever hear them say something like "he needs to stop tweeting and focus more on policy and getting America back on track, because that's what he's good at", which you can interpret how you want, but I see it as sort of a backdoor compliment even though they're showing coverage of a negative tweet that could be considered negative press. ]
I think it's just hard to NOT cover negative stuff about Trump because even when Fox News tries to put a positive spin on things, it still comes off as negative a lot of the time. An example being Sean Hannity trying to besmirch the Intelligence Agencies and James Comey's reputation countless times to try to make Trump look like he did the right thing firing him and trying to discredit the Trump-Russia collusion investigation. Hannity tries to spin the story in Trump's favor by saying that Comey was the person, who told Trump about the dossier aka pee tape, and that Comey takes conspiracy theories seriously, which he thinks effectively discredits Comey. However, by doing so, Hannity ends up saying the words "You remember how Comey unveiled the dossier, remember, Trump in Russia, in the Ritz-Carlton, with Hookers, and I won't go any further than that, but remember". By doing this, he additionally makes Trump unintentionally look bad by digging up something that portrays Trump really negatively that Trump himself seems really sensitive towards as well.
Anyways, my point is that it is hard even for Fox News to not cover Trump negatively even if it is unintentional or they're trying to put a positive spin on it to combat the negative coverage of the stories by other main stream media stations. Also, they can't be the only main stream channel not covering Trump's childish tweets like the one about Morning Joe or just the one yesterday disrespecting both the LGBT community and US military at once. As Spicer says "The tweets speak for themselves", meaning also that even Fox News can't put a positive spin on them or other idiotic things Trump says and does.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+Elpeo Puru - You're missing the point. They still wouldn't HAVE to pay any money to the ISPs (Comcast, AT&T, etc.) if Ajit Pai's proposal to gut Net Neutrality goes through aka they wouldn't be required to pay any money to ISPs. In fact Ajit Pai is suggesting that the ISPs "definitely won't create slow and fast lanes and make companies pay for faster Internet". He's saying that maybe, just maybe, they will even put this promise (for equal Internet speeds) into the Terms of Service (the thing that nobody reads).
However, the problem with Pai's entire argument is that if the ISPs are promising not to abuse the new lenient law Pai wants to place Net Neutrality under, then why change it in the first place?... It's literally just giving ISPs the legal ability to abuse their power and slow internet speeds down for some companies for their own personal gains and to profit off of any money these websites might give them so the ISPs don't slow down their speeds. Also most small companies don't even have the money to pay these fees the ISPs will likely be taking, so they don't even have that option to speed up their website's bandwidth, and thus, they are at a huge disadvantage compared to the larger companies.
Also, Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Charter, etc. are all going to abuse these new legal freedoms in some way even though Ajit Pai is swearing to the public that "they would never do that." These companies aren't run by Jesus Christ or the Dalai Lama, they are run by CEOs and corrupt executives who will abuse it (even to a criminal level) until they get caught by the government. But Oh Wait... Ajit Pai is also adding a brand new law for the legal status he's putting Net Neutrality under. It says that the FCC can no longer investigate ISPs. This has never been done before, because now it means Comcast, AT&T, etc. could criminally drive up prices, steal customer data straight from their emails (all email traffic passes through ISPs), or any plethora of crimes you could even imagine them doing. Maybe they won't, but now we'll never know because Ajit Pai wants to make it so we can't ever find out if they're royally fucking us over.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@sherylF5610 Sorry, I don't mean to lob you in with the useful idiots beating the war drum (you're not), but when people start their sentences with "he was a bad guy but...", you're only helping to validate their dumb arguments that this drone strike was somehow righteous or necessary when we literally just assassinated a general on a peace mission and created an international crisis.
The media (and many Democrats) are doing the same thing and it's insanely ineffectual in terms of 'resisting' this madness and the massive crisis Trump has caused. They're essentially agreeing with their premise that he was a 'bad guy' that needed to be taken out. When they have Dems & media saying this, they can then turn around and say "well you agree with us that he was a bad guy so what's the problem?" The media did this same thing with the Iraq War, when they blindly just accepted the Pentagon's bogus claim that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, something that was equally as unproven as what they're claiming now with the "600 Americans Iran helped kill since 2003", a non-proven stat that, for some reason, they're only bringing up this year since they've started to try to ramp up tensions.
You even have Mike Pence now going out there and, I shit you not, is saying Iran was somehow behind 9/11. If you don't understand what's happening, they're 'wagging the dog', a term meaning they're trying to propagandize the public and use lies to drive up support for a war that no one wants besides the military industrial complex, defense contractors, and the politicians who are on their payroll. I would imagine Trump himself is escalating the conflict because of his close ties with Saudi Arabia and corruption involving the crown prince, MBS (the guy who ordered the reporter to be hacked up into pieces with a bonesaw). The Saudis want a war with Iran probably even more than John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Gina Haspel and all the other neocon warmongers.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+Marco Lopez - I didn't ever say the summit was bad. I said his hallow "deal" deserved harsh criticism for not doing enough, which is what TYT has been doing and why I'm even defending them on this. As I stated before, if he was only going to make concessions with receiving nothing in return, he should've just made those concessions as gestures of good faith. It would've given him an upper hand in future negotiations and not made the US and Trump look like morons giving Kim Jong Un everything he wanted. It makes the US's opponents think they can just walk all over Trump and all over the US and never have to give anything in return, which is sort of what they already think of Trump, Jared Kushner, and the administration. Trump needs every advantage he can get to lead to North Korean disarmament considering Iran is essentially telling them to never disarm due to Trump's past actions. I've explained all this before and now you're just going in circles and making me explain all this again.
Also, before you try to argue like "+Captain Obvious" on "why it seriously matters" if Trump made the deal or not, think about back last year when Democratic leadership were trying to make a deal for DACA and threatening to not vote the budget through until the Republicans caved in to get the Dreamers status as citizens. Remember how Schumer just bent over eventually because Mitch McConnell gave him a vague promise about having a vote on it "at some point"? Everyone on the left and likely on the right saw it as huge weakness and cowardliness to not go all the way and get, at the very least, DACA passed. This is essentially the same "deal" that Trump made except Trump's deal was even worse where he just gave North Korea a bunch of things and received nothing in return. It is perceived as weak and stupid by North Korea and the rest of the world just as Chuck Schumer and Democratic leadership were shit on by their entire base and were seen as weak by their opponents. You want to ask why foreign policy and deals like these are important, well there you go. And honestly, I'm getting pretty sick of this conversation, because this is more than a valid reason to criticize Trump, yet you are acting as if everyone who does so is a warmonger or somehow too picky. You need to stop pretending like the president isn't allowed criticism for this, because he definitely is especially because of his extreme hypocrisy over the Iran Deal. So are you done now?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ippothedestroyer The only actual plan that is viable is to either win the presidency (so it can be maybe passed with executive order) or continue to oust corporate Democrats & replace with pro-M4A House members. There is no secret strategy & you guys are fools to think a M4A vote wouldn't just lead to the bill being dead on arrival - something that could potentially hurt the campaign more than anything. Even if every single co-signer on the bill supported it, you'd still be off by hundreds of votes. Wtf is the point of putting people record when the co-signers would just vote for it anyways because it has no chance of being close to passing even with their votes. Either way, the bill is dead on arrival, the energy to get it passed would be deflated once it lost (just as all bills go through when they die), & then if all the cosigners just vote for it, then your plan of "putting people on record" doesn't even work. You waste the political capital for nothing when you could've leveraged more solid things. At least now there is no more PayGo to stop all Left-wing policies, so you could potentially, in the next 2 years, have a vote on Green infrastructure, free college, & healthcare, not just a one-time M4A vote that would be dead on arrival. At least removing PayGo is something concrete, especially because a Green infrastructure deal actually does have a chance of passing the House in this Congress unlike M4A, which has less than 0% chance at the moment.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+SeekerOfTruth - I never said they weren't virtually the same thing, because when you strip away all the flair, they are on the core issues that matter to Americans. That is something I will actually say compared to some of the Trump supporters who have started to watch Jimmy because he bashes on Dems so much, who will claim Trump is "a president for the people". My only argument though is that at least the majority of the Democrats don't actively work to deregulate Wall Street (Vote: 10 Dems compared to all the Republicans), pass huge tax cuts for the 1% and corporations (Vote: 0 Dems and all Republicans), and try to completely take healthcare away from 20 million people (Vote: 0 Dems and almost all the Republicans). Sure, when the Democrats have a super majority, they won't do shit and will half-ass progress every step of the way, but that is still better than regression back to prehistoric times, which is all we will get with Republicans fully in power, who will just keep making the same mistakes over and over again like deregulating the economy to cause another Recession and passing tax cuts until the rich pay absolutely nothing. I personally do not want to go through another Recession. I still vote for the progressive every single time I get in a voting booth because that's voting for real change, but I'm not going to act like the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans on everything because they statistically and politically are not even though they're all just as corrupt and when it comes down to core issues like workers rights, poor people, and protecting their precious corporations.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
He never said she wasn't corrupt. He warned that whatever the case may be, it's possible it's part of political schemes to shift the balance of power, and it just so happens that in Lula's case in Brazil, the allegations were false, so you have to take it with a grain of salt & investigate the details thoroughly (this does not conflict with any potential truths of her being guilty).
In this woman's case, even if the allegations are true, it's likely just as true that the opposition party is guilty as well. His caution over the subject is not unwarranted regardless of the outcome, because there has been a very clear pattern lately in Latin American countries that involve intergovernmental right-wing factions doing shady tactics in attempts to takeover the government or shift the power dynamic even if it contradicts the democratic rule of the people. So far, the corruption allegations in countries like Brazil, Colombia and Bolivia have seemingly been trumped up and even led to instances where opposition parties seized power by force, such as in the case of Jeanine Anez who was eventually apprehended for leading a coup d'etat.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@ellenstonehill678 Yes, some people who don't watch Kyle get the first impression he's in the same category as Dore, but he's not. He's one of the most sensible people imo. I don't agree with everything he says or all his opinions, but it's unquestionable he cares about the future of Leftist politics, & when the infighting got absurd & gross on Twitter, he was one of the only people telling everyone to stop attacking each others intentions & chill the f*ck out. Kyle also believes in Forcing the Vote, but he's not attacking AOC & the Justice Democrat's intentions & making baseless claims that they're operating in bad faith - something Matt Orfalea has literally been making videos about on Twitter bordering on misinformation from what I've seen (there are better, more productive, & more truthful ways to pressure Leftist politicians than simply calling them sellouts & "compromised" because of differences in strategy on a vote that hasn't even happened yet). when Kyle talks about Progressive politicians leveraging their votes for Pelosi, he at least explains their reluctance to do so comes from a disagreement in strategy & a hesitance from not having the numbers yet to hold your weight.
AOC & Justice Dems don't take corporate or lobbyist money & anyone paying attention can see them fighting for Leftist policy nearly every day in a multitude of ways, either on Twitter, on amendments, or on bills that actually have a chance of passing such as $2,000 stimulus checks. Hyper-focusing on a M4A vote when the numbers just aren't there & claiming nothing else in their records matter is either extreme ignorance or they're stretching the truth just to pressure these people who are on our side policy-wise & would likely listen to us without the hateful mob mentality. This is all coming from someone who is actually very adamant about withholding votes from Pelosi, but people are taking this too far by attacking, smearing & undermining the few politicians that represent us on policy just because they have a fair & reasonable disagreement on strategy at best, & a lack of courage to take on political powerhouses alone at worst. Either way, degrading yourselves to infighting, smears, & growing the divisions on the Left is almost certainly counter-productive to the real goals at play. Everyone needs to calm down & get on the same page, because we all want the same things.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Scottm1721 US bombings have been going on in Afghanistan for decades, it's an awful system that has become a problem all on its own regarding the unaccountable and out-of-control embodiment of power we refer to as the Military Industrial Complex. It's been an issue long before Biden & will continue to be an issue for much longer, however, the fact that Joe Biden is using his current executive power to take significant steps to reduce the power and authority of the MIC by withdrawing from Afghanistan is absolutely a reason to give him credit.
The withdrawal from Afghan is something no president has done for decades & an actual buck in the trend of MORE War, MORE Imperialism, MORE invaded countries. If you can't see the importance of what's going on then, like I said, you're just unserious about the issue. What matters more than anything is how he's affecting the US's long-time standard and practice of Imperialism around the world - it's not just about his actions to withdraw, but what he's saying in response to the media on how he's telling the entire country we've let US soldiers die in this senseless war for two decades now [for nothing] and it has to stop.
Does that mean every action he takes is now suddenly righteous? Hell no! But the opposite is also true (the exact argument you're making). If you can't separate the issues between positive actions and negative actions, then how the hell are you ever supposed to influence politicians through activism by encouraging them when they do the right thing and criticizing them when they do the wrong thing. Your problem is that you see one immoral action from the Biden admin and decide that the entire pot is now poisoned and anything he does is inherently wrong or hawkish, when the reality is that's just not how politics works, nor is it how life works in general.
If you get all your news and opinions from Jimmy Dore, it makes sense you'd have these biased & warped views that lack any nuance, because Dore's own ideology is more or less solely based around what he personally likes and dislikes. For instance, he decided in 2020 he liked Tulsi Gabbard, so he decided to either completely ignore her backpedaling on certain issues or in some cases played direct defense for her when she came out AGAINST Medicare for All and started pushing some watered down & shady "Single Payer Plus" idea just so she could sidestep the media on a dumb 'gotcha' question on private insurance.
On the other hand, when it comes to Joe Biden, Dore decided he hates Joe Biden, so he completely ignores or negatively reports on the downsides of the Afghanistan withdrawal (just like what the media is doing except they do it because they're pro-MIC and pro-war, Dore does it because he simply doesn't like Biden). Dore also decided at some point he doesn't like Bernie, doesn't like Justice Democrats, & has an extreme hate boner for AOC just like the entirety of conservative media so anything questionable they do, he screams and shouts about it from the mountaintops, anything positive they do gets omitted or filtered to fit his own narrative before being even mentioned on his channel, if at all. When they decide to use their leverage and fight for a $3.5 Trillion Infrastructure package that would be a game changer for Medicare patients and childcare recipients, he completely ignores it or finds some chink in the strategy by leftist lawmakers to try to tear them down best he can. He constantly shouted about how they need to use their leverage, but as soon as they finally use their leverage to push for an incredibly good bill, it's fucking crickets on his end.
Most days it seems like he doesn't even have a real ideology outside of "I like that person but don't like that person" & if you pay attention, that's exactly how his reporting is decided - the facts or changes in politics have no effect on his own perspective unless those facts are conveniently inline with his own personal feelings. He's the embodiment of the feelings over facts guy, at least in terms of how he omits specifics in the news or how he conducts his incredibly biased reporting. Compare this to someone like Kyle Kulinski, who yes, still has his own biases from time to time (but tries his best to be upfront about it when he does), but somehow Kyle went from being one of Joe Biden's biggest critics to being one of the very few people cheering him on during the Afghanistan withdrawal. I mean, he must have made like 20 videos on the Afghanistan withdrawal and surprisingly most of them were giving Biden credit & showing solidarity with what he was doing, especially after Biden tripled down and essentially told the media to go fuck themselves with their hawkish reporting & questions. If you think this is all because Kyle somehow had a soft spot for Joe Biden, then I recommend you look at the type of stuff he was saying only a few months ago & verifiably being one of Joe Biden's biggest critics & haters. The difference is that he's not letting his past views and biases of Biden's history dictate whether he can actively support his decisions to withdrawal from a 20 year war that should've been ended 100 times over by now.
3
-
3
-
+Vynjira - Wow thank you so much for acting as the bright shining example to exactly what I was referring to. I clearly labeled myself as a progressive and believing in pure equality between men and women and made an observation on the social aspect and shift going on, and then what do you do? You claim that apparently I'm just another woman hating male and an "Anti-Feminist". (I don't even know what an MRA is btw) You say this to someone who clearly believes in gender equality to the fullest and should be on the same side, but instead you peg me as the enemy and then claim that my opinions are solely because I've had "bad dating experiences", when I've clearly made a logical observation about several men, men in culture, celebrity relationships and so on. And also what the hell was I "lying" about? I gave one statistic and one anecdote about Aziz Ansari and the rest was just speculative as I stated at the very beginning of my post. The problem with millennial women is they don't understand who their enemy is so instead you just label every guy who isn't gay and marching in the streets with you for feminism as someone who apparently hates women, which is so far from the truth that it's just sad. Seriously, what the hell do you want from millennial men? Do you want equality? Great most millennial men want that too and all women should have equal opportunities as men without being harassed in the workplace. Do you want equality but to be treated like your better than us and can dictate how men should act and whats appropriate for them to say and do outside the bounds of obvious inappropriate behavior? Then no we don't want that because that has nothing to do with feminism and equality and has more to do with a derailed ego that many of you have for some reason and then if we say anything against it we get called "Anti-Feminists" and male pigs. I watch The Young Turks almost every day, which is one of the most liberal shows airing today, I've made it clear that I believe in total equality for men and women, but somehow I'm an "anti-feminist". What world do you live in lady? Because I think this is the prime example of what is wrong with the social gap between millennial women and men today.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@dirtbagleftist5412 Again with the Bernie whataboutism. Dude, give it up, you're just embarrassing yourself, this story has got nothing to do with Bernie & last time I checked Bernie got massive criticism from his supporters, whereas Tulsi can back off Medicare for All, tweet Project Veritas garbage, & defend revenge strikes using false dichotomies & people like you will still defend her crap. Also, No, this isn't particularly "horrifying" when considering the rest of US's politicians, but it is beyond disappointing in a long line of disappointing things Tulsi has been doing for the past year. Many people see it as a betrayal as well. For me, I think it's even more telling that she barely said anything about the Afghanistan withdrawal. She's supposed to be the "pro-war candidate", but as soon as we actually end a war for the first time in 20 years, she's fucking crickets. The fact that she then came out of the shadows to finally say something about the Afghanistan withdrawal and she ends up defending the one thing the Biden admin did in Afghanistan that was actually reprehensible, is just the icing on the cake.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@SaintKimbo Preliminary exit polls for the election. There were various results, but one of the most consistent was that voters saw Democracy as threatened (usually around 70-75% of voters said this) & one of the earliest exit polls on election day said that 35% of voters polled said Democracy was their biggest issues, followed close by the economy. It's possible this had several meanings and Republicans saw Democrats as the threat to Democracy in some of those polled, but it's undeniable this was mostly referring to Donald Trump. Based on how you extrapolate all this data, it's easy to see how this could be an overall negative picture for Republicans.
However, just like 2016, 2020, and in 2022 in the Opposite direction, polls didn't matter & it's truly just one big guessing game now, which honestly, is what Kyle was doing from the get-go, he was just wrong in his gamble, and yes, it IS a gamble based on the last elections & midterm elections.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+Tony Hacker - I also think that there's a lot of absurdity in just throwing out a name of a person just because he's a good radio host or a celebrity. Progressives hated it when MSM was floating around Oprah's name, because, even though people like her show and think she makes good political points from time to time, it came off as idiotic that that somehow qualifies her to do the most important job in the country, possibly world. Kyle does a really good job with his show, but I don't want to just start supporting people with no political experience in the slightest because, if enough progressives do it, that basically gives the neoliberal establishment the green light to start supporting The Rock, Oprah, Mark Zuckerberg or that douchebag who runs Starbucks. I'm not exclusively saying this about Kyle and actually think he would be better than nearly everyone else in that grouping of people, but I have this reaction when anyone starts saying shit like "Oprah 2020", "Joe Rogan 2020" or any celebrity or TV personality "2020".
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@CAFEkatArt Yang apparently changed it to stack with SSDI, but it still doesn't stack with SSI ie makes you choose between UBI and SSI, which is also a form of Social Security for disabled citizens. Not to mention it's still going to make people choose between many other benefits. If he's funding it with a regressive form of sales tax (and yes, a VAT tax is regressive by definition), you would NEED to ensure those poor Americans see a net gain, and if many Americans currently receive $1,000 or more from SSI and other programs, they will likely see a net loss from his UBI. If Yang were serious about curbing poverty, he would make his UBI actually universal, not conditional only for the poorest Americans and he would fund his UBI through a top marginal tax rate, capital gains tax, re-implementing the estate tax, formally cutting corporate welfare to fund public welfare (ubi) for citizens, or even placing a tax on Wall Street speculation, which yang has mentioned before but failed to attach to any of his policies as proposed funding methods.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Establishment Shill-Troll Knowing that Trump is terrible & the greater evil doesn't require being "woke", it's just basic common sense if you are in fact a Lefty.
I could lay out all the examples of Joe Biden shilling for the establishment & corporate interests or his objectionable to offensive career as a moderate Republican & status quo manager, but it still wouldn't come anywhere near close to competing with the long list of Trump's awful decisions, neofascist authoritarian tendencies, corrupt deals (many unconstitutional & illegal), anti-science dogmatism that's already lead us down a dark path full of American fatalities, a Massive increase in military hawkishness & number of dropped bombs (this is the guy who dropped a MOAB in the first 3 months of his presidency), blatant war crimes that he himself ordered & carried out, blatant war crimes & murders that he helped cover up for other authoritarian regimes (Saudi Arabia & Israel come to mind), his actions that massively exacerbated wealth inequality to the levels of pre-Great Depression era, & his constant efforts to destroy American democracy & shift 35 to 40% of the country towards an authoritarian & dangerous amount of zealotry.
If you don't recognize anything I'm alluding to, then maybe you should do some research or at the very least stop evoking "woke" culture B.S. as if you were Dave Rubin himself in an attempt to ignore or belittle the very real issues I've laid out in plenty. Instead you deflect to Democratic inaction as if this is somehow equal to neofascist far-right extremism, gaslight me for saying something as reasonable & obvious as "Trump is a disaster, & then try to pin personal responsibility on me for "the last 40 years" despite 1. not knowing me or who I am, 2. the fact that individual contribution only goes so far in solving real-world problems on a macro-scale (especially in a gov't that prioritizes elites & the wealthy over average concerned citizens), & also the fact that I'm only in my mid-20s & haven't even had the right to vote for just one decade yet. If this is how you feel about individual contribution then maybe you should look in the mirror & ask yourself that question.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@randoomain7485 Yeah I wasn't far enough in the debate til I saw that. Also, I just don't see that as acceptable. There was a time where I contemplated it as a real option when Hillary Clinton was the other candidate, but Biden is objectively better than his predecessors and Trump is getting so so much worse, to the point where he's saying he might have to dismantle the Constitution to stay in power if elected again. Even without the threat to the Democratic process though, his policies hurt a lot of people and at the end of the day, you need to wrestle with the fact of whether you can personally live with a kind of politics that encourages 14 year old girls having to birth their rapist's baby or kicking millions of people off their healthcare just so we can play Machiavellian politics that might or might NOT work (and in the past, it hasn't worked).
I don't know about others, but I'm a leftist because I actually incorporate my morality in politics. If I allow my politics to take me down a path where I'm purposefully allowing things to get worse, not better, just so I can experiment with horseshoe theory, then I don't see how this abides by my own code of morality anymore.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@derpmansderpyskin 30%? What the fuck? That's not even correct based on the numbers you gave, which are not even the total numbers. The final tally for the votes was 16.9 million vs Bernie's 13.4 million. Those are formal numbers from the Democratic Convention, so not really sure where you're getting your numbers from. That's a 5:4 ratio, so a 61% to 34% ratio IS under-sampling Bernie voters from 2016, that's nearly a fucking 2:1 ratio! Even IF your source was giving credible voting numbers, it would STILL be vastly under-sampling Bernie voters because it would STILL be a 4:3 ratio. Can you not do math? It's MASSIVELY under-sampling them when you do the fucking math correctly. Also, I made a solid case for how they're under-sampling younger voters and now you're argument is "it doesn't matter". Whatever though, you're gonna make any excuse you can at this point from the way this has been going.
If the media wants to keep under-sampling important voting blocs in their polls, then they're going to be surprised and shocked again when the candidate with the under-sampled supporters WINS just like how they were all entirely wrong about Hillary winning in 2016. A national embarrassment on their part and it was ALL pre-orchestrated just like how they're doing this shit right now. If you can't see that, then you're trying your hardest to feign ignorance and you clearly just don't want to see it. These statistics are facts, math is math, and you can't deny reality. These polls don't even include Independent voters (and even some conservatives) that will be a major factor in open-primary states. Bernie IS the front-runner when you do the math and crunch the numbers, which is why other polls have him as the most popular politician in the country with massive nation-wide support.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@giogio6086 Because Republican leadership doesn't give a shit, they want their tax cuts by all means. Democratic leadership is run by the same people that slipped the PayGo rule into the rules package, do you really think they're planning on turning a blind eye to PayGo whether it's in a rules package or in the law? They were going to use PayGo (in either form) against progressive policy no matter what. I have not seen any evidence to convince me otherwise, which is why I see all this outcry over the PayGo rule as kind of silly. Yes, the principle and optics of it are terrible, but when you look at it using pure logic, nothing has really changed. PayGo was going to be there one way or another, this is what Jayapal was trying to say, however, the 3/5th tax rule was something that they got rid of for good, and absolutely nobody is giving anyone credit for that.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@himynameisrev And Yang's ONE policy that he uses as a cure-all for all of societies problems is a fundamental misunderstanding of America's problem of wealth and class inequality. Literally no one can live off $1,000 a month in this economy. There are people living on affordable housing (assisted by the gov't) who have to pay $1,000 per month just in rent alone. Tell me, if Yang claims that his plan is in response to automation which will put a huge portion of the workforce out of their jobs, then how the fuck is living off Yang bucks going to help any of these people in the future if he doesn't even give them enough to live in society? Perhaps the solution is NOT to just let automation put everyone out of work and then deal with the consequences using Yang bucks, but INSTEAD to change the embedded system, work regulations, raise corporate taxes and marginal tax rates, end trade deals, end corporate welfare, strengthen union laws, and more SO THAT we have a system where we have Democracy in the workplace and so automation actually leads to benefits for ALL workers instead of only helping the very few owners of production. SO THAT when production is automated all the workers KEEP their jobs, KEEP their salaries, and their work days are Halved as a result. As I said, Yang's UBI is a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem and the SOLUTION for wealth inequality and globalization. It's not even a prevention, it's just a way to deal with the fallout and put a thin band-aid on the problem.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Gigator I'm not sure, I think there's multiple ways to measure it though. If it's net worth, then there's far more millionaires in the world than people think because there are entire suburban streets where houses are worth $1 million. The housing market is also over-inflated as well, so that would mean nearly every home-owner in San Francisco, New York, Hawaii, Santa Cruz, and countless decently wealthy to rich neighborhoods have homes owned by "millionaires". People buy a house that was $150,000 only 10 years ago, and now their homes are worth up to $1.5 million in some cases, so I'm not quite sure doing it by net worth and assets is the most precise way or else the public's opinion of what constitutes a millionaire is far off from cultural expectations. Because, in that case, it doesn't take much to be a "millionaire".
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@danielj4951 Buddy, MLK Jr. was a Democratic Socialist, he wanted an Economic Bill of Rights like Bernie is pushing. You need to do your research on MLK. He didn't have UBI for a cure-all, he mentioned it in one of his later works where he was literally touting his core policies of guaranteed housing, workers rights, free healthcare, and a guaranteed job. Things that Yang argues against even though he invokes MLK Jr. when politically convenient, even though King never held UBI as a core policy. It was called the "March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom" not the "March on Washington for Federal Income and Freedom". He was far more serious about having a basic standard of living and a social safety net just like most European countries have today where they receive education for all, healthcare for all, far better worker's rights, and guaranteed housing. You seriously need to do your research before you start typing out your claims as "FACT:"
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@markp6621 It should give everyone here extreme discomfort that Silicon Valley and big tech elites widely knew about this short story and scenario, and have since been starting to push support behind a federal basic income (when I first heard this is when I first started having doubts about UBI). It should also give people pause that not only is Yang for a federal income, but he's also voiced strong disagreement with breaking up big tech companies and monopolies in the US. I currently do not support Yang, but IF yang was in favor of breaking up monopolies and IF he funded his UBI through placing high taxes on corporations and the wealthy such as a top marginal tax rate, capital gains tax, estate tax, a much higher corporate tax, and ending corporate welfare, I would likely support him in some form. However, Yang is not for those things and the "Manna" story is exactly the scenario I fear from a libertarian-leaning UBI program. I am not saying this to take swipes at Yang, I think he is a genuine person, but it doesn't diminish my REAL concerns over the future he proposes.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@jamaljames1598 Ah yes, their "no vote was completely performative", just like how they blocked the BIF twice before successfully. I guess those other times they were standing against Pelosi's vote was also performative as well - Honestly, your narrative would be far more convincing if they hadn't just been successfully blocking Pelosi and the BIF for 4-6 months straight. Despite that though, it seems, in your case, they're damned if they do, damned if they don't, which is not only an unreasonable take of the situation, but it's always such a dense & poorly thought-out way to approach politics in general.
The facts are that Ayanna Pressley was the only one who waited to see how the Republican votes would stack up, the rest did not wait. Your logic just simply makes no fucking sense. Why would Ayanna Pressley (arguably the snake in the Squad) wait to see how many Republicans would cross over when they're all (apparently, according to you), so certain that the BIF would pass and their votes are nothing but "performative". Do all the rest of the Squad members know something Pressley doesn't know? You sound like you're just making this shit up as you go along.
It's clear you have a serious bias against these individuals, but the naked truth is that they did the right thing. Try selling whatever illogical narrative you want, but it doesn't change the fact that they were the only people in that whole Congressional proceeding who stood up for the right thing. If you want to demonize them over it because of some misplaced anger & sensitive feelings you might have for whatever reason, then just know you sound incredibly spiteful & irrational. We have actual proof of their intentions (not just baseless illogical conjecture) because they did, in fact, fucking vote to shoot down the Infrastructure Bill, as they did two times before this vote. Perhaps you should come back when you have some type of proof to bolster your argument or even some type of logical analysis that doesn't sound like it came out of your ass.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Spungo Bungo - You're really playing the Hitler card? We currently have a President whose allegations are 10x worse than Kevin Spacey's. Spacey never raped anyone, cornered someone and forced them to do things, or most of the things you hear Weinstein, Trump, or Bill Clinton had done. Spacey was a closeted homosexual and he made sexual advances on a lot of people he thought were gay as well and groped some people (allegedly). The allegation where he made advances on the minor is inexcusable, but they were still just advances and they allegedly happened literally 32 years ago. Spacey wasn't banned from the mall or anything though. He didn't target minors and the allegation happened when he was in his twenties. It's really easy to call him a monster and such, but honestly I personally have been groped by flamboyant gay guys before. Twice now in my life. It was something I immediately backed away from or rejected/brushed off immediately, but it wasn't the end of the world. I really don't know how a gay guy could get away with making multiple advances against someone unless that person was also gay and into it a little bit, because the times when I or my friends have been groped or had advances towards us, we immediately made it perfectly clear we weren't interested and we weren't gay. I don't think a gay man should be held accountable for every little inappropriate thing they do though. The guys I know that are gay are horny and excited a lot of the time. I'm not saying all gay men are like that obviously, but a lot of them seem to be more open about sex than men vs. women are. I don't see a gay guy grabbing my ass or, at worst, trying to grab my junk when their super drunk as something that would haunt me or something I'd need to call 911 over. It's just silly to think otherwise. Someone should've told Spacey a long time ago to drastically tone down his behavior, but I doubt anyone really said much about it because he was so famous and no one ever told him just how disgusting (or hurtful) his behavior allegedly was.
I think it was a bad idea to announce he was gay when the allegations came out, because it made the gay community look really bad, but I also understand why he felt he had no choice. He didn't want to seem even more perverted and instead announced that him groping men and making advances towards them was part of his lifestyle/nightlife/sex life because he was actually gay, which explained why he always went to the Oscars with male guests as well. I don't know I'm sure I'm biased because he was one of my favorite actors, but I still believe that he is lower on the scale than a lot of the MeToo allegations at least compared to what MSM said about him. The fact that he was basically the first person to have allegations against him after Weinstein probably made his case much much worse as well.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+Olivier Lucuyer - I at least watch Pakman videos every once in a blue moon, but it seems like you're just here to bitch about how someone called your daddy a "useful idiot". You know, the guy who constantly belittles and bashes on Bernie Sanders on a daily basis, the politician who just raised the minimum wage for Amazon workers. You're sort of proving my point about the "flooding the comment sections" when you clearly don't like Pakman to begin with. Btw, Pakman and Seder are not the only ones to call out Jimmy Dore. Kyle Kulinski, Progressive Voice, and LTMB, who are Green Party loyalists, all called out Dore for his disingenuous coverage of Cortez or gave criticism for their massive disagreements. They just didn't call him a name, so none of you emotional snowflakes will even comment on what they said or even address the heart of the issue surronding how his coverage of Cortez was completely out-of-context and a targeted attack on a true progressive. Nearly 99% of the negative comments you're referring to here don't even want to talk about this, they just want to bitch and moan about name-calling, you especially, who thinks it's clever to call anyone on the other side of the issue a Hillbot "troll".
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+T Dog - Also, I don't mean to be the "warrior for men" guy, because I'm really not and I'm just trying to have a civil debate about this, but in a time of massive income inequality and growing poverty among men AND women and when 60% of the country can't afford a sudden $400 surprise expense, the idea of a man always being the one to pay the tab on constantly recurring dates, getting the bill to show his self-worth, and upholding the traditional idea that "the man pays for his woman" (you know, chivalry), it just will always ultimately conclude with the man being at a financial disadvantage to a woman in the dating world, in a relationship, or even in a marriage. When women are the one's adamantly calling for equal pay and total financial equality to men, it seems odd and even somewhat hypocritical that the man, in our western culture, is always the one that suffers from these cultural norms that are pre-programmed in us. Having a lot of money isn't always the factor that attracts women, but it definitely helps and it basically condemns a man to having women troubles if he first has money troubles and his job doesn't pay him enough, whereas a woman almost never has to worry about these factors if they want to keep dating while working a shitty job. Do you see the inequality here that comes from these cultural gender differences?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@michaeldillon376 Yes, I was referring to unicellular organisms, I even said as much and yes your cells are alive the same way your human body is alive, this is really an argument of semantics and matters very little. What matters is that your cells reproduce and make more of themselves just as humans reproduce and make more of themselves, they are in turn alive just as gametes, zygotes and a fetus is alive. The primary difference between living tissue that make up your organs and the actual human body, is that organs can't live when taken out of the human body. The same thing goes for a fetus! If you take a fetus out of the body, it cannot survive on its own until very late in the pregnancy when it reaches viability, otherwise it is no more stable than living tissue that makes up your human organs. In its early stages, a fetus is just a clump of cells just as living tissue is, the only thing that differs is that it has different functions and is part of a different organ system in the reproductive system, the same way living tissue in your lung and respiratory system is different from tissue in your nervous system or lymphatic system.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The first step would be if Yang and his supporters were to accurately portray Bernie's policies. At least Bernie supporters acknowledge and understand Yang's policies, UBI funded by a VAT tax, Democracy Dollars, lower carbon emissions 90% by 2050, placing a sunset provision on all regulations, we disagree on the outcomes of those policies, but I don't see anyone mischaracterizing what his actual platform is. When you talk about UBI vs Bernie's policies, it's not just a job's guarantee, it's an entire Economic Bill of Rights. It realistically should be a debate between universal basic income vs universal basic standard. Bernie literally has T-Shirts with this platform on it (healthcare for all, education for all, housing for all, jobs for all, justice for all) so why can't yang supporters get it right? A job's guarantee is only a smaller portion of a basic standard of living aka a robust social safety net like Denmark or Norway. You can disagree and argue why you think UBI is better or worse, but at least acknowledge this is the real difference and the real debate between their platforms.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Most of the comments on here are framing the issue as very black and white, but yours is the first that admits it's a very nuanced issue. I agree that it does require debate, specifically on the best way to keep sports fair while also giving trans people rights. Cenk is being too much of a campaign strategist here & simply looking at polling, when there is a bigger picture (for instance the Republicans aren't doing themselves any favors by overreaching & seeming creepy).
I get the sense we're reaching a singularity sooner or later for how much the public can actually stomach this worsening transphobia that's bordering into outright sexism against ciswomen. Part of me wants to see that happen so the Republicans just look even "weirder" and creepy to average voters, but I also worry at what culture and society are doing towards your average trans person by constantly demonizing them every single day. Cenk is right on one part, that the trans athletes debate isn't doing any favors for your average transgender person. You see and hear people belittling and demonizing trans people every day, not even just on the internet anymore. I get the sense trans people will continue to be isolated & humiliated worse and worse as the public gets even crazier on this issue. I just can't imagine most trans people want this and just want to be left alone.
It's not the same thing at all, but as someone who lives in Portland, I remember when Trump was demonizing citizens of Portland all the time while he was president, I remember I just wanted him to get the city's name out of his mouth, as friends and family would call me and tell me to move away all the time since they had a predisposition to hate the city without ever even stepping foot in it. It's gotta be maddening as a trans person.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@terencekwong3033 If it only helps 90% Americans, while leaving a portion of the poor to fend for themselves, it's not "universal". What bugs me is that Yang could've very easily squashed this criticism by just funding UBI differently through a Capital gains tax, top marginal tax rate, progressively raising the corporate tax on large corporations, re-implementing the estate tax, formally ending corporate welfare, or even a tax on Wall Street speculation, which Yang has mentioned before but never proposed as funding for a single one of his programs. The fact that he refuses to tax it with any form of tax that isn't regressive, or at the very least NOT make it so it's conditional for poor Americans, is entirely suspect and should signal that he's not serious about taking on wealth inequality. The guy argues against a wealth tax for fucksake. If he actually cared about wealth inequality, he would at the very least not be arguing with a proposal that also tackles inequality, whether he personally wants to implement it in his platform or not.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@margeroehrbach9524 I wouldn't doubt it at this point. Even without the harrowing thought that the DNC have been cooking the numbers (at least to some extent to shift the race on Super Tuesday), the entire shape of the race is still one giant farce however, even when you take out the voter fraud & voter suppression that was/is happening in plain sight, such as in the case of Iowa or Texas.
Think about it, the Democratic Party runs a 7-15 person race for well over an entire year. We have 10+ debates, & from that narrowed-down race, Bernie Sanders emerges almost the decisive winner. Then the Democratic establishment, the Obama team, work to shift half the candidates at the last second to fundamentally change the entire makeup & dynamic of the year-long race the night before the first big vote & give the biggest boost possible to the guy who was just coming in 4th & 5th place in states. They set this up so there is no debate regarding this new dynamic until nearly 50% of the vote is cast. Once we finally had a debate it was already too late to change that new dynamic of the race. We all just BLINKED & suddenly Joe Biden, the guy who was desperately struggling to hang on 2 weeks ago, just became the nominee because the establishment & DNC willed it into existence.
Face it, the Democratic Party rigs their primaries like no other institution in the history of democracy. This shit is unheard of & I also have no doubt the voter fraud that is happening is not just confined to Iowa; that's just what we know about. I hope Wikileaks drops a doozie of a story come June, because I have a feeling that the dirty backroom deals the night before Super Tuesday were only half the story in handing Joe Biden the Super Tuesday victory (the night this race was decided).
3
-
+niceguy60 - When are people going to realize California is not a good example of a progressive state. The politicians love to pretend and act like progressives, but California voted for Hillary in the primary, and it is a haven for neoliberals like Pelosi, Kamala Harris, Feinstein, and many more. If you want a real example of progressivism go to Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Maine, New Hampshire. New York likely would've voted for Bernie in 2016 if they didn't have super closed primaries where the DNC essentially suppressed 27% of voters, so I'd say New York is even more progressive than California.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I can proudly say that you, sir, are a veteran that I can gladly give high respect and esteem towards. Thank you for your service to our country and giving your loyalty towards our nation and not just the current president. Many persons mix those 2 together, but it is sometimes more patriotic to question the current leader of the USA, who you believe is leading our nation astray and towards impending downfall, than it is to blindly follow our unqualified President down a path that chips away at our nation's democracy, freedoms, and liberty that the founding fathers worked so hard to instill.
I would argue that your patriotism and loyalty to our country far exceeds our current commander in chief considering when Trump was 22, he got a doctor to fill him out a 1-Y medical deferment that excluded him from the draft for the Vietnam War. It was apparently for "bone spurs in his heels" even though Trump played football, tennis, and squash at the time without issue and was in peak physical condition. It is more likely that his wealthy family bought off the doctor to forge him a medical deferment so he could swindle his way out of serving our country overseas.
Anyone who tries to say you are less patriotic because you do not follow Trump is a fool, and I would argue your courage, loyalty and patriotism would put Trump to shame if the truth were ever revealed. However, like his tax returns, he has refused to release his 1-Y medical deferment to the public most likely for fear of what it may reveal.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jedi77palmer I agree about the fighting point. I think I've made my position clear that I'm extremely against the infighting & 'fuck off' attitude of people that were pushing Force the Vote & took their attacks way too far, Dore included. I'm not only against it because it's unhealthy for Leftist politics & the future of the Left, but because the way they were going about it was incredibly counter-productive if your goal is to win over Progressive congress members & have them act in accordance. I mean, Dore's strategy to "Force the vote" was basically to call AOC & junior Congress members sellouts, liars, & frauds up-front & were stoking anger & smearing them as corrupt & all this was done BEFORE THE VOTE OCCURED. Kyle Kulinski was one of the only people to point this out as a problem, but at least one person was telling people that attacking them as "sellouts" or "liars" is a terrible way to win them over & get everyone on the same strategy, especially when they actually believe in the same policies; they simply disagree with the strategy. Even if you think they're wrong to disagree with the strategy, calling them corrupt or whatever is just baselessly smearing them & only going to shut them off to your ideas even more.
Now as a result of this huge frenzy, you have loads of Leftists being de-politicized to stop focusing on inner-Dem politics, which is an giant mistake because the Dems have a super-majority as of now & the Left needs all the activists it can get. If you go on Twitter you can see all the "Force the Vote" people claiming they're done with Dem politics & saying they won't back progressive members anymore, despite the fact that they removed the PayGo restrictions on Leftists policies (one of the concessions they got) & the next logical step after that is a Green New Deal, Tuition Free College, & yes, Universal Healthcare (despite that being the hardest thing to pass by far).
In summary, the push to pressure our politicians to do better is GOOD, but taking it way too far, baselessly accusing corruption or bad faith intentions, & burning your bridges with the only politicians that agree with us while simultaneously de-politicizing people with this nonstop smear campaign Dore ran is all extremely unhealthy for the Left all-around, especially now that it's imperative we fight the corporate Democrats & push for leftist policies for the next 2 years (which has just begun, yet the Dore people are acting like it all just ended with a simple Speaker vote).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Man, I don't think I've ever downvoted a Secular Talk video before in my life. I watch all your videos every day Kyle, but this video just came off as completely biased though. I mean, you're focusing on entirely the wrong thing here and I can't tell if you know that or not. No one really cares that the DNC hacks were released, nearly everyone was glad that happened if you were a Bernie supporter, but it was HOW they got it that was the real problem and what else they did. They tried hacking into our state election boards and other government agencies that could've literally messed with the vote if they had succeeded. We know this as a fact now and it makes sense. In addition, I would hope that Russia would arrest American NSA agents in their country if they were fucking with Russian elections (even though Putin already determines the elections) because fuck the NSA, it would serve them right. The same should happen for when Russian "NSA" agents do the same in our country. It would be fine if they were just doing it to get the DNC leaks, but that's not ALL they were after and you Know it isn't. You're pretending as if that's the only issue here and it's not even the most important issue out of these indictments.
Also, you sound really biased on the issue because you apparently believe in coincidence when the cyber attacks happened the day after Trump's idiotic speech, but then you don't believe in coincidence when these indictments were released 3 days before Trump met with Putin. C'mon man, you just sound like your trying really hard to believe that the deep state is the bad guy and Russia are the good guys or something. In my opinion, they were both coincidences. Trump's an idiot and likely didn't ask Russia to do shit on TV, but then these Mueller indictments weren't planned out either considering there have been something like 100 indictments so far and Trump's met with Putin a few times. You can't just claim coincidence doesn't exist for one of those things and then claim it does for another. You admitted that Russia indeed hacked us, but then continued to feign ignorance at the real issue that they tried to hack into our election boards and fuck with the vote if they had succeeded. Sounds to me you want to admit the truth about the hacking, but then do mental gymnastics to enable you to continue with this narrative that Russia are somehow harmless and the deep state want war with Russia, which to me, seems like a red herring considering WW3 realistically is ridiculously far from a possibility in this modern age.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Let's all be intellectually honest with ourselves here and understand that Trump is Obama on a quadruple dosage of steroids. I don't know why Jimmy isn't making a comparison in full context, but clearly Trump's "zero-tolerance" policy, that Jeff Sessions only passed a few months ago, has "separating families" as the feature, not the bug. It's now US generic policy to separate families, whereas under Obama it was something that happened rarely and split families were reunited quickly compared to this new policy. In addition, Trump has continued Obama's drone strikes, but he has caused things to be 5x worse with killing nearly 5x more innocent civilians on average than Obama had. They're both bad, but everyone needs to understand, including Jimmy, that factually and statistically Trump is Obama on roids and doesn't even give a shit to even act decent or even slightly truthful about the fucked up shit he passes as executive orders.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+The Jimmy Dore Show - I don't mind your reporting on this, my issue is that you are making an out-of-context false equivalency about immigration under Trump vs immigration under Obama. Obama's policy was massively flawed and wrong, nobody is debating that, but to say that Trump's is just a continuation is a massive understatement. Trump's "zero-tolerance" policy, which is only a few months old has the generic policy being that border patrol must separate the families, detain children and infants, and use it as the feature of a highly malicious system using fear as a tool, not the bug of a massively flawed system. Trump has made things far worse, and even though he didn't create ICE, he was the one that gave them unconstitutional power to basically raid homes without warrants, snatch kids from schools and hospital, and now has given them powers to utilize NSA Surveillance for the silly task of deporting illegals that live in squalor and hold jobs that make minimum wage or less as if they are a threat to national security.
This is not the only instance where you have been unable or unwilling to make a truthful equivalencies between Trump and what went on beforehand. It is totally fine to point out that Trump is just a continuation of the establishment Democrat before him and continues his drone strike program, but then you completely ignore the fact that, under Trump, nearly 5 times more innocent civilians are dying at an average rate than under Obama. Trump is also perpetuating a genocide in Yemen with launching more coalition drone strikes and bombings in Yemen alone in 2017 than Obama had launched in his entire last 4 years of office combined. I don't know why you can't simply point out these facts, but I figure it is because you have an agenda you are trying to narrate and omit things and tip toe around the issue of Trump just to do so. I do not respect this type of journalism and I wish you would put things in full context and criticize the entire establishment instead of just the minority party in all branches of government right now. The Republicans ARE literally the establishment, yet you never want to give valid criticism to either Trump or the GOP and even somehow make the crazy issue of Trump's "zero-tolerance" policy caging children and infants as something to fling back at Obama and always rewind to two years ago.
2
-
@brian2440 I don't know why you're arguing against the mandate, when neither Kyle nor myself support it - we're talking about allowing companies to ask to see if a person if vaccinated and if not, then they get tested for COVID in some capacity. Anytime you go into a doctor, you get your temperature taken, the airport does the same thing, so this is nothing new, the difference is it's at the employer level with a more accurate test. I don't know if you've ever had a COVID test before, but you literally just swab the inside of your nose, put it in a tube and get your results the next day. If a company is set up to do that in an organized way, then making a big deal out of it as "taking away your freedoms" is utterly ridiculous & hyperbolic.
We're talking about a public health crisis that's been dragging on for years now with the virus evolving to a more contagious variant. It's clear this shit isn't just going away & the unfortunate fact of that matter is that if everyone got the vaccine, the virus would be far far more under control if not stopping hospitalizations entirely - the facts and stats about the latest surge is very clear on this & how the surge is nearly entirely only happening among the unvaccinated populous. Being for the vaccine or test option is the compromise position & tolerating people too stupid or stubborn to go out and get the vaccine. I really don't give a fuck if you have religious beliefs or just don't trust scientists, it's a public health crisis where people have been dying for years & forcing all of us to wear masks, change our entire way of life, making our seniors get locked up in nursing homes without visitation - most people are tired of this shit and the people primarily continuing it are the unvaccinated, so honestly, you should take what you can get & just get a fucking test from time to time, it's the very fucking least you can do to help end the pandemic.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes, having insecurities is a pretty common human issue for both men and women. Unfortunately when it's coupled with other mental issues such as bipolar disorder, PTSD, addiction, or even chronic anxiety or depression, it can potentially lead to ugly behavior that many people let emotionally snowball out of control. We all have our own shit & issues that pile up over time. The way that makes us overcome it is to take step back and deal with it directly either with self-improvement, therapy, meditation, etc. The sad thing is that Jonah was clearly in the process of fixing himself and coming out as a happier, better person, so why oh why would someone feel the need to embarrass him with old private relationship texts, especially when he has a newborn child on the way & seems to be finally in a better place.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@CelestialWoodway There are literally simple charts you can look at that highlight the rise of CO2 levels in the atmosphere over time. Here is a chart from NASA that details how the growing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere DIFFERS from the past changes in climate hundreds of thousands of years ago to now: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
Once you come to terms with that fact, you understand that the heating of the Earth over time makes the water level rise in our oceans due to molecules in water moving at a more rapid speed, making bodies of water expand. Not only that, but ice caps are melting at an alarming rate that also raises the water level.
Once you have the water level raised, there will be more erratic natural disasters (as we're already starting to see now) that will make places like Florida, islands, and peninsulas uninhabitable. If you don't believe in the science around the water level rising, then you still have to cope with the understanding that if the Earth's global temperature rises by 7 degrees Fahrenheit over the next couple decades, this will make the Middle East, and other areas like Arizona, Mexico, and locations on the Equator completely uninhabitable as well from the heat alone. This will destroy food supply in some areas and kickstart a worldwide famine and cause massive amounts of refugees even in America. Anyone who is not weighing the repercussions of worldwide changes in the climate over the next 12 to 100 years is a fool and I hope for their sake they are not having children and putting their futures and lives at stake with their denial.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Marco Lopez - Look I'm not going to argue with you over the semantics of North and South Korea, because I've been in favor of the peace talks since the beginning and think it was probably our best case scenario that Trump just didn't fuck up the peace talks at all, but it doesn't mean Trump is not allowed to be criticized for hypocrisy over the situation and his actions only 3 weeks ago that have been pro-regime change. I have the same feelings on this point that TYT has that Trump just ripped up the Iran Deal and basically knew any deal he was going to make was not even going to be as harsh as the Iran Deal was to Iran, because that deal actually made Iran give up its Uranium and kept the nation from manufacturing nukes in the future. I think even Trump's critics were surprised at just how weak the deal he made was with North Korea and obviously some neocons and neoliberals attacked Trump from the right.
In my opinion, Trump should've made his concessions in the deal as a gift of good will to North Korea that the US will stop the military exercises (they shouldn't even have been going on at all) and use it as a sign of good faith with future talks with North Korea, however, Trump was hell bent in the idea of making the summit look like he achieved total denuclearization and was only concerned about the optics (or his TV ratings), so he put the concessions in the form of a deal with getting nothing in return. I mean the deal is just a total joke, which is what TYT has been conveying more than anything and is directly where the hypocrisy over the Iran Deal comes into play. It just made Trump and the US look like idiots who don't know how to argue in favor for a halfway decent deal for the country and our allies, whereas giving the concessions as a gift of good faith would've made us look like the leaders of the free world in favor of peace and ending conflict and likely would've given us the upper hand in future negotiations. More importantly though, many right-wingers want to pretend as if this deal will actually result with North Korea's denuclearization, when really, it does no such thing. All the while, they pretend as if the Iran Deal was the deal that wasn't stopping that nation from developing nukes and it actually was. Do you see what I'm saying here?
Before you try to claim that the Iran Deal and NK "deal" aren't related, just remember that right after the summit, Iran sent North Korea a letter saying to not disarm under no circumstances and that they cannot trust the US to keep their promises. This is the heart of the criticism over what's going on, however, apparently the right wants to flip the entire political environment and pretend as if any valid criticism is now just pro-war rhetoric, which is nonsense. What the neoliberal MSM does and what progressive channels like TYT have been reporting on is completely different and they've said as much over and over again. Just watch their videos that came out today about North Korea. It's valid criticism, but you want to paint any criticism as warmongering even though just 3 weeks ago you were all gung-ho for regime change in Iran.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Bet Your lunch That's one video where the main point is to attack the generals and wokeness (barely little was said about Biden as I said), and then there are several other videos where he literally attacks Biden for saying their job was successful because they evacuated Americans, something Mainstream Media was also attacking Biden for. Videos titled like "Not my Fault says Biden and Kamala" or "Biden Blames VietCong for Afghanistan". And then other videos where he basically just throws blame at Biden for the Afghanistan occupation & being there in the first place. So yeah, right back at you 🤡. Again, it's all about the narrative with that guy. He can't just straight support Biden for withdrawing troops, he's gotta beat around the bush nonstop, give extremely tepid acknowledgment of the withdraw in general, & by attacking wokeness among the generals and media and then does 4-5x the number of videos attacking Biden for dumb shit and cherry picking his speeches & again, Right alongside Mainstream Media who were ripping apart Biden nonstop for the withdraw, his speeches, and Jimmy just ends up attacking Biden for the exact same shit the media was going after him for. How is that "supporting the withdraw" when the majority of your content is attacking the guy who carried it out (for incredibly minor shit like his wording in his speeches) and has the power to reverse it if he feels like he's under too much pressure and criticism.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I see where Yang is coming from and I do believe he's a genuine candidate who believes what he says, but he is very much mischaracterizing Bernie's job's guarantee policy and mischaracterizing his whole position in general, I will explain.
Firstly, a job's guarantee is not to simply "give everyone a federal job", it's purpose is to create jobs either federal or federally funded through private entities, and those jobs, in turn, force private corporations to compete the labor and wages set by government funded entities that create the jobs and set the wages that the market will have to compete with. I won't get anymore into this though, because I think the next part is way more important.
Secondly, if you're serious about this debate, everyone here should read or skim over Bernie's Workplace Democracy Act ( https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/workplace-democracy-act-summary-?inline=file ), it's a bold and robust pro-union pro-worker plan to incentivize worker co-ops and worker representation within leadership roles in already existing corporations that has the effects of creating an economy and democracy in the workplace that works for EVERYONE in a corporation not just the CEOs and board members receiving $500 million for outsourcing deals.
In the the same future scenario that Yang presents where 30% of the workforce is unemployed, under a Workplace Democracy Act and giant reforms to labor laws, we would see a chain of events where workers could prevent automation from taking their jobs in the first place when you have a corporation that, instead of having all the benefits of automation go directly to the Top, to CEOs and top execs, you have automation benefit EVERYONE in a company, where instead of workers losing their jobs and going on a federal basic income, you have workers KEEP their jobs, KEEP their salaries, and the result of automation ends up HALVING their work days or cutting it down by a third, etc. In this proposed economy, you have automation and advances of tech translating to leisure time for the workers, the top execs and CEO, everyone receives an equal share of the benefits of automation through labor laws and regulations on corporations and how they treat their workers as smaller share holders in the company. Everyone owns a piece if they're working for a company, it makes sense guys! I recommend people to at least research it and learn Bernie's full platform.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Exactly, it's the same reason why private Medicare Advantage (insurance companies) is a scam on old people today. They run ads on daytime tv, convince senior citizens it's better and cheaper, yet they end up paying more and screwing their patients over when they need operations, surgery, or some type of expensive medication. Private insurance is a business, they operate on profiting off your health, it's going to be less effective by default based on the concept alone.
The more they screw over their patients, the bigger their profits, it's why our current system is failing and 30,000 to 42,000 people die every year from lack of healthcare.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@wtfyomom All I read from your comment was a bunch of baseless assumptions & out-of-context drivel that in no way reflects anything I just said. "Force the Vote" is not the end-all-be-all for "having healthcare", it wasn't even a strategy that planned on getting the M4A bill passed the House. The leaders of it even conceded up-front, there was less than a 0% chance it would pass. Stop pretending like anyone who is against Jimmy's retarded smear campaign against progressive House members is somehow against "giving people healthcare" - that's the most disingenuous thing I've ever heard, but I'm sure you know that already.
You Dore fanatics have still not even acknowledged the reality that the debate going on is a disagreement in strategy, a disagreement in HOW to get Left-wing policies & the best way to amass power, yet you still pretend that your position is RIGHT & everyone else is WRONG, despite this being a reasonable disagreement, it's honestly childish & a bit Trump-like. Also, I think it's rich that any Dore follower would have the nerve to claim others aren't Bernie supporters, when Dore literally pushed for Tulsi Gabbard last year for the presidency & shunned Bernie throughout the primary until the very last second when Bernie was winning the first 3 primary states. Now Jimmy again claims Bernie is a "sellout", "fraud", blah blah blah, despite the fact that he full-throatedly backed Gabbard, who ended up endorsing Joe Biden OVER Bernie Sanders in the primary (NOT in the general against Trump, in the primary against a Lefty) & then instead of admitting, by that logic, Tulsi is way more of a fraud by his own standards, he instead tried to deflect & blame others & make shit up for why Tulsi just had to endorse Joe Biden. So yeah, that's real fucking rich.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@brian2440 Also, you gave your entire vapid spiel without even acknowledging any history involved in ANYTHING you're saying. The proposal has the name "New Deal" in it for a reason, because it's based off the series of bills and reforms that set The New Deal into action in the 1930s that started gigantic ambitious federal programs that included the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Civil Works Administration, the Farm Security Administration, the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 and the Social Security Administration. This huge undertaking led to a Golden age of economic expansion that peaked around the 1950s when one parent could stay at home and raise the kids, and one could go to work and be financially stable, not to mention the consumer activity was monumental and everyone was buying new appliances and goods because people were not living paycheck to paycheck as they are now. When you say "The Green New Deal is impossible" without even giving a source to your assumptions and remarks, everyone can tell you're full of shit, but when people even say things like "The Green New Deal will bankrupt America", I have a feeling they just don't know anything about our history and how there was a 91% top marginal tax rate when we went through a golden age of economic expansion that was kickstarted by The New Deal reforms that more than likely initially started at the outline stage just as The Green New Deal is at it's first resolution.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Imagine if the entire country had been conservatives since the founding. Without people fighting against conservatism to progress our country towards technology, scientific breakthroughs, and a more civilized way of life think of all the shit that would've never happened. The slaves probably would never have been freed and the country would essentially be treating other people like property still, however, I'm sure that would still be preferable for some conservatives today, which is a scary fucking thought. In addition, we probably never would've had the New Deal to end the Depression, since conservatives hate social security and Democratic "socialism" so much. Honestly, if there were no Democrats, progressives, or any people on the "left" ever in the country, I can see the likely fate of the country to this day having been evolved into some kind of Christian Faith regime with some dictator in power that's actually pretty close to someone like Mike Pence with a little more authoritarianism, who would likely claim he gets his orders from God and that anyone who has doubts about the Lord need to take mandatory trips to "rehabilitation centers". They would probably round up anyone with a skin color that isn't white and put them into work camps, and yeah.. The country would be a super scary place that would be ostracized by the entire rest of the world and country's like North Korea and Syria would probably call UN meetings about what they could do about the inhumane dictatorship of 'Merica (I can see them dropping the "A" eventually).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Briosification Fair enough. If you're just talking about it in theory, then yes, that's how the news in America should be. However, that's not how it actually works for any ideological group in American media. I would also say that the people doing the "Bernie blackout" were not motivated by what would make the country better, they were motivated by what is in the best interests of the company they work for. Bernie Sanders, in no uncertain terms, said he would raise taxes on the rich & corporations, limit the power of corporations & lobbyists, & even go as far as breaking up companies & banks that are "too big to fail". The media companies that were trying to extinguish a leftist movement were doing so out of pure greed & desperation to hold onto power to keep the workers poor & the rich rich. You can make the argument that the MAGA people think they're trying to make society "better", but the problem is that the media apparatus they get their news from are still bought & owned by corporate oligarchs who shovel bullshit to them & have genuinely convinced poor workers that it's in their best interests to cut taxes to billionaires & corporations, have a healthcare system based on greed & financial privilege, & that if the stock market is doing well, they will magically do well & it will trickle down onto them. What your alluding to is kind of the entire problem with American media & why when you watch someone like David & he says he's trying to make things "better", you can be sure he actually means it & he's talking about looking out for the people in America who don't own yachts & 10 mansions. If you genuinely think it's a bad thing he's trying to prioritize his stories in a way that helps society get to a better place, then you haven't been paying attention to just how truly fucked this country is.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Boredasfuck29 He listened to the black lives matter protesters, which in turn made him look like a good leader ready to listen to people's grievances whether they're progressive, neoliberal or conservative, whereas Hillary told a black protester she would "deal with her later" and removed her from her venue. I find it hilarious you and conservatives think that somehow makes him "weak" especially when he's literally the only one standing up to people such as Jeff Bezos, the richest man in the world, and the Walton family, the richest family in the world. Bernie doesn't have to prove anything to people like you with faux 'alpha male' kabuki theater, we already know statements like "you have to kill the terrorists and bomb their families" get you hard, but in the real world, that shit doesn't help anybody, it only forms demagogues that are actually just the Establishment's bitch boy behind closed doors. You would know that if you actually paid attention to what's going on.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@barbiquearea "They are not the police, what they did was essentially vigilante justice" There were no cops around to stop what clearly looked like a school shooter or a kid with a military-style assault rifle shooting into a crowd (I don't know if you've noticed but that's a common occurrence in this country that usually leads to situations with high death tolls & everyone knows it). If this wasn't a political issue, everyone would agree that trying to stop or detain a guy shooting off a giant gun into a crowd would be the moral or even heroic thing to do in a lot of cases, especially when there isn't a cop in sight to do it themselves.
Imagine some guy tries to rob a convenience store with a gun and 3 people try to jump him and stop him, we don't say the same shit about them "If they didn't go after him like that, he would not have shot them." as if you're trying to say they got what they asked for. Except that analogy is being charitable because usually no one gets shot in robberies and it's just a threat over money, the difference here is that Rittenhouse was actively shooting at people in the middle of the street, people were already dying, and do you think Huber or anyone else knew the specifics of what was happening or happened before Rittenhouse began shooting? No. It was said that Huber saw Rittenhouse opening fire in the middle of the street and pushed his girlfriend behind him and went to try to stop the guy. Everyone who knew Huber said he was a nice guy who always wanted to help others, which is exactly what he was trying to do. He didn't deserve to die for doing what he believed was the right thing. Fuck politics and put it aside for just 2 seconds and tell me if you seriously believe it was right or even okay that Huber was shot to death for simply trying to do what he thought was the moral and brave thing.
I don't care about the other two people involved, but I'm extremely sick of people smearing Huber since he was clearly just a young guy with a girlfriend who liked to skateboard and had close friends and family. His parents deserved some kind of justice and they didn't see even a tiny bit of it. They tried to sue the police department for colluding with Rittenhouse and an armed militia of civilians, they tried to at the very least pin Rittenhouse for reckless endangerment or an illegal firearm, but they got nothing. I hope they sue the fuck out of Rittenhouse and the police department in Civil Court, because what happened to their son wasn't right.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TCt83067695 Lol I've said MORE than once that I've been entirely aligned with Kyle on this issue. I've said this many times, you can go back through Kyle's comment sections over the past year and check for yourself. You're just assuming otherwise because I dared to argue with your victimhood nonsense and biases over specific progressive channels. You still never answered my question about Dore and if you consider him a "fake progressive" for ALSO doing hitpieces on AOC, the thing you called Pakman a "fake progressive" for.
I'm sure the fact that I didn't support Russiagate confuses you because you're already jumping to the wild extreme of calling me a "neoliberal" because I disagree with you on something. You're no better than mainstream media hacks calling me and others a "Russian bot", you just substitute Russian bot for "neoliberal apologist", it's pretty sad and ironic actually.
Also, we can add false equivalencies to the list for you as well with conflating Trump calling neo-nazis "fine people" to the very clear-cut reality that people actually argued about Russiagate for 2 years. *GASP*. Noooo, it's too far-fetched to say that people argued and called each other names on both sides, something you're literally doing right now when you mistook me for a Russiagate believer. OF COURSE, the people on your side NEVER said one bad word about Pakman or TYT. Are you a fucking child? I already gave you the prime example that Jimmy Dore flung shit DIRECTLY at TYT's comment section, something no other progressive host did (as far as I know), and you're worried about internet trolls sending angry comments at each other.
Now, are YOU done? Because honestly I'm getting tired of this pointless conversation and getting talked to by a pompous child throwing a Russiagate temper tantrum.
2
-
@TCt83067695 It's fine. This entire comment section was foaming at the mouth, wasn't just you. People were waiting for a pro-Russiagater to dunk on, which is why I had to constantly point out I WASN'T one. For the record I WISHED TYT and Pakman had dropped Russiagate stuff, but unlike the Mainstream Media, they actually focused on the Saudi connections, Israel connections, ZTE controversy and violations of the emoluments clause and constitution, campaign finance violation, in addition to ACTUALLY focusing on real policy the whole time unlike the media. The one part where they were wrong was on any points of "collusion", however that doesn't instantly qualify them as "as bad as CNN".
The media would ONLY focus on Russiagate collusion and ONLY that as going as far to use it as an excuse to not even talk about policy, Pakman, TYT and others focused on all of it, it makes them half-right, half-wrong in my book, while the mainstream media is 100% wrong and terrible especially since they were the ones controlling the questions being asked the president and basically controlling the national narrative on the whole thing. We know that if any progressive media was in their place, TYT would've been focusing on All the unlawful connections while Kyle would've been doing the same thing minus any collusion dead ends.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@damagedcortex1415 I think you're generally unaware or uninformed about just how large Facebook, Google, Comcast, Verizon, and especially Amazon actually are nowadays. It's not about how large their primary platforms are, it's about how they keep buying up other industries that expand upon their original focus and niche on the Internet. Amazon just bought an online pharmacy, that's a far-stretch from how it originally operated in the late 90s where it was just considered an online book store. They own Amazon Web Services (AWS) and any developer can tell you that Amazon owns more than half of all online infrastructure on the entire Internet through AWS, maybe more. Think about hypothetically if Goldman Sachs somehow owned half of all physical infrastructure and properties on planet Earth, it would be a HUGE problem. Another example is Google, who used to just be a search engine, but now it reigns over nearly all streaming content on the Internet on Youtube and not to mention it has it's own chunk of online Infrastructure as well and, with Facebook, basically run all online advertising on the Internet.
You don't understand, these companies basically OWN the internet at this point. Comcast, Verizon and AT&T are the gatekeepers and Amazon, Google, Facebook, and a very select few others oversee all infrastructure, platforms, and tools on the entirety of the Internet at this point. The problem far exceeds just looking at their social media platforms and how they all have a firm grasp on ALL social media, these corporations grow larger every year and they need to be stopped.
2
-
@damagedcortex1415 That's just not true though. If you want to stop Amazon from buying online pharmacies and continuing to sell online infrastructure, it won't affect Amazon.com, the ecommerce site, at all. I'll give you an example of just how absurdly strong Amazon is and WHY Jeff Bezos is the richest man alive. Amazon Web Services sells online infrastructure to Netflix, Reddit, Pinterest, Expedia, Etsy, Airbnb, Autodesk, Adobe, Coursera, Soundcloud, Spotify, Linkdn, Foursquare, Inuit (Quickbooks/Turbotax), Yelp, and Newsweek. ALL those companies basically pay an online form of rent to Amazon for using their infrastructure. Google and Facebook have similar problems, though different from Amazon because they have a gigantic grasp on all advertising online and other areas of the Internet where they dominate through monetary gains. Facebook and Google's main revenue does not even come from their social media applications, it comes from the stuff they do on top of that, where they take a percentage of purchases through advertising revenue all over the web and have now begun to expand past just simple ad revenue as their main income. Facebook bought Oculus Rift a few years back and they buy up new enterprises all the time as does Google. You're not seeing the bigger picture here.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Crista Ferrari-Girault Yes and do you know which side of that spectrum agrees with the European systems? If Europe was apart of America, they would 100% be considered in that "extreme far Left" that Yang likes to wag his finger over. The American system is so skewed to the Right, no other 1st world country compares. Does your country have Universal Healthcare? Because that's what Yang is referring to when he talks about "the 10% extreme" of the Left. In European countries like the UK or Spain, the Conservative parties in those countries supports their single payer or other forms of universal healthcare systems. In this country, our Conservative Party literally calls Universal Healthcare communism, they call subsidized housing and government financed universities and trade schools communism or socialism. If they get any whiff of a social safety net to help people under the poverty line or the 500,000 homeless in America, they start screaming about Socialism and Communism. You shouldn't compare America to European countries without being fully aware of just how absurd our political spectrum is.
Saying things are "moving Forward" might sound good, but politics is about the POLICY and unfortunately the Forward Party has no ideology or policy, if you listen to Yang for more than 2 minutes, he all but admits that and can't even tell you if his Party supports things like universal healthcare or not. All he can tell you for a fact is that his party will take corporate donations and PAC money. I don't know what country you're from, but this type of "centrist" politics has already been done for decades, it's called Third Way politics and it's most notable advocates were Tony Blair in the UK and the Clintons in America. And even if he is serious about the party pushing ranked-choice voting, taking corporate PAC money and accepting money from corporations is an action that will corrupt the party and is contradictory to ranked-choice voting. You can see right here how Jim Acosta and mainstream media are diametrically opposed to giving other third parties more power, and even IF the Forward Party gains more power, well now you have another party that is corrupted by big business and the revolving door in US politics. Congrats, you've just created a 2nd Democratic Party run by a centrist do-nothing ideology that the current Democratic Party already believes in.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@adlucem9845 Oh please, Bernie is the polar opposite to Trump. Stop regurgitating nonsense you hear on CNN that has no substantive quality behind it. They wanna call Bernie "just like Trump" because first of all, they hate him, but secondly their "evidence" is that both Bernie and Trump have the biggest bases of support. That should be the reason for WHYYY we nominate him to go against Trump, but when you look at those bases of support, one is calling for everyone to have healthcare in America, tackle Climate Change head-on, and "Fight for someone you don't even know", while Trump's base want to blame immigrants for everything, build a Wall, and deregulate the economy through tax cuts and stripping environmental protections because they're Climate Change deniers. Do you have anything to actually say other than "both supporters have been mean to me in the past, so they clearly same!" Very enlightening stuff.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@auntiebobbolink is partly correct. I do not agree with PayGo one tiny bit, I want to make that very clear, but there seems to be quite a bit of hysteria about this right now. The Dems had PayGo before, and still passed the ACA and other legislation. It forsure just adds another hurdle to Med4All and others, but I don't think it's the end-all-be-all as many people are trying to make it out to be. For one, we're living in an age of Trump, so Medicare for All and ALLLLL the other progressive legislation will never pass anyways, and by the time Trump is out of office, there could be a new Rules Package that does not include PayGo depending on if the party continues to shift Left for the next 2 years (which it will). As for the criticisms against the progressives that voted for the rules package, they did NOT vote directly for PayGo, PayGo was slipped in there in a slimy way and if not for Pramila Jayapal and other progressives working on a compromise, we would've gotten PayGo AND the 3/5 tax rule which was arguably much MUCH worse considering it made it so any legislation that raised taxes on the middle class would need a super majority in the House. The progressives working on the package made sure that did not happen, so I find it hard to be that mad at them since they WERE fighting for us while simultaneously receiving a ton of shit from people for a half-measure. The thing is though that many Youtube commentators were wrong in their analysis on the vote, the Dems needed far more than 18 votes to vote down the Rules Package since many Republicans ended voting for it, so if not for the progressives that worked on the compromise, we would've gotten both PayGo and the tax rule and it would've been far more disastrous. People won't acknowledge this because anger is far easier to cope with than understanding the semantics of politics, but this IS the reality of the situation and even if every progressive in the House voted against the Rules Package, it still would've gone through and we would be in far worse shape. Politics sucks, but people need to realize that nobody "sold out" on this issue, they were given an impossible situation to deal with and they chose to minimize damage to their agenda rather than appease their base with vapid actions that would've only made things worse.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Progressive For Trump "Obviously, you just admitted Kyle wants Open Borders by Criticizing Biden for deporting more illegal aliens than Trump" I'm 100% certain I said no such thing. The point was that you're completely delusional if you think Biden has "Open Borders" policies to begin with when he's been more conservative on immigration than Trump was, at least in terms of mass deportations. Look at the fucking stats and numbers, Biden has deported more immigrants in one year than Trump has in all 4 years he was president - yeah, that just screams "Open Borders". The only people that believe that are Fox News grandpas. Here in the real world, Biden is a massive hypocrite on immigration because he refuses to shut down the "detention centers" that Trump was most known for & Biden railed against him. In reality, You should be fucking thrilled by Biden's immigration policy because in most cases, it's more Draconian & conservative than Trump's, but here you are making claims of Open Borders when Biden is basically crossing off your whole xenophobic wishlist. I find this issue among conservatives and conservative media viewership to be one of the most pathetic realities of the Biden era, it's even worse than how liberals are acting like Biden is far better than Trump on immigration & ignoring the fact that he's kept the kids in cages even though those same people were outraged Trump was doing the same thing. I'll repeat, you're delusions regarding immigration is worse than even the neoliberals' hypocrisy on this subject. & honestly, that should embarrass you to no end.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+tomatodamashi - That is just factually wrong. Our Revolution, Justice Democrats and DSA have nearly a 50% win rate. Yes, the larger offices are harder to win because more money is involved (Cortez was outspect 10 to 1 along with many candidates), but they are winning large majorities of smaller offices. How many politicians does the Green Party have in office? They have like one mayor of a small bureau of San Francisco and one politician at a State level (Maine state House), they had another in the Arkansas House, but that person re-registered as a Democrat in 2014, and then all the rest the Greens have in office are on town councils, local administrators, and members on school boards. Stop being a pessimistic douche. Our Revolution, Justice Democrats, and DSA have people going into federal Congress, governorships, mayoral positions, and tons of lower offices. This is likely just a warmup for 2020 too. I hope the Greens and other progressives win their races in the future, but THIS way is winning for sure and you're trying to downplay that just as Pelosi was the other day.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MindfulByMoonlight I mean, I'm not doubting your experience at all, just pointing out that for someone else, the idea of standing in the doorway is not the same threat level as when it comes from a person whose done something (or capable of doing something) as insane and mental as holding a knife to others, period. I think it's pretty clear that guy was a massive piece of shit/psycho &/or was naturally violent, so I'm sure any scenario where he's looming over you or in a bad mood is going to be intimidating no matter what the implication is. Being in a bad mood might be a scary situation when around that person, but around a more normal/chill partner who just needs to eat ice cream, relax and take their mind off the day, it's not a threatening situation at all.
I think in your situation you're describing, things are very clear cut, but in a more equal relationship where neither partner has shown any physical threat or abuse to one another, it's a lot more nuanced and complicated when specifically talking about standing in a doorway. Holding a knife to someone leaves no room for ambiguity though and if anyone does this to you, you should obviously get out and never look back.
Either way, I sympathize with you if your situation got that bad. I can't believe some of the lengths some men will go to. The only domestic violence I've ever heard of anecdotally was when one of my friends (a girl) stabbed my other friend for cheating on her multiple times, but I'm sure if you're in a situation where the guy is a gorilla that can seriously hurt you and put you in a coma when he's having a bad day, it's gotta be messed up in a whole different kind of way and leads to scenarios where you feel trapped & purposefully isolated.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Glenn-hm8sb You're the one whose out of touch. You sound like your living in the political sphere from 5 years ago. Yes, Joe Rogan did endorse Bernie 5 years ago in the 2020 primary and yes, Bernie Sanders IS basically just Scandinavian politics, but I haven't heard Rogan say one actual leftist thing for literal years now. This matters, and just assuming he has the same beliefs despite all he's done and said since is pretty naïve & you simply just sound biased because you like the guy for non-political reasons. Every now and then I will hear Rogan push back against some of his most extreme right-wing guests, but when the guy hasn't even slightly gone to bat over things like universal healthcare, climate change policy, higher corporate tax rates, police reform, etc, then you know he's not actually left-wing whatsoever, especially when he's said and discussed all sorts of right-wing beliefs with his far-right guests since (Ben Shapiro for instance or other countless anti-woke, libertarian or pro-Trump guests). I can't even remember the last left-wing person he had on his podcast - I think it might've been Bill Burr, whose just a comedian, not a political analyst of any sort. There's infinitely more evidence to prove my argument on this. You need to update yourself on the Rogan Experience if you think nothing has changed in the last few years; this is the same problem Johnny Harris has in this video.
Edit: One of the only Left-wing things I've heard Rogan say in the last 4 years has been about admitting the IDF are committing atrocities & that Israel are suffering from generational trauma (a pretty 'duh' position that even Alex Jones has admitted), but this isn't even a unique leftist position as many libertarians and neo-conservatives also align on this. You just can't make the argument Rogan is left-wing when he doesn't even espouse any specific left-wing arguments anymore.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Unclejamsarmy I'm talking about Libertarian in the economic sense, a school of thought that I, personally, think is incredibly foolish especially when you push it to its conclusion of anarcho-Capitalism. I'll admit that I don't know all the specifics of Yang's plan on UBI, but the general idea of enacting a form of UBI while slashing the social safety net gives me great concern whether a plan like that will actually help or hurt the working class in the long run. There's a very real chance that it could just act as a metaphorical band-aid to appease the working class all the while not fixing things like healthcare, education, a living wage, affordable housing, etc.
If Yang was elected president and his first act was to push for UBI BEFORE any of those things I just mentioned, especially Medicare for All, then it could potentially appease workers in the short-term and fizzle out any political movement or grassroots support going on from the bottom up. I like the general idea of UBI and also think that it will be inevitable in our future society, but I would highly advise that we fix our healthcare system, fix the tax code, try to remove money in politics, and THEN push for something like UBI so all the corrupting variables are out of the equation so there is no possibility that a corrupting force could misuse UBI to kneecap the political movement going on this country for workers.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Tijggie82 So I was also having trouble getting to the bottom of the Department of Defense vote. I've tried looking it up more than once and today I finally got to the bottom of it. I found out that chart in the tweet was correct. About both Tulsi Gabbard and Kirsten Gillibrand. The exact vote in the House (and Senate) was titled "HR 6157 - Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 - National Key Vote", it gave increases in appropriations to the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force as its primary appropriations though it had several more appropriations as well. For more context, it did some good stuff like increasing salaries for military personnel, but one thing I did notice is that it increased funding for Charter schools under its Education appropriations.
Tulsi voted for it in the House, and Gillibrand voted for it in Senate, whereas Bernie was only 1 out of 5 Dems to vote against it.
Going through her list, I also noticed Tulsi voted for "H J Res 1 - Making Further Continuing Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for Fiscal Year 2019, and for Other Purposes - National Key Vote" and also another similar bill "H J Res 31 - Making further continuing appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2019, and for other purposes - National Key Vote". The main purpose of these bills were to amend the 2019 DoD appropriations but also to make funds available to Homeland Security. It looks like Tulsi might've voted for them because they had clauses in them expediting compensation to government workers effected by the shutdown, so these votes might be more explainable than the Appropriations one. I still think they're important to note though because they amend the appropriations.
Links Here: https://votesmart.org/bill/25215/64448/129306/department-of-defense-and-labor-health-and-human-services-and-education-appropriations-act-2019#.XPscK4hKiUk
https://votesmart.org/bill/25775/65243/129306/making-further-continuing-appropriations-for-the-department-of-homeland-security-for-fiscal-year-2019-and-for-other-purposes#.XPscqohKiUk
https://votesmart.org/bill/25964/65900/129306/making-further-continuing-appropriations-for-the-department-of-homeland-security-for-fiscal-year-2019-and-for-other-purposes#.XPsdv4hKiUk
List of Tulsi's votes: https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/129306/tulsi-gabbard/?p=1#.XPscgYhKiUk
List of Gillibrand's votes: https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/65147/kirsten-gillibrand#.XPssJIhKiUk
List of Bernie's votes: https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders#.XPsfFYhKiUk
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@johnmaltby134 YOU might, but most of your MAGA brotheren will call Clinton and Pelosi the leftiest people in America and even go as far to call them progressives, which is beyond comical. That's like if I were to call Paul Ryan a fascist and the farthest right Tea Party member. Also, Communism and Socialism are examples of failed systems in the USSR and Venezuela (which are also dictatorships I might add), but Democratic Socialism aka Social Democracy is thriving in Scandanavia and several nations of Europe while places like Japan, Canada, Australia, the UK and others have more socialized forms of government than ours that provide Universal Healthcare (EVEN Israel, the nation we give massive aide to has Single Payer, while America DOESN'T). You claiming "the lefties embrace socialism" is just fear-mongering. Socialism is government built-bridges, government-run schools and even Medicare which rates at a 85% approval rating while Medicare-for-All rates at a 70%. The "Lefties" just want what everyone in this country wants starting with Medicare-for-All, Net Neutrality, and a living wage. Or are we "embracing Communism" too much for you that you will fight us on those things?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@stevendailey22 I like how you're still making excuses for her as she currently goes full Dave Rubin and full Pat Robertson on Fox News. "Kyle lied about her positions on m4a" - Not sure what you're even referring to specifically, but it's pretty clear that Tulsi no longer supports Medicare for All or even an expansion of basic Medicare since she literally just came out attacking the Medicare expansion in the BBB. Seems pretty straight forward to me, but yeah, let's talk about back when she was pretending to be a leftist while running for President (either that, or she's pretending to be a neoconservative now for money, either one is incredibly awful), she DID backpedal from Medicare for All and created some "Single Payer Plus" watered down plan, that only differed from M4A in the sense that it was more beneficial for private insurance companies - not sure how a Leftist can look at that and think she's still for Medicare for All, when she couldn't even hold onto her support for it through half of the presidential primary.
You act as if Tulsi hasn't said the god awful shit she's been saying recently (And yes regarding Afghanistan, drone strikes, supporting corporate Democrats like Manchin and every other appalling thing under the sun); you're acting like it's still 2 years ago and she's still championing Medicare for All and ending wars, while in reality, she defends constant and uncontrolled drone strikes in a country we shouldn't even be in & helping to wage the US's shadow war in Africa, something she clearly has no issues with whatsoever given her recent interviews. Also, the rest of the stuff she's said has just been one shit sandwich after another. Can't believe she still has defenders that are dumb enough to defend and make excuses for her even despite making a complete Dave Rubin metamorphosis.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@eworldRick Except he's mainly pulling people from the left side of the spectrum. Yes, he still gets some right-wingers from time to time, but remember Yang ran in the Democratic Party's primary and most of his existing supporters were on that side of the spectrum. He's not quitting the Republican Party, he's making a big show of quitting the Democratic Party, which is why Tucker Carlson is thrilled to have him on so he can do the whole "Why I Left the Left" line of questioning, even if it's not technically accurate (or maybe it is, I really have no idea anymore what Yang believes). Add to the fact that his party is just going to be another corporatist party that still accepts PAC money & is basically slowly rotted from the inside out whether it gets popular or not, you know, cause that's what big money does. I don't see this as being a win for working families one way or the other; at best, I see it as being impartial & irrelevant to the public or the Left-wing. I guess time will tell, but so far, not a good start.
2
-
@Hydr0matic It's so bizarre talking to people who support Yang because the guy above you is literally arguing about how Yang could potentially get half the Republican Party to sign onto his agenda, while you're arguing "he supported and voted for Bernie". It's stuff like this that makes me wonder whether Yang's own supporters even understand where he truly stands on the issues.
What I see as the objective reality from looking at Yang's policies though is that he is far more of a Libertarian on a lot, if not most, issues - his UBI is the Libertarian version where it's slashing ("replacing") social programs, he wants to place sunset clauses on all gov't regulations (which is some big L libertarian stuff), & then he has the general cultural libertarian ideals that line up with Leftists such as drug decriminalization & so on. Then I would say he's a standard neoliberal on foreign policy, where he's basically said he would imprison Julian Assange and whistleblowers because they're "criminals", & then his problematic views on Israel & US allies that are human-rights violators; aside from that, he barely even comments on foreign policy. Also, the fact that he doesn't support the incredibly popular spending bill, but defends the bipartisan infrastructure bill that's just a huge giveaway to private special interests tends to, at least partially, land him in the category of a neoliberal corporatist (most of whom ARE actually supporting the spending bill minus Manchin and Sinema).
I can guarantee, there's no way Yang still supports Bernie's version of Social Democracy (if he ever did), considering 1. as I just said, he doesn't even support the $3.5 Trillion spending bill, 2. he endorsed Joe Biden over Bernie Sanders in the Dem Primary, 3. he took an adversarial stance against Bernie on most issues in the 2020 Democratic Primary, even on Medicare for All where he waffled & backpedaled halfway through his campaign & 4. he's essentially called his economic approach "human-centered capitalism", which is the exact opposite to Bernie who calls himself a Democratic Socialist but employs a more Social Democratic form of economics as a current (maybe temporary) compromise to our current hyper-capitalist system and body of government. At this point in 2021, it's pretty senseless to even try to correlate him to Bernie Sanders.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I believe that tech companies need to be broken up, however, it's still a logical fallacy to both sides the argument when the reason this is happening is because there was a violent insurrection at the Capital that were beating cops to death & trying to take federal legislators as hostages. The Left might be loud, vocal, & active, but they're not maniacs who resort to violence as a collective group - the most you'll see are looters & rioters who take advantage of the situation but are completely denounced by the majority of Left protesters & especially denounced by leftist politicians (no matter what baseless horseshit the Right loves to make up about BLM or how Antifa is hiding under every rock). Meanwhile, you have Trump coddling his supporters for doing an armed coup & saying they're special and loves them. Tech companies should not be censoring speech, but this response is not surprising given the circumstances, & at the end of the day, they're still private companies with their own political opinions, which are operated in the US where corporations are apparently people. The problem is again the system, not the people on the other side of the political issue that are not bothered by Trump getting kicked off Twitter. Belittling them as "unprincipled" simply because they refuse to go to bat for a neo-fascist whose had every opportunity to do a peaceful transition of power is kind of ridiculous.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ideafix What the fuck are you talking about "character" for? I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. Bernie is nearly entirely made out of pure progressive policy, he cares about the issues and the policies, which is why he's had success with his STOP Bezos/Walmart bills and lead the charge for ending the arms sales to Saudis in Yemen. Not only that, but he has gigantic name recognition, so even if you, for some weird reason, think Gabbard is a better candidate because she has "character" (?), she won't nearly have the success Bernie will have running for president.
I just don't understand the fawning over Gabbard, she's not even very active compared to other progressives and the last time I saw her propose something was over a year ago when she had a hearing for paper ballots that received no traction in the House. I would pick Ro Khanna any day over Gabbard in the House, he gets shit done, is smart and very efficient even given the political climate where he has nearly no friends in Washington, the same situation Bernie is in within the Senate.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Tucker was deflecting ridiculously hard there because he doesn't want to admit or acknowledge that nearly 98% of the science community is in agreement that climate change is massively exacerbated by humans and it is getting worse and worse every year at which the rate increases so it will get exponentially worse as time goes by. That is what Nye was trying to explain to Tucker by saying "It's the rate". It means climate change is speeding up in raising the average global temperature, which will cause the ocean level to very slowly rise every year, which may not seem like it's much of a threat, but changes in our climate such as the sea level rising by 1-3 inches can cause unnatural weather patterns and harsher weather conditions such as record breaking downpours and hurricanes as we saw with Harvey and Maria just last year where they both broke records for amount of downpour, destruction, and number of lives lost, which we now know Hurricane Maria beat Katrina where Maria had 4,645 American citizens in Puerto Rico killed while Katrina only had 1,800, and the most deadliest hurricane in American history was Hurricane Okeechobee in 1928 where 2500 people died. Maria beat all of them, and we will likely have an even deadlier one pretty soon according to what scientists are predicting will be the deadly costs of climate change, and you really have to wonder when people will start to admit that it is massive problem.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ep330 This is all mostly subjective since 'wokeness' cannot be realistically measured, but when I, personally, think of someone becoming "woke", I see it as a change in one's behavior on a cultural level. An example would be if someone was engaging in identity politics as a way to appeal to people culturally without having to do any real work on the policy level. What Bernie calls for with immigration reform and all his other policies in his platform are actual political goals that he's serious about obtaining, not just woke rhetoric or displays. An example of being "woke" without the policy substance would be like when George Floyd died and everyone and their mother was putting forth support for Black Lives Matter, but in reality the government, both parties, and all the companies claiming to support Civil Rights were doing nothing to actually change the brutal criminal justice system & regulate or reform the police state that lead to George Floyd being strangled to death.
In other words, "wokeness" or woke rhetoric is not a negative quality if you actually back it up with substance & real policy goals. The reason it has such a bad reputation is that it's commonly used by contemporary politicians to win voters with rhetoric without putting any of the work in to change the real issues in government & society. Bernie is & has always been the exception, where he actually pushes for the things he tweets and speaks about. Your perception that he's "become more woke" is just a shift in Bernie's ideology & platform, where over the past 5 years, he's shifted to the Left on several issues & yes immigration is one of them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@-TheChurchOfTruth- Are you trying to say it doesn't matter if she's fighting for a $3.5 Trillion infrastructure package in Congress? Because last time I checked, that was her job, it's reasonable when people get mad at her when they feel she's not standing her ground in Congress, but if you're saying you're going to be outraged (or faux outraged) every time she doesn't join a protest in her free time simply because it's within her vicinity, I don't know what to tell you. Voters didn't send her to Washington to join every single protest as a requirement. When politicians like her, Cory Bush and others do join or hold protests, we can commend them for going above and beyond, but to try to hold that as a requirement is pretty unreasonable/ridiculous & it already feels like you're just fishing for reasons to attack her because you have an inherent bias against her. The same people saying "Well why didn't she join the protest?" are the same people who, when she is protesting, say stuff like "Joining the protest is her just grandstanding and means nothing, she needs to stand up in Congress", so which is it? She never wins with unreasonable people like you, but personally for me, it primarily only matters that she's standing her ground in Congress on this bill, I don't care what she does outside of that, which is why this dress crap is so trivial and the equivalent of tabloid journalism in the first place.
2
-
@-TheChurchOfTruth- I did explain it to you; you just didn't listen. Read it again. I don't care what she does in her free time and the fact that you do just emphasizes your own bias against her, when she's actually doing the Correct things in Congress right now, which is 100% the most important things when it comes to these politicians. You're acting like her biggest impact is some random protest or some dinner, when she's literally a public figure to begin with because of her position in Congress and her power to vote on & effect legislative bills. Your priorities are completely backwards, but like I said, I'm sure you would be whining about the opposite if she, for instance, wasn't fighting for the $3.5 Trillion package while also holding public protests - you would say "Nothing she's doing matters, she needs to fight in Congress". I'm not even an AOC fan, but your arguments are completely ridiculous & it's obvious your just fishing for reasons to attack her because your obsessed for whatever reason. What should matter is her actions in Congress and if she backs down on the $3.5 Trillion deal, then it's fair game to criticize her. The fact that you're just attacking her over a dinner, a dress, a protest outside a building she was in and probably 100 other things you can make up on the spot, just highlights how unserious you are with all this. Also, "a 30k dress, pay 30k for a dinner"? Did you not even listen to the story? She didn't pay for the dinner because she was invited and she likely didn't even pay for the dress considering her relationship to the designer. Stop making shit up to try to bolster your shitty arguments, it doesn't even matter anyways ffs.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Immigrants that shaped America:
Thomas Paine (founding father),
Alexander Hamilton (founding father),
James Wilson (founding father),
Andrew Carnegie,
John Muir,
Nikola Tesla,
Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Albert Einstein,
Joseph Pulitzer,
founder of Google Sergey Brin,
3 of George Washington's original Supreme Court members,
4 of the first 6 Secretaries of Treasury appointed by Washington,
William Duane who risked his life to protect US civil liberties
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jasonsausville5325 That's exactly the part I was responding to. Kyle was making a point against corruption as the core issue. Addressing the 2 party system as the only reason we don't have Climate Change action is fundamentally inaccurate, because if you, say, have 3 corporate parties instead of 2, it will just be the 3 parties doing the same old "bipartisanship" to ensure they screw us on climate action, unions, and wars. He's not attacking the idea of a multi-party system in any way, he's saying that addressing it as the core problem like Yang has been doing is just simply inaccurate and misses the real core problem in politics - that being the corporate influence, corruption, revolving door, and takeover of the federal government by corporations and elites.
He's talked about this issue many times before, and he's made his opinions pretty clear by this point. He gives Yang credit for focusing on ranked choice voting and is all for having a viable 3rd party even if he thinks it's a long shot, but he's against the fact that Yang refuses to swear off corporate PAC money for his upcoming party, which is why he has to make it a point to talk about the corruption as the core reason affecting our politics not simply having a 3rd party available - it matters greatly what kind of party that 3rd party is going to be.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@elitalks258 If your statement about Richard Spencer was accurate, I would agree with you. I don't agree with liberals that call everything racist, the same feeling I have towards Ben Shapiro when he calls everyone anti-semites just because they disagree with him on Israeli foreign policy. That's the difference between you and I, I disavow all forms of weaponized identity politics, because it's all toxic and deflects from the real issues. Your problem is that you think just because I'm on the Left, I have to automatically agree or indirectly defend this nonsense, which basically demonstrates your own misinformed views on this subject that people like Crowder, Carlson, and Shapiro have instilled in their audience. The idea that the entire Left are blue-haired irrational feminazis who hate white people.
You ever wonder why groups like Prager U and Koch-funded media prop up this tiny percentage of the Left? Perhaps it's because they know they can't win "the battle of ideas" on important issues like class inequality and single payer healthcare, so they have to deflect to social issues that don't matter at all in the grand scheme of things, but still invoke emotional reactions in people like you when you see irrational lefty political correctness as if it's the only issue that matters. Maybe you should seek out neoliberals and Kamala Harris supporters if you want to reinforce your own biases, because it's likely you're going to find no progressives that agree with what that high school/college girl said here. All you legitimately had to do was watch David Pakman's entire reaction to understand that much, and Pakman is one of the more mild progressive voices on this subject.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No, that's just how you interpreted it. It's basically a fact that healthcare for all, tuition for all, a living wage, affordable housing, prison reform, and criminal justice reform would disproportionately help black communities over any other community due to the fact that those issues, in reverse, ALREADY disproportionately effect black communities in a negative way in the past. It is the most realistic way to help the black community. "Cutting a check" is up to Congress and it will never happen unless ADOS started a colossal movement to elect representatives that specifically support reparations, which polls at about 38% among the American people and probably nearly 0-1% among politicians. Not to mention MLK Jr. spent the last years of his life working to better the lives of all Americans in poverty, not just a specific portion of black Americans excluding even descendants of Caribbean slaves and all other minorities.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Good to see people on the Left working together. Pretty sure these guys, Mike Figueredo, and maybe one or two others like Krystal Ball & Hasan Piker have always been on the same or similar wavelength. It'd be good to try to see these guys reach out to other shows on the Left from RT, Lee Camp, Democracy Now, Pakman, Seder, and maybe even Jimmy Dore and TYT. Eventually maybe talking to more Mainstream Media figures like Medhi Hasan or Morning Joe. Lot disagreements between some of those people, but if everyone starts dialogue, then a lot of shit might get figured out & you could actually expand the coalition, maybe start creating direct communication with House leftists & be able to pressure/influence them more.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@waltergrace565 Yes, Musk basically bought a struggling company that recorded losses for 6 of the 8 years since its IPO. I don't know where you're getting those numbers, but Twitter has averaged about $347 million in annual losses for the last 8 years, though between 2018 and 2019 they averaged about $1.34 Billion in profit, so it was absolutely possible Musk could've turned their recent losses in 2020 and 2021 around. However, Musk bought a struggling company and quickly turned it into a failing company, making their financial problems exponentially worse with his arguably hairbrained decisions and record-breaking mismanagement.
I don't know why you would think Musk has an interest free loan. His $14 billion loan he used to purchase Twitter has anywhere from $1 Billion to $1.5 Billion in annual interest rates. Now that Musk is the owner of a now privately owned Twitter, those annual interest payments now become Twitter's annual losses. So, Musk *had the chance to at least make $450 Million in profit if he could've managed the company as well as their 2019 fiscal year where they received a little less than $1.5 Billion in net profit, but he's fucked all that up royally with his petty childish tweeting, dumbass decisions like Twitter Blue, and insane mismanagement that led to laying off over 80% of Twitter employees, including many he had to beg to come back to run the core systems.
Lastly, Tesla isn't failing, its stock is just drastically falling (down 60% iirc) because of Musk's actions with Twitter and his mask-off 2022 moments that are making people realize people like Musk, Kanye and even Zuckerberg are not geniuses but actually pretty fucking dumb in their own right.
Source for Twitter's profit/loss for last 10 years: https://www.businessofapps.com/data/twitter-statistics/
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You need to look at it in a broader scope. In a time of massive class income inequality in this country when 50% of Americans make less than $34,000 a year and 60% of Americans can't afford a surprise $400 expense without having to borrow the money, it is only detrimental to males that it is a cultural expectation that they need to get the bill to show their self-worth to females in our society. When feminists demand equal pay and to close the wage gap completely, which I agree with, it comes off as somewhat hypocritical that the cultural norms we have in western civilization are, in fact, causing men to be financially unequal to women. Sure this is not all women, and maybe it's not usually too much of a financial burden for most, but it's still an issue and if we truly want men and women to be completely equal both financially and culturally, then we need to start demanding for equality in both a professional atmosphere, in politics, and in culture between men and women in relationships, marriages, or in the work place. If women and feminists are serious about this and for TRUE equality and not just empowering women in our culture and in business, they would be supportive of getting rid of these cultural norms that cause constant pressure on men to exert financial power to show their self-worth to women otherwise there is usually a silent shame to the fact that they are not "paying for their woman" and the woman has to pay for her half of a meal, a date, a vacation, the groceries, and the list goes on. First we all need to be honest about this and acknowledge the fact that there is a cultural inequality with men that cost them financially in the end, and we need to work to reverse the shame that occurs in our culture when a woman pays for her fair share in a relationship or marriage. Giving gifts to each other is great and usually a sign of affection, but what we have now goes beyond that to the point where men feel shamed and lesser if they are unable or unwilling to pay for everything a woman does, and even if women want to deny that this is still an issue they can't avoid the reality that this is still very existent in our culture.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@billderinbaja3883 I just gave you exact reasons and polling evidence why Bernie would've won, especially in 2016 where you literally just admitted Hillary was an awful candidate and "lost to the absolute worst candidate in the history of American politics". If both Bernie and Biden were tying Trump in head-to-head matchups & you admit Biden can beat Trump but not Hillary, then it's just nonsense if you're then going to try to deny that Bernie would've actually won in the general election in 2016 and the evidence shows he would've won in 2020 too.
On the contrary though, when you say "the working class hate Progressivism" when progressive/leftist policies like Medicare for All (like the NHS in the UK), childcare, tuition free college and so on are some of the core examples of how to heal the working class from their constant loss of wealth, the shrinking of the middle class, & the enormous number of people that go into medical bankruptcy every year, then I really just have to say your full of shit or have no idea what you're talking about. It's true that Mainstream Media do constant propaganda to muddle these issues & constantly try to put a dent in the popularity of Universal Healthcare, but even despite the media's elitist biases & anti-worker propaganda, those policies are still some of the most popular policies in the country. You're just making shit up if you seriously think "progressive" policies are unpopular when the polls are clear and show the facts. Find me a single poll where Medicare for All is underwater or even under 50%, it's not a thing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@459dirello4 How did she backpedal? What happened was Jimmy spread the rumor and overreaction that her statement was an "endorsement" and eventually one of the lesser known progressives reached out to her campaign and her campaign said what she casually said in that interview was not an endorsement. So even her own team clarified she was not endorsing anyone and yet Jimmy kept pushing the idea anyways. In that interview, Jake Tapper was trying to trap her into saying she didn't support other Democrats and make her out to be self-serving, which is why that conversation went the direction it went. Tapper did the same exact thing to her with Medicare for All in that interview, the whole thing was just propaganda meant to make her slip up in one way or the other. The reason Jimmy did a story on it was not because of any news of an "endorsement", it was because Jimmy wanted any fucking reason to prove his strategy was the correct strategy and the takeover of the Democratic Party would never work, that's literally the conclusions he made and if you think he was just saying that based on logic, you're a fool. The man works backwards from his own conclusions non-stop, which is why he thinks creating a People's Party, the 33rd newest political party in the US, is somehow a GOOD idea when the Greens have been trying to get 50 state ballot access for decades and still haven't gotten full representation.
We're living in an age where Bernie Sanders has shifted the overton window and taken control of the narrative in the Democratic Party so effectively, that the majority of the candidates are either progressive or faking being progressive because that's the only way to win with the base. Meanwhile, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar are putting Israel and Netanyahu's regime on task for the first time possibly ever. While all this is happening, Jimmy is screaming into the void about how Bernie and Justice Democrats aren't effective and will never change politics. THEY ALREADY HAVE. Bernie Sanders could be president in 2 years and Jimmy would still be screaming about how we need a People's Party, he has about as much sense as a neoliberal Washington Democratic strategist (in other words, none at all and you should probably do the exact opposite of anything he recommends).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@eriklakeland3857 Firstly, Bernie called for a $2,000 guaranteed income for the duration of pandemic before the pandemic even hit America. Even if it was a question about UBI, the choice was still crystal clear. Saying Yang "made a damage reduction calculation" sounds like serious pretzel tying. He could've jumped in any time, but didn't, & even when he jumped in, the primary was not over. Yang's Biden endorsement only helped the neolibs speed up a loss for the Left & lead us to the eventually Third Way nightmare we're in now. I'm not voting for Bernie Sanders in 2024 due to his own willingness to endorse Biden after the primary (I doubt he was even going to run), but when it comes to Yang, he's deluding himself if he thinks he's getting a lot of the Left's vote in 2024 after he endorsed THE corporate-puppet establishment candidate in the 2020 primary. Doesn't matter if it was after Super Tuesday or not, Bernie voters & Leftists are pissed at Bernie for even endorsing Biden in the general at all, & Yang endorsed him in the primary when there was a pro-worker anti-war candidate opposing him.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'm not a fan of David Pakman, but I think most of the anchors on The Young Turks are good. Ana, Cenk, and John Iadarola are obviously the A game and there are a few others that are decent. They're producer with the dreadlocks always weighs in with a lot of sense too. I do agree that they should lose some of the dead weight though. I don't like any of the women besides Ana some of the guests who make a lot of good points on the show, but they do have a lot of women that obsessively push the 3rd wave feminism narrative and it pisses me off because they wouldn't even be talking about it on TYT if weren't for the select few women that push it. I hate the absolute shit out of Hannah Cranston, she is irritating beyond no bounds, and the guy who always sounds derpy as fuck should go too. He's the one who looks like he's a truck driver with a brain condition.
Saying TYT is "pro-establishment" though is an utterly stupid thing to say unless you just don't watch the show enough to know better. They are just as against the establishment as Kyle is, and if you really think otherwise, you should go and watch any of the videos they do on neo-liberals, Hillary Clinton, Trump (yes, establishment), and anything to do with center politicians. They literally founded "Justice Democrats" with Kyle. It doesn't get anymore anti-establishment than founding an organization that is at the forefront of a political revolution against the big money establishment. At least on the Democratic side. Tell me, where is the populist driven revolutionaries against the big money establishment on the right-wing side? Against Trump and all his Goldman Sachs and Big Pharma employees? Because as far as I can tell, the best you got is Alex Jones and he sucks Trump's dick on a daily basis for doing stuff like saying he's going to renegotiate TPP, deregulating the Banks again, and giving $1.3 trillion directly to the 1% in tax breaks without removing any tax loopholes whatsoever.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
tman knows all "VAT isn't for income inequality, it's to help pay for his freedom dividend". I know that myself, however, I was responding to other users who were stating that the VAT is Yang's version of his "tax on the wealthy" to fix class inequality, or the claim that UBI somehow fixes class inequality, but the only way that would be true is if the source of funding for UBI (the VAT) specifically reduces the wealth of the rich and corporations, thus the VAT must to be a solution for fixing class inequality if your claiming UBI has that same effect, otherwise you're just theorizing about how the market may or may not change based on how consumers use their new money (and just blindly hope it fixes inequality).
The only two ways that I've found to reduce class inequality is by 1. directly raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations whether that is ending corporate welfare, creating a wealth tax, creating a top marginal tax rate (possibly the most effective) and progressive tax system, and other taxes such as Wall Street speculation a capital gains tax, etc. You need to take more than just a small sliver of the cost of goods, otherwise you're just creating a second sales tax and that doesn't effect individuals and 10% is something corporations can shrug off easily.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+COVETED - No man, Kyle does entire segments on his positions and the label people could most closely classify him as. He refers to himself nowadays as a Libertarian Leftist, a Secular Humanist, Agnostic Atheist, and is in favor of Social Democracy. The libertarian part is on social issues and civil liberties ("do whatever the fuck you want"). The Leftist part is on economic policies, a living wage, and controlling wall street so more Recessions don't happen. Secular Humanism is for having a government not ruled by religion and for being in favor of human beings (and working things out as human beings) over looking to a higher power to solve our political struggles. And believing in a social democracy is the idea that the best form of government and system is a mix of capitalism and socialism, where aspects of the economy has a free market and are competitive but other aspects are controlled by the government, because they should in no way shape or form be privatized for profits, which causes problems like our huge population of inmates in America. These include standard things like healthcare, fire department, police force, military, and potentially other sectors like energy distribution and internet access (hopefully).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@RayCromwell Firstly, you're deflecting from the issue about Yang's freedom dividend. Bernie never announced a program that effects everyone besides the very poor and people receiving assistance (but still gives those same benefits to the wealthy). If he had, you can bet that he would've ensured those people would be taken care of.
"Bernie has no specific program to increase cash Benefits for those on SSI, omg!" Except the fact that he wants to give them all healthcare, free at the point of service, he want to cancel all their medical debt (and student debt), he wants to pay for their childrens' college education, he wants to ensure that they have a home even if they're evicted for some reason. While Yang's one-cure-all freedom dividend leaves these people out in the cold, Bernie's robust social safety net does not pick and choose, but ensures everyone is taken care of without being conditional to their current gov't assistance, and the only conditions he makes around income is by progressively taxing those at the very top, the top 1% and top 1/10th of 1%.
Also, stop with the false dichotomy on the job's guarantee, I debunked this earlier that the premise is a fake choice. Bernie's equivalent to the freedom dividend is not a "FJG", it's an Economic Bill of Rights that gives everyone economic freedom as a right, the right to housing, the right to healthcare, the right to education and so on. Claiming a robust social safety net does nothing for people on SSI is factually wrong and his proposals go far beyond that, by taking those people on disabilities and erasing their medical debt, something I guarantee thousands of people on SSI have and are buried in debt at this moment. What is 1,000 a month going to do when some guy with Huntingston disease has $125,000 in medical debt that just keeps growing and growing? If you're going to debate these things at least be honest.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sirius1696 Wow you explained your position rationally in a calm manner from a leftist perspective, you MUST BE A SELLOUT & FAKE! Anyways...
I agree with everything you said, not to mention, the only (potential) "win" scenario from Force the Vote hinged on the cosigners not supporting the M4A bill in the floor vote. Force the Vote advocates said this would lead to them being "exposed" so they could potentially have more dirt on them 2 years down the line during the midterm elections. Okay, so why exactly are people assuming any of the cosigners would vote against it if M4A doesn't have a chance of hell in passing EVEN IF all the cosigners voted for it - you'd still be off by hundreds of votes for it to simply pass the House, not to mention it has even less chance in the Senate & then getting by the president. Why are people just casually assuming the cosigners like Kamala Harris (who are very clearly not in favor of Medicare for All) will decide to expose themselves in the first place. If they vote for a doomed M4A floor vote with absolutely no teeth behind it, that just gives them MORE cover, not to mention leaving H.R. 1384 dead on arrival & a defeated piece of legislation.
The logic is not on these people's side & instead the counterarguments we hear are just "PEOPLE ARE DYING" & emotional rants as if they're acting like they don't understand the underlying strategy of their own side they're supporting & they truly believe the bill will pass, or at the very least, they act like there aren't valid counterarguments & debatable issues with the flimsy strategy that is literally designed to fail. What's more annoying than anything however, is that Force the Vote has become just one giant holier-than-thou circle jerk to pretend like everyone who doesn't agree with the strategy = fake lefties who don't support M4A. It's pretty ironic that the guy who started this frenzy didn't even support Bernie Sanders in the 2020 election, but supported Tulsi Gabbard who was pushing "Single Payer Plus" that was a watered down version that catered to the private insurance market. The entire thing is totally destructive & counterproductive & all of this over 1 single vote that has far far less importance than people are giving it credit.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yeah, but would you serve David Duke if he walked into your shop? Or Dick Cheney as Kyle stated. I mean there's a huge difference between serving an opinionated voter and patron compared to serving someone as monstrous and powerful (politically, in the media, in culture) as someone like Dick Cheney or David Duke. People like that are the direct cause of suffering, hate, anger, violence, and torture and death of innocents. I'm in the camp of people saying "Fuck Dick Cheney, fuck David Duke, fuck Hillary, and fuck Sarah Huckster." They all deserve public shame for their crimes against the American people.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Badatallthis Stuff You're fucking delusional man. You said you watched the trial? Did you watch with a blindfold and earplugs? The judge was adversarial against the prosecution literally throughout the trial and nearly acted as a second defense. I already explained how he "interpreted" the law by using an exemption reserved for 17 year olds hunting with hunting rifles (not sure how you're doing mental gymnastics on that one), but he additionally gave what can only be described as preferential treatment when he refused to issue an arrest warrant or carry out action against Rittenhouse after Rittenhouse violated his own bail, wouldn't allow the prosecution to refer to the 2 people murdered as "victims" and said they (i.e. the 2 people murdered, one a kid with a skateboard) should be called either "rioters" or "looters" when there was no evidence of them doing either of those things, in addition:
"Schroeder announced that he [would] not allow prosecutors to introduce evidence of Rittenhouse’s prior disposition to shoot people to death. There is video of Rittenhouse watching from a car as people leave a CVS: He calls them “looters” and says that he wishes he had a gun to shoot them. The video was taken in August 2020, about two and a half weeks before Rittenhouse shot up the streets of Kenosha. There are also photos from January 2020 of Rittenhouse posing with members of the Proud Boys. Both the video and the photos will be excluded, but the police patting Rittenhouse on the head will be included."
He also hamstringed the prosecution more by not letting them show Rittenhouse had a history of violence when he beat up some girl in his town. All of these are relevant to show that Rittenhouse purposefully went to Kenosha with his illegal AR-15 (according to the actual fucking law not interpreted like Rittenhouse is going buck hunting at a BLM protest with a 22 rifle) to clearly seek out trouble. We allow Americans to have guns in this country to protect their families at night in their homes, not go out seeking people to shoot in crowded streets. I don't know why you think this shit is okay, but we're obviously not going to agree on any of this shit, and not for political reasons, but because the law was warped to fit the judges personal biases and Rittenhouse clearly drove across state lines as a minor with an assault rifle to play vigilante and ended up murdering two people just by being there that night (something that wouldn't have happened otherwise i.e. he recklessly endangered the public and everyone on that street that night). It's weird, because I'm not even arguing for 1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree murder for Rittenhouse, all I'm saying is that he recklessly endangered people by being an extremely dumb fuck 17 year old and going out there with one of the deadliest firearms you can buy in America or anywhere else in the world. As I said, I know conservatives who agree with this milquetoast and obvious statement, but for some reason, you're over here arguing like he didn't do anything wrong in the slightest despite 3 people shot on a crowded street and 2 murdered by his hand.
Anyways, I'm tired as fuck of this conversation. Nothing I'm saying is getting through and we're just going in circles now. You seem to have no morals regarding this topic so there's really no point to this anymore.
2
-
@Badatallthis Stuff I don't know why I'm even responding again since you're just repeating the same shit you said before, but you're completely ignoring the obvious bias of the judge that nearly everyone sees and everyone admits, even many conservatives (the ones who aren't obsessed with the case, same ones who think Rittenhouse is just an idiot and should've been guilty of endangerment), I've also given countless reasons for why the judge acted as a second defense for Rittenhouse, and wow he was appointed by a Democrat? Good thing Democrats have never done anything either stupid nor deeply conservative before, just ask Joe Manchin. You seem to think all Democrats are Leftists or liberals which is just beyond hilarious since the majority are actually neoliberal corporatists or just straight conservative Dems. Either way, whoever appointed him in the past seems irrelevant to his actual actions and impact on the case, things that YOU are completely ignoring, so I ask you why do you not think it's relevant to point out the personal reasons why Rittenhouse went to Kenosha? There's video of him 2 weeks beforehand talking about shooting "looters" at CVS with his AR-15. That's a strange thing to say for a boy you seem to think had the sole intention of going to Kenosha to "protect dumpster fires". He beat up a girl that year in his town, why is that not relevant? He has a history of violence, not helping his community like you seem to think. You need his personal history to illustrate his intentions for going to Kenosha with an AR-15 despite being underage and not legally allowed to carry that (because he's not hunting with a hunting rifle, another point you seem to ignore cause the judge clearly misused the law to side with the defense's bogus claim).
Again, I'm just repeating arguments too now, which is why I said this conversation is pointless. I don't think your arguments are valid because I don't consider a "skateboard" a deadly weapon and I don't consider it a warrant to kill a kid. Some 18 year old kid hits you with a skateboard because you're shooting an assault rifle off in the street (at people), you're going to shoot and kill him? That's disgusting and sick. That's why I said you have no morals on this. A skateboard does not warrant a citizen's execution, another reason I compared it to the Ahmaud Arbery case. However, even you put ALL that aside, Rittenhouse's obvious intentions, having a history of violence, hanging out with the violent group Proud Boys, literally saying on video he wanted to mow down "looters" with his AR-15, etc., all point to the clear fact he went there not because he felt he had some duty as a 17 year old kid with an illegal gun (and even if I grant you the judge's Bullshit "hunting rifle while hunting" exemption, it was STILL ILLEGAL in Illinois, the state he lives before he crossed over state lines, so he went there fully knowing he was leaving with an illegal gun), but because this kid grabbed his gun and was looking for trouble, and he found it. That's wanton reckless endangerment, a charge he 100% should've been found guilty of, but lucky for him he got a crooked judge and a crooked trial. I'm done talking about this, it's just pissing me off knowing that conservative mainstream has now stooped so low to congratulate and do hero worship for kids who kill multiple people, violate gun laws in the process, and then people like you just go right along with it. This shit only happens in America pal, anywhere else in the world, this kid would get prison for a long time.
2
-
2
-
@Badatallthis Stuff Yes evidently I understood that, which is why I added that people should not just watch the trial through a keyhole like you did and like you're insisting, but research just what happened during the trial off camera. Based on external events, the judge was crooked or at the very least just operating from a position of extreme bias. Usually in those cases the judge passes it onto a different district court, which again, is why I was earlier comparing it to the Ahmaud Arbery case, because they went through 2 different partisan judges that had already decided to let the defendants off before the trial even began, until it was finally passed higher up and Arbery's mother finally got a fair trial for the shooters (all of them guilty of most to all charges in the end, whereas the first judge tried to throw the case out). So yes, the judge matters a great deal, justice is not blind when you have someone with extreme prejudice running a crooked courtroom weighted in every way to favor the defense - people can figure it out to some extent by simply even watching the trial cause of the biased way the judge treats the prosecution vs the defense, but to understand the depth of his slanted actions, you'd need to read about his actions behind the scenes.
2
-
@mattwalker7604 From the way this other guy has been talking to me, you'd think I was arguing for the death penalty, 1st degree homicide or something, but no I was stating that Rittenhouse should've gone down for the reckless endangerment charge, a position that I've heard repeated by even conservatives I know who think that Rittenhouse had room to use self-defense but should've never been there that night with an AR-15 in the first place and essentially put everyone at risk for his actions (I mean he's literally shooting at a crowd with an assault rifle and people don't think there was nothing he could've done differently to avoid that outcome?). The Homicide charges that were leveled against him were too strict, which may or may not have been on purpose since that's the trick a lot of cops pull when they're on the defense for a shooting - serious homicide charges can be incredibly hard to prove and law enforcement and defense attorneys are fully aware of this.
In my opinion, he should've easily been found guilty of reckless endangerment of the public and in this case it can be upgraded to Involuntary Manslaughter because 2 people were killed while endangering the public. Maybe that's not possible if he's given self-defense, but he's still firing his weapon into a crowd of people, so I'd say the law is not that finite about the situation (though I still think it's incredibly likely in a higher court against the Alex Huber charge, a kid with a fucking skateboard gunned down with an AR-15, the comparison between the magnitude of their two "weapons" is laughable), but at the very least that reckless endangerment charge being thrown out is just proof that the judge's tampering and prejudice in the courtroom achieved the outcome he wanted and decided on before the trial even began. These types of situations usually result in a mistrial or the case being passed up to a higher court.
I said this to the other guy, however it went in one ear and out the other, but, just for one example, the reason the Judge threw out the illegal AR-15 charge was because the judge and defense used an exemption ("possible exemption") under Wisconsin law for minors when hunting with a hunting rifle or shotgun. That type of purposeful misinterpretation of the law just speaks for itself on where the judge stood and how he was nowhere near impartial. But I advise you to look up just how much the judge hamstringed the prosecution behind the scenes. They weren't even allowed to make their case, not allowed to introduce relevant information about Rittenhouse to show why he may have crossed state lines with his AR-15 to go to a crowded protest, weren't allowed to introduce other acts of assault by him and the judge literally wouldn't even let them refer to the 2 people killed as "victims", said they could only be called "rioters" or "looters" when there's no evidence they did any of those things. I mean for fucks sake Rittenhouse was a common associate of the Proud Boys, a group well-known for traveling to politically charged events just to instigate violence and reactions out of people/protesters and then try to turn around and use the law and police to their benefit. It's beyond the pale to say that information is not relevant to this case. In fact, right after he was released, he was found posing with Proud Boys in a bar and flashing a white power symbol, but somehow this isn't relevant to the case? - https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/14/kyle-rittenhouse-proud-boys-bar/
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This is what some of us were talking about with the culture war and how the left is losing. You have leftists literally defending Alex Jones's right to be on social media even though he's far past the bounds of free speech and has constantly broken the terms of service on these sites, while you have ONLY 36% of Republicans who actually believe real media, that is actually under the protection of freedom of press, should be censored and silenced indefinitely. Btw, Alex Jones was never really "censored" since he has his own app and website. These Republicans are talking about REAL censorship to the point where nobody can get their news from a source that doesn't have a conservative bias or from an outlet they don't personally agree with. The left needs to be fighting back on these issues and it's a big question mark on whether making a case for Alex Jones is actually helping. I fully believe in free speech, but when it comes to issues outside the bounds of what is considered "free speech", the left needs to be stronger and fight back against conservative authoritarianism and make a case for what is acceptable in our society and denounce outright censorship of any kind. If Jones was silenced by a court saying he can't practice free speech anywhere such as on his website, Twitter, or other sites, it would be a crime and a violation of the 1st amendment, but that never happened and now we're talking about how only 36% of Republicans want a free press all the while they bitch and moan about a lunatic whose incited domestic terrorism should be allowed to stomp all over ever online platform without consequences from the companies that are already clearly represented in their rules and terms and services.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@idonotlikethismusic In my opinion it's the most rational way to view politics. There was far too much savior worship in 2020. At the end of the day, politicians are just pieces on a chess board or a cog in the machine. It shouldn't be about if this person or that person is good or bad, it matters what they do and what outcome/policy goal is achieved from it. What some people consider as "good" politicians will sometimes do bad things or make mistakes and those you consider "bad" people will sometimes do good things just as Trump pardoned nonviolent offenders or how Biden withdrew from Afghanistan. You can't just throw a blanket on everything Biden does as automatically bad or anything he'll do in the future as automatically worthless/pointless because that's not how politics works unless it's viewed from the lens of people that worship certain politicians as heroes or cheer for teams like it's all just a sport or game.
The idea that Bernie has betrayed people (not saying that's you're belief, just that lots of people say crap like that in general now) is just more of this team mentality of politics. It's why people have injected foreign emotions like trust and betrayal into a system that is bureaucratic and generally emotionless in nature. From the most logical perspective, politicians are simply tools the people of a democratic country should use to achieve policy outcomes. If a politician takes corporate bribes, then that tool is generally broken & needs to be replaced (which is what elections are for), but it doesn't even mean you still can't use that tool in specific circumstances if you have specific conditions to do so, like how people say you can use Manchin's criminal daughter as leverage. However, my main point of all this is that Bernie is one of the most functional and sometimes even the most efficient cogs in the machine, so when people start going off about betrayal for working with the Democrats and some people go as far to say he should be forgotten or replaced, it just sounds like utter nonsense from a more rational perspective.
2
-
2
-
J C I agree he should've tried harder after Super Tuesday & stood against the Dems for longer than he did (though I do think part of him dropping out after Michigan was partly because of Coronavirus & the Dems forcing the polls to stay open as the Pandemic began raging), but I will say I don't think anything could've changed even if he did go at Biden 110%. I don't know about you guys, but after Super Tuesday, I knew right then the election was over when Biden won Minnesota, Massachusetts, Texas, & Maine. If Bernie had won Texas (which he had been winning right until 30 minutes before it was called & flipped), I think we would've had a much different race. If Bernie had all the Left candidates come out to endorse him all at once, I think we would've had a much different race.
After Super Tuesday though, the primary felt like it was over & Biden was only gaining more and more consecutive support after Bloody Monday, then even more after Bloomberg pulled out & endorsed Biden and after Warren pulled out but did NOT endorse Bernie. Then even Yang and Gabbard endorsed Biden. By the time Bernie dropped out, he had been stomped into the ground by friend & foe. I always had a feeling the other candidates in the race were ultimately going to be Bernie's downfall, and Warren alone might've been enough reason for why Bernie didn't get over that finish line on Super Tuesday and overcome the giant adversity against him from Obama, Biden and their Dem establishment backroom deals regarding Bloody Monday. But it absolutely is the case where you can NOT win when you have a year and half race made up of neoliberal centrists on one side and leftists on the other side & once the race narrows down to 2 people all the neoliberals back the neoliberal candidate and then all the leftists also back the neoliberal. Bernie was doomed from the start if this was always going to be what happened.
My point is that I agree with you Bernie should've stayed in and fought longer for other political reasons such as leverage within the party, but thinking things could've been different after Super Tuesday if Bernie had only tried harder is not realistic imo. The things that could've put him back in the race were basically things outside of his control such as the other candidates endorsing him & coronavirus never starting when Bernie was trying to make a comeback. When he dropped out, he couldn't even hold rallies anymore and that was the strength of his campaign, while Biden just hid from the public. Anyways, there are too many regrets to count, but I do think these distinctions are important.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Also I know you all are thinking that if government regulations get rolled back, the single seller market would break up and there would be more competition from more ISPs that enter the market, but it is not that easy at all and getting rid of Net Neutrality regulations DEFINITELY would just make it even worse.
Let me explain. Other internet service providers that are up and coming almost always need to operate using the infrastructure that belongs to the larger ISPs such as Comcast, Charter, etc. These companies do not have nearly enough capital to start laying their own fiber optics and massive infrastructure that literally bankrupted companies during the Internet boom in the 90s by doing so. The current infrastructure that is in place by Time Warner, Comcast, Frontier and other corporations will likely be the only infrastructure for a long long time until maybe some newer form of tech comes along that is faster than the fiber optics that are used now. Until then, new ISPs that are trying to enter the already single seller market must operate through Comcast, Time Warner or other large ISPs' infrastructure, but thankfully these ISPs are legally obligated to give them a fair advantage and cannot slow speeds for these smaller ISPs just so the Comcast or Time Warner monopolies will noticeably have faster internet speeds for the customers at lower prices.
The very very good regulation that protects these up-and-coming ISPs from having their internet speeds sabotaged by the monopolies that own the infrastructure and fiber optics is... You guessed it, Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality states that, just like with websites, the ISPs that own the infrastructure cannot throttle internet speeds for smaller ISPs that are operating on the owned infrastructure and cables. If Net Neutrality is gutted so these regulations protecting websites and ISPs operating within the infrastructure of larger ISPs, then larger ISPs will have the legal power to snuff out these other ISPs just like that (*snap*). Why would anyone choose to use an ISP with considerably lower internet speeds and higher prices when they could just use Comcast or Charter that overcharge you extra anyways, but it's still cheaper than the smaller ISPs that cannot operate properly on infrastructure owned by their competitors that dictate how their company will run. To me, it sounds like gutting Net Neutrality will most certainly NOT fix these issues of the single seller market. It will almost definitely just make things far worse.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+James Monteath - What? Are you serious? I've watched countless clips from all different Fox News shows since Trump has become President, and I have NEVER seen any clips that portray Trump badly. I've seen only very few clips that actually question a decision Trump makes, but they never say anything bad about it and always try to spin it as "well he's still getting the hang of it, he'll do better next time". Then shows like Fox and Friends, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and other anchors I can't remember the names of have kissed Trump's fucking ass more than anyone in the entire United States. Fox and Friends gives more compliments to the President than Anthony Saramucci did the other night when he said a total of fifty times that he "loves the President".
Sooo.. 50/50 good/bad news? Nahhh. More like 50/50 factual reporting, at Best. PolitiFact has Fox News' fact checking surveyed with their reporting ranked as 10% True, 12% Mostly True, 18% Half True, and 60% False and Pants on Fire!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jedi77palmer I'm gonna assume this is a serious question, but you should know that even the people that were leading on Force the Vote were stating up-front that the reason for the vote was not because they thought the bill would pass, but because they wanted it as ammunition against other Democrats in the future that would vote against it. So the idea that it may or may not actually pass, is not even up for rational debate - it simply won't. Realistically, the Dems only have a slim 9 seat majority in the House. That means out of 222 Dems, you would only need 9 Dems to vote against Medicare for All to kill the bill & leave it dead on arrival (don't even expect 1 single Republican to cross the aisle, evidence being the House vote on Romneycare under Obama that didn't get 1 Rep vote). Out of those 222 Dems, you only have a handful of progressives that are actually serious about voting for it & would vote for it no matter what, & then you have the complete group of cosigners (this is very likely the only people who have a chance of voting for the bill) & even if you got every single one of the cosigners to vote on the bill, which is an unlikely scenario, you'd still be off by hundreds of votes needed to simply get M4A to pass the House. But say, by some miracle, it somehow magically passes the House, it's even far less likely to pass the Senate & then Joe Biden has already said point-blank that he would just veto a bill for Single Payer Healthcare. The idea of it actually passing is not a realistic notion even in the slightest. Given all that information, I'm still not saying that it's not worth doing, my main point however is that it's not worth ONLY getting that as a concession when there are more solid concessions that can be squeezed out of Pelosi & it's absolutely NOT worth fighting over & burning all the Left's bridges or smearing the politicians in our corner as somehow corrupt or having bad faith intentions when that's not even true & they actually agree with us on policy, but simply disagree on strategy. I believe the idea behind Force the Vote was good, but the way Dore & others went about it was honestly counterproductive & only caused more riffs on the Left that will just make us weaker in the long-term. Even Kyle Kulinski, one of the leaders of Force the Vote, has since come out & said that the over-the-top attacks & vapid infighting is entirely counter-productive in every way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Right? Rogan's freaking out about the stupidest fucking thing I've ever seen and I've never seen him spaz out like this about anything Trump or even Hillary has ever done (at least I haven't). He wants to scream about something that was honestly the right political move since Bernie came out on top after the rally by presenting the two black women as uninformed since they couldn't even convey their message when Bernie gave them the platform after.
Also, right-wingers completely put Trump on a pedestal. If you didn't then maybe you would've actually turned on him for something so far such as outsourcing more jobs in his first year than Obama had ever in one year, putting Goldman Sachs and Big Pharma executives in his cabinet, pushing a healthcare bill that would kick people off of their health insurance, bombing 8 different countries after constantly criticizing Obama for bombing 7, passing a tax plan that raises taxes on Middle class Americans over a 10 year period, while giving over 82% of the wealth to the 1%, making the "swamp" 100x worse in Washington with placing the extremely corrupt lobbyists in powerful positions, and the list goes on and on and on and on. If you're still a Trump supporter, then you are putting him on a pedestal there's no fucking way to still be on his side if that's not the case. Wake the fuck up you dumb turds. Trump is as anti-American working class as they come, and if you don't see that then you must be living in the Fox News bubble or listening to Alex Jones constantly defend Trump and pathetically defend Trump's dick size all the time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's honestly way worse than anyone thinks too. Because not only are they under-prescribing the people with chronic pain, but they are having a crack down on opiods without doing anything about the millions of people who are addicted to their either illegal or legally prescribed pain meds. When you take away peoples prescriptions, completely cripple their health insurance by massively defunding medicare and medicaid, and then don't give them any options with methadone/suboxone treatment or counseling, you are essentially just telling them to go get Heroin. And then the people who are not connected enough to the black market will probably just kill themselves because I can guarantee 100% they are not going to be fine taking a fucking aspirin. Jeff Sessions should get his dick and balls cut off for that shit. It literally is harmful to everyone on both sides of the political spectrum, everywhere in the United States, and they've literally fucked this up more than anyone could ever know. The other day I had to watch a guy freak out in a doctor's office because his medicaid insurance wouldn't work anywhere to get addiction treatment. The system is set up so that most of the doctors actually lose money for taking patients with medicaid or some form of insurance that isn't silver or gold quality, and I live in one of the good states for healthcare. I am not fucking around people, the system for these supposed "people we are trying to help" and victims of the opiod epidemic are being spit up and chewed out and a lot of them will likely die in the next few years. It doesn't matter if their from California or West Virginia, they are all fucked unless they have really good jobs with insurance that will be miraculously be taken by these treatment centers, but even then the waiting list to get in as a new patient at one of these places takes months sometimes. Any sane person could've told them that they need to help the sick people first before they just cut off opiods to the entire country. Now it's going to be a million times worse. Fucking terrible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@romeogray5667 I think it's a political strategy, and yes it is incredibly stupid. Weirdly enough I'm not fully against it yet - I kinda want to see where this goes & if he's able to ignite a bit of class consciousness in right-wingers. Possible he's just planting seeds and gaining their trust - his shift seems far more strategic than anything related to greed like Dave Rubin and Jimmy Dore.
It really matters what his intentions are though - is he trying to save the dying TYT brand, because then that's terrible & probably just going to lead to an entire network of Dave Rubins, or is he actually trying to politically outflank MAGA & get them to be more class focused? I really don't know for sure, but it seems strategic, whereas Ana Kasparian actually seems like a Dave Rubin turn entirely focused on her career, money, audience capture & brain broken ideology.
Ana has been deteriorating for years now, while Cenk flipped his strategy overnight after the election, making me think he's been in the game a long time, nothings worked, so he's trying something new, which could very easily (and is) blowing up in his face and turning the entire Left against him.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@heidimelcarek3677 I never said they would vote for a leftist, I was more talking about one of the other neoliberal/corporate candidates that's more likable than Kamala. So far, the best reception I've seen from the media propping up each of these candidates has been from Pete Buttigieg's 15 minutes. Beto didn't get so much as a backlash as people just weren't interested that much by his candidacy, and the others such as Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, and even Elizabeth Warren (whose more on the progressive side) has not gotten enough attention from the media to have their candidacies propped up like Kamala, Buttigieg, or Beto.
I think Beto might have less of a chance as Harris, but Pete Buttigieg has more of a chance at this point. He's good at tricking people about whose side he's on and he's actively working with the DNC now to "Stop Bernie" so the establishment may have definitively picked him at this time. His numbers might go down slightly from where they are now, but I still think he has more of a chance as being the establishment's pick than Kamala Harris who, as I said, gets terrible backlash from some of the same people who fawn over Buttigieg because he doesn't have a completely questionable history that Kamala has.
1
-
@heidimelcarek3677 If you're talking about the current affairs article, yes I have, but the thing I've noticed is that with Kamala there are very quick things you can point to to show how terrible she is, such as that 1 minute video where she laughs at locking up kids and their parents. With Buttigieg, it's not as simple. Most people won't read that article, and even less will actually read through to the parts that are persuading (it's a long in-depth article). The author gives an overall picture for why he is not a progressive, but the individual portions are not enough to condemn Buttigieg to his current fawning supporters, who are willing to overlook many of those things. For example, pointing to a specific excerpt in his book where he looks down on protesters that are protesting higher wages for the Harvard campus staff instead of joining them is not going to be enough to turn many people against him and convince them.
I've been shocked over the past month at just how many people are still willing to overlook policy substance and completely ignore Buttigieg's lack of policy for "philosophical values". It's making me more cynical about the John Q public and how I thought most people actually cared about policy nowadays. There is some new dirt coming out on Buttigieg more recently with racist cops in his town that he protected and at one point saying "all lives matter", but unless more comes out it will have less of an effect than the god awful record of someone like Kamala Harris. I mean, if you go down Harris's list of corrupt terrible deeds, it is never ending and I think most people are catching onto this even if they are not politically savvy. With Buttigieg, it's harder for those same people to understand on the surface why he is problematic and is in actuality a hallow elitist with vague policies and fake progressive "values".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+TA 72 - I really hate to do exactly what "Gene Scheel" warned about with "changing the conversation" because it's exactly what these fuckers want that are attacking Bernie from the corporate left/right with just outright claiming he "supported all the wars" and basically just lying about it, but I can't help it because they are so incredibly full of shit. You're either lying or you're taking complex issues, completely taking them out of context, and twisting them so you'll ignite doubt in people about the only senator whose out there speaking out against the wars and speaking against crony capitalism. What they don't tell you are things like "Bernie opposes the expansion of NATO because it could lead to further aggression from Russia, which is territorially sensitive about the military alliance’s expansion eastward. Bernie also believes the U.S. foots too much of NATO’s bill."
Also, all the other crap you're listing are talking points from Hillary Clinton, I hope you know that. Hillary ironically attacked Bernie with the Libya vote to try to make him look bad in 2016, but Hillary and "TA 72" don't explain the specifics of the vote or how it occurred AFTER the government already began military intervention in Libya and essentially started a war. During this time, Bernie actively spoke out against the Libya conflict saying “I think one of the things many people are upset about is this war took place without consultation of the Congress, without debate within the Congress. Look, everybody understands Gaddafi is a thug and murderer. We want to see him go, but I think in the midst of two wars, I’m not quite sure we need a third war.” The vote Hillary and "TA 72" are referring to though happened after NATO intervention and the Senate drafted it as a resolution "strongly condemning the gross and systematic violations of human rights in Libya." It called for Gadaffi to peacefully step down. Bernie didn't want Gadaffi murdering his own people, but he didn't want war with Libya to begin with. Congress didn't have a choice in the matter though, which is why we're discussing this on a video where Bernie is trying to take the power to dictate war away from the President and put it back into Congress's hands, which is what we should actually be talking about but TA 72 wants to keep doing Hillary Clinton talking points to smear Bernie with complex issues that take two paragraphs to explain.
Bernie's quotes and formals stances on the issues can be found at http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-nato/
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PerthTowne Not in the scenario we were given. At least that's my opinion anyways. If all the candidates had stayed in the race until after Super Tuesday, I'm fairly certain Bernie would've won & it would've been far too late for the media to push the "Joementum" bullshit, but what ended up happening was you had Bernie & his team trying to win over 33-40% of the Democratic Party for ~2 years during the race. A strategy that was correct considering nobody had any idea when or if these other candidates would drop out.
Bernie secured his base & no one else could compete when we had 5-6 main candidates fighting in the field; it was a successful strategy by the time voting began. However, I always had a sickening feeling that the fact that we had so many candidates in the race would cause major issues in the long run. Remember when we had like 20 candidates on 2 debate stages & everyone was saying "Okay, they need to narrow down the field already!". I myself constantly said that because I was afraid Bernie would be winning the race but then certain candidates could just drop out, stay in to siphon votes, or manipulate the field somehow at the last second to make their preferred candidate win.
I actually worried the most about the Left candidates because I felt like they were segmenting the Left (Warren, Yang, Tulsi) whereas in 2016, we had one Left candidate & one neoliberal candidate. I'm confident that if it had been a long drawn-out race between Bernie & Joe Biden, Bernie would've come out the victor, but we all spent 2 years defining a primary election dynamic & focusing on a 9 person race, building up candidates that never even stood a chance to begin with & then at the end the whole game board was flipped over anyways. Absolutely beyond frustrating. I'll say this one last time, Bernie would've won if we would've just had a simple, linear election that focused on the top 2-3 contenders. Oh, and fuck Warren I hope nobody ever supports her for president again. Though I don't think Yang or Tulsi can be trusted either anymore after endorsing the neoliberal candidate over the progressive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I understand that Bernie didn't go into great detail when he initially talked to Krystal, but you're not only mischaracterizing a job's guarantee, but you're mischaracterizing his whole platform. Comparing UBI to simply a job's guarantee is a fake debate. Bernie's "version of UBI" is in the form of a universal basic standard rather than a universal basic income. He literally has this platform printed on Tshirts. "Healthcare for All, Education for All, Housing for All, Jobs for All, Justice for All". I don't know how you can ignore the full context of his platform. Calling his entire domestic policy a "job's guarantee" is entirely inaccurate. He proposes an Economic Bill of Rights ffs, a robust social safety net that lines up with the Scandinavian model. Bernie is only trying to make us more like Denmark, Norway or Finland. Finland has these basic necessities and that's why they were able to experiment with UBI, they're way ahead of us, which is why they're far more happy than the US.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Catloves997 "I have no problem with people criticizing Jimmy". You clearly do, you guys are defending his honor like he's your bride-to-be. If you don't like people criticizing him, then maybe you should convince him to stop "smearing" Justice Democrats, DSA, PCCC, Our Revolution and Bernie Sanders himself. As far as I can tell, the criticisms against him are as simple as you can get, people don't like him attacking progressive groups and claiming people's efforts are nonexistent and useless. Don't know what's so complex about that for you.
"He doesn't know what he's talking about? He literally admits that he isn't the smartest guy out there." Exactly, you just answered your own question. Problem is, Jimmy doesn't act like that on his show, he presents his opinion as fact on his show, but as soon as his views are pressured by someone even a little, they fall apart as they did here.
I don't really know how anything I just was a "smear"? Claiming Bernie Sanders doesn't say the word "Revolution" anymore when Bernie just used the word a few days before Jimmy's twitter post, is what you can call "disingenuous" and a "smear" because it's just false. Seems like you're just upset because I dare to criticize him, the thing that you claim "I have no problem with".
1
-
1
-
@ZedNebuloid Funny coming from the person desperately trying to defend Jimmy anywhere you see someone slightly criticize him. I feel like I've posted a lot on this board, but I literally see you and @fishlove69 on every single post on here. You guys can't really do anything besides feign ignorance over Jimmy's actions though and pretend that he never said "the progressive takeover isn't going to work" and had Nick Brana on to shit on Justice Dems, or you just outright downplay those actions as totally harmless and "not attacks, just frustration". I mean, c'mon, you might as well just brand yourselves as partisan hacks if you can't at least admit the real issues and arguments going on here. Oh and don't forget how he literally never uses his platform to say one peep about our the current right-wing establishment that runs our country as a theocratic autocracy. No, we mustn't criticize the Right, the GOP, or Trump, only Bernie and progressives. When he gets confronted about it as he did here, he just feigns ignorance 40:07 just as you're doing here in response to the video. I don't really give a shit though, keep living in ignorance over why people are lashing out against Dore as if everyone who does it is crazy for doing so. It's just pathetic and you guys have a serious cult of personality going on around Jimmy, people are just starting to notice it now, which is exactly why so many Jimmy Dore fans are trashing Progressive Voice for changing his opinion. Call me "fake progressive" all you want (even though the whole argument is based around Jimmy attacking progressives like Bernie), it won't change that fact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@edwardwood6532 There's absolutely no evidence to show that it would've made a difference either way. Anything Bernie did after Bloody Monday was the equivalent of pissing into a hurricane, that's the effect the Dem Party and elites were going for. Even the Bernie team's effective attacks against Joe Biden on social security & his proven recorded lies about cutting it (these ads were played nonstop in Michigan & battleground states) had no effect given the scale of the statistical disadvantage placed on him when the entire primary election was rearranged at the drop of a hat. At that point, the race was all about momentum & the Dem Party & DNC successfully crippled Sanders' momentum (through legal and illegal means - think Iowa caucus), while doing everything in their power to give Joe Biden undeserved & artificial momentum on top of his single win in South Carolina (along with heaps of media propaganda).
The fact that it was Bernie versus the entire media & Democratic apparatus [& nearly all the centrist & "Leftist" candidates that endorsed Joe & not Bernie] should give you a hint on just how weighted & shamefully biased the election was. If it had been Joe Biden versus Bernie Sanders from the start, there would've been an extremely good chance Bernie won, even with the slanted playing field, but the main issue in 2020 was that there was no time to even mount a successful counter attack once the entire election had been flipped on its head - Bernie simply being more aggressive would've been nowhere near enough to overcome the disadvantages placed on his campaign.
Seriously, just think about what happened & you'll understand. By the time we finally had a debate between Bernie and Joe Biden, it was far too late to change the momentum of the race, not to mention there was only a very tiny path to victory after both Super Tuesday elections as well. Be mad at Bernie all you want for not trying more aggressively to take down Biden in their 1v1 debate, but just understand that it would've changed nothing - the only thing it would've done is make us feel better about losing. The time to stop Joe Biden was on Super Tuesday, & unless there was some extremely big secret weapon to tank Joe Biden's chances (not even Tara Reade's sexual assault allegations could touch him), anything else is just pure fantasy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nmk5003 I also think this is a reasonable argument, specifically because actors aren't required to get licensed for firearms, certified, etc. (at least I don't believe so), that's literally the case with the Armorer though, who is supposed to be the certified professional on the set that handles those logistics. Maybe actors receive some training by said professionals, but there doesn't seem to be some official document certifying or licensing them for use of live rounds or even real firearms that have cold rounds - maybe that's just one big oversight of the entertainment industry and perhaps after this court case, they'll require actors to take gun safety courses and get certified to be able to use Real guns on set, but that's just not the case now.
I think the main issue in the case will be to determine how responsible and liable Baldwin was as a producer of the show. None of the other producers are being charged with anything, so I would assume Baldwin's charges are simply coming from being the actor who had the gun in hand, and in this case, I do think Baldwin will be acquitted for the charges, since he was not the certified professional on set and did not have any formal training to be culpable for an accident like this. We can only hope they change the laws for something like this in the future
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anonmouse6337 Obamacare has a 50% approval rating, and it has a 40% approval rating when Republicans aren't trying to repeal it. That's NOT popular. Medicare has something like an 82% approval rating, and so does the bill for Medicare for All in some polls. Medicare is not in jeopardy of being repealed like the ACA and Republicans have to lie about their plans to make cuts to it, whereas they literally run on repealing Obamacare.
If Med 4 All was implemented, it would likely be even more popular than Medicare because it would cover everyone and everyone would see the benefits from it, not just older generations. Also, we know this from how popular Single Payer systems are in other countries. The reason Obamacare never polled above 40% until it was in the process of being repealed (without any replacement) was because it was always a half-measure that didn't even give us a public option like Obama promised, not to mention we still have 32,000 to 45,000 people die every year from lack of healthcare and we have thousands of medical bankruptcies a year. You're arguing for a lost cause that kills tens of thousands of people a year because it allows private insurers to dictate people's life and death scenarios. On this issue, it is not just some political game, you are dealing with people's lives, why the fuck would you not want the best option for the public?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Marco Lopez - Yeah I should've corrected the first sentence about the semantics. What I meant to say is that you're not going to back me into trying to defend war games or anything like that because I didn't agree with them in the first place and I definitely didn't agree with Trump sending an armada to North Korea last year (when they were sailing in the wrong direction for a whole day). My main point was just about the hypocrisy surrounding how Trump's deal was less than 1% as effective as the deal he ripped up only 3 weeks prior, and I believe that is where the majority of the criticism from TYT main panel is stemming from. The other hypocrisy that is being flipped on its head here is how for years the right stated Obama was weak, weaker than anyone else in the world, which is silly considering Obama was bombing 7 different countries and initiating coalition drone strikes all across the world. However, you actually have a president here make a hallow deal that, by the right's standards, would be the absolute definition of weak and with the sole purpose of projecting optics, "TV ratings", and nothing else, and now all of sudden everyone on the right wants to make him out to be the greatest deal of all time. My entire point is that the deal is hallow, it does nothing, and if the right was being true about its stance (or if it was Obama's deal), they would be shouting from the rooftops about how the deal is weak as shit and how Trump gives several concessions for nothing. That's not my stance, that's the conservative stance in a world devoid of hypocrisy and contradiction.
You can argue the same for people like Maddow with her Russia conspiracy about North Korea or with Fareed here attacking Trump from the right, but I'm simply saying everything I've seen from TYT has been criticism surrounding the deal as weak, completely ineffective, and pointing out the two major hypocrisies I just stated. They've stated several times that they thought the summit was a step in the right direction and even joked today that "criticizing the deal obviously meant they want war with North Korea", which they clearly said in response to people who are twisting their words to say "TYT wants war" or "TYT doesn't want peace". It's stretching the truth and using the idea that any criticism is not allowed and deemed as pro-war rhetoric, which is simply untrue. We're allowed to criticize the hallow deal, and especially the hypocrisy surrounding the whole situation, this is not even close to the same thing that Maddow and Fareed are doing, who we already know are paid by the establishment and, by extension, the military industrial complex.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EscapingMidnight24 I was simply saying the idea of trans sports teams is idiotic & that if you were going to force the issue, trans people would likely rather not participate at all than be on the special trans squad just so their entire school won't get defunded by Republicans over bullshit partisan culture wars crap. No matter what you're opinion is on trans people though, defunding schools is never the right course of action, & in this case it's being used to advance a right-wing cultural narrative & delusion. If co-ed teams is really a thing, then sure that could be a partial solution (though I've never seen any in schools before besides groups like the Quiz Team).
The over-arching issue, however, is why any politicians or people would be focusing on a non-issue like this when schools don't even have team sports at the moment. The idea of scrutinizing this issue, especially at a time like this, (aside from simply causing more unnecessary stigma towards trans people) only helps to feed into the delusion that this is somehow one of the Left's biggest priority & we all want & push for trans women to use women's bathrooms or whatever. It's like when people such as Ben Shapiro or Dave Rubin constantly talk about lefties deplatforming right-wingers at colleges to make it seem like it's a bigger issue than it actually is & to try to strawman the other side as unserious, when THEY are the ones hyper-focused on the culture war B.S. and realistically the mass majority of leftists are currently pushing for universal healthcare & taxing the 1% & corporations. I honestly don't care how this issue is dealt with (I'm not sure extra-curricular activities for children, is the highest political priority in any setting), but the way Tulsi Gabbard & Republicans are going about this makes it another case where schools are being defunded, except this time it is conditionally based on how they treat the few trans students they have. You don't see the problem with the setup here at all?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree. These people are really hard to reason with, they're completely motivated by irrational anger and a lack of logical analysis. His fans that are self-proclaimed progressives have a blinding hatred for Hillary and Democrats that it causes them to be entirely incapable of seeing the bigger picture, while the other half of his viewers are basic right-wingers and Trump supporters. I've been in conversations with people in his comment threads who have literally made the point that Obama is in favor of 'open borders' and they get massive up-votes by other Dore fans. I mean I hate the shit out of Hillary and the DNC too, but I don't let it cloud my judgement to the reality of the political climate that I think the spineless McResistance Democrats are somehow worse than the Republicans who own every branch of government, have record amount of corruption, and perpetuating a genocide in Yemen and getting ready for one in Iran, especially to the point where I'm criticizing progressives MORE than any type of criticism towards the right-wing establishment or GOP in the slightest. It's just nonsense, and there's absolutely no reason to give that type of unbalanced news coverage unless your a conservative who hates the Democrats and on Team Trump. Jimmy claims to "hate both parties", but I literally never see him act on his hatred of the other party, which is doing FAR more damage today to the American working class with their tax cuts, disastrous healthcare, and gutting Net Neutrality.
You're not the only one on this side of the issue Ben, Kyle Kulinski and Progressive Voice have vocalized their disagreements with Jimmy and his irrational fans as well just without using harsh rhetoric. It just hasn't gotten as much coverage because people only care about the harsh rhetoric. For future purposes, I think it would be advisable to just criticize the substance of what he does and try not to add the rhetoric, because it seems like it's the only thing his fans and certain progressives are focused on now, and not what you and the others were actually saying. Jimmy being a "useful idiot" is exactly the right phrase for it, but it's not going to win you any popularity contests even though Jimmy seems to constantly get away with calling Bernie a "sheepdog" and Cortez a "co-opted" sellout.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@austinm419 There was widespread appeal of Bernie in 2016 from conservatives. The only reason they get "triggered" by him now is because of the constant propaganda from Fox News about "Socialism". You don't think Fox will do that same propaganda against Yang if he starts getting more attention? He's pushing UBI and a Value Tax and has Medicare for All in his platform. The only reason they haven't started smearing him yet is because he's only polling at 1%. Tucker Carlson gave him a favorable interview, but Carlson has also given Bernie favorable coverage as well in the past. All you're doing is taking us back to square 1 in 2016. I remember Bernie Sanders Dank Memes very well, it didn't "meme him to the presidency" back then and it won't with Yang now, especially since Bernie is so close to winning already.
I think most people will see it this way, especially since many people, like me, already find Bernie as a better alternative to Yang. Yang's UBI bill has some problems with it, it's mainly funded by slashing social programs like Social Security and basically just giving poor people an option between one or the other, which doesn't exactly get some people out of poverty, it just changes the source of where their getting their funds. I think you would be surprised of how much his plan doesn't lessen income inequality, just puts a band aid on it and appeases workers with raw cash. Not to mention if he tried to pass UBI right away, he would probably have to compromise on the one good thing in the bill, the VAT, which has the least chance of getting through Congress, while slashing social programs would 100% get pushed through because Republicans have been trying to slash things like Social Security and remove welfare entirely for decades.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RyuFitzgerald It absolutely does matter what Musk paid for it, because those loans automatically became Twitter's own debt, i.e. Musk basically forced the company into massive debt and yearly interest fees that it could not possibly pay off - this is why Musk fired nearly all of Twitter's employees. He's basically pulling out every stop to try to make Twitter turn a profit, or at the very least pay off their interest payments (thus his asinine "Twitter Blue" debacle), all so it doesn't go bankrupt from the interest rates alone. Buying Twitter for $44 Billion was such a terrible decision that it basically doomed the company and all its employees before the business even turned ownership, ensuring the company would spiral and snowball into more debt unless drastic changes were made. In other words, all this shit is 100% Musk's fault.
While you're correct tech companies are laying off workers, layoffs of 80-90% of all employees is beyond insane. For perspective, Disney laid off thousands of workers that accounted for 3-4% of its headcount. Facebook (or should I say, "Meta") is one of the most drastic examples considering they also spent upwards of $36 Billion on the failed Metaverse. After spending nearly as much money as Musk on Twitter, it still has only laid off 12% of its workforce so far. There are announcements that this number may rise in the next year, but even their worst projections has a max overall reduction of 25% of their headcount. In other words, what Musk is doing is so unprecedented that even Meta's colossal fuckup with the Metaverse doesn't even come close to the complete mismanagement and dumpster fire that Twitter has unfortunately become - likely why everyone is seeing NSFW, gore and snuff videos on their For You timelines & many of their core systems just stop working suddenly from time to time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chiritarisu Her remarks were no different than what Kamala Harris, Butigieg, or even Warren would say (when she herself is flip flopping). The fact that you're twisting the facts to defend this is making me lose any respect for you. She's NOT talking about supplemental private insurance, do you hear her saying that? She's talking about a "primary role" for insurance companies, that means they want the insurance to be included in the Medicare for All market, which is why we keep telling you that's NOT real Medicare for All when you do that. You would have to be daft as hell to think "supplemental insurance" for plastic surgery, lasik and such are considered a "primary role" in Medicare for All. The entire point of Medicare for All is to push out for-profit private insurance from the healthcare markets so Medicare for All, by itself, covers all provided procedures and private insurance is NOT allowed to provide their own shitty for-profit version of that healthcare. When we talk about supplemental insurance, it is completely outside of this system, so any mention of a "primary role" should be a dead giveaway she's not talking about "supplemental".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DaHanG I'm not arguing it wouldn't help poor people. It would help the poor just like Warren's "funding proposal" for Medicare for All would overall help most people when you couple a regressive head tax with giving people free healthcare at the point of service. The problem is that it helps people a lot less than simply just doing your program without the added negative of a regressive tax.
In the case of Yang's UBI, it is still regressive in terms of income inequality because it would literally benefit the rich more than the poor when you implement his Freedom Dividend. When you fund it through a VAT tax on goods, you're just making the working class pay for their own dividends they get back. Problem with that idea is that the poor and many in the middle class would end up using ever penny of their $1,000, while the rich and higher income earners would either save it or use considerably less. In this scenario, you have a working class individual (around the 70% of the country that lives paycheck to paycheck) buying products and paying close to 90-100% of their money on that regressive tax (taxed at a certain rate) aside from groceries and basic food items which would be exempt according to Yang. And before you respond, yes, of course a wealthy person is going to pay more money when they buy more expensive items, but is it going to be the same percentage of their total income or wealth as the working class person who is using ALL their money and having to pay a greater portion of a regressive VAT tax? The answer is no, it will be a far less percentage and lower ratio compared to their total income. Rich people sit on a huge portion of their wealth, accumulating interest, while working class people spend their entire paycheck and pay sales taxes. If you add MORE regressive taxes, the tax burden on the working class will only become larger.
See, this is the problem. The Freedom Dividend, coupled with UBI is going to end up shifting wealth even more towards the wealthy and powerful given the difference in the percentage they pay back into the system through the regressive VAT tax. You could simply fix this by just funding UBI through a progressive payroll tax, but Yang won't do that because he knows it would actually fund UBI in a way that benefits the working class, places more of the tax burden on the wealthy than on the working class, and would actually increase taxes on the rich.
I'm also not even mentioning how it would cut social programs and some of the poorest and most desperate Americans wouldn't even get a full $1,000 due to already receiving SSI (only SSDI stacks), food stamps, child assistance, housing assistance, income tax credit, and so on. Some distinctive older or disabled people already receiving $1,000 in assistance wouldn't even get any benefit from the Freedom Dividend, yet they would still have to pay for the VAT tax (or any inflation or rent increase that occurs), making it a a net negative for some of the poorest people.
You can argue that his Freedom Dividend is an overall benefit to most people, but it has far too many added portions that diminish the entire purpose of having a ubi. I actually support the concept of a basic income and have for a long time, but Yang's version is a pale imitation of what a progressive UBI would look like, and based on his specifics, it would only end up worsening wealth inequality, something I massively disagree with him on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ZenAndPsychedelicHealingCenter & Occupy got utterly crushed. The debate stopped after a few days because you didn't have proper representation & avid critics in Washington at the time. Bernie Sanders has been arguing for leftist policies for 40+ years & it's fallen on deaf ears, which is why, whether he planned it or not, he started a movement to bring more uncorrupted outsiders & Left-wing activists into Washington & clone himself many times over. Now you have someone like Nina Turner about to make a real run for Congress & then the presidency (with an already giant support base, maybe the largest in the country after Trump's) & you have a 30-year old like AOC, a new Congresswomen, who is the most popular member of Congress on Twitter & otherwise with significant cultural power among Dem & Independent voters. Not to mention, other new members actually arguing in favor of Palestinians, something that never happened in the past, & so on & so on. More important than anything though, Bernie proved that you can raise more money by being a champion of the people far more than you can from whoring yourself to corporations - this is a game changer in American politics & you already saw people like Warren, Yang, & others trying to copy his successful strategy, while neoliberals have to hide their shame & corporate donors as best they can. Things might look dim right now with a Joe Biden presidency, but make no mistake, the future belongs to the Left & populism.
1
-
@soul4saken This is actually a very interesting (& important) topic, because I can't rightfully say what the best strategy is. Would Bernie have won if he went nuclear on Biden? Maybe, or maybe Bloody Monday was too devastating for any Leftist to overcome. If Bernie employed a cutthroat strategy when the primary had 9+ candidates, would he have have been able to cut down the competition easier? I can't say & I think it's naïve to assume anyone knows the answers for sure - the Democratic Party is not the same as the Republican Party. The Republicans value strength above all else, they think might=right, whereas the Democratic base values intelligence & candor rather than brute force. The same strategies would not provide the same results, I'm sure of that much.
However, I am of the same belief that Bernie should've gone farther in the lengths he was willing to challenge & go after the Democratic Party, at least after they played their hand the night before Super Tuesday ("they drew first blood" so to speak); I am just uncertain of the outcome. His hostility could've paid off, or it could've backfired among Democrats & centrists. Bernie was at least partially successful in his more peaceable strategy. No matter how it ultimately turned out, he was winning the primary before the game board was flipped over on Bloody Monday, so before Super Tuesday, it's safe to say his strategy was working & winning. You had even baby boomers explaining how the media was being overly hostile towards Sanders to the point of absurdity when the guy has done nothing but propose & champion policy he thinks will help people.
When MSNBC said that Bernie winning Nevada was like the Nazis invading France, you had overwhelming backlash against the media & anti-Bernie groups. By conducting himself as non-threatening, he made the media & neoliberals look like the antagonistic ones, & that actually made their plans backfire constantly throughout the campaign. You had the Nevada Culinary Union plan backfire, you had media attacks against his campaign backfire nonstop, & you even had Warren's "sexism" attack backfire in a huge way. Would these been as effective if Bernie took a more hostile role? I don't think so, but would the positives of being more hostile outweigh the negatives? I don't know for sure, but I suspect that might've only been the case after it became a 1v1 election with Biden.
I tend to agree with people that have said Bernie had nothing left to lose after Bloody Monday & even if it had backfired, a change in strategy would've been better than continuing a strategy that was known to be losing against the neoliberals coalescing like they did. I am also of the firm belief, that I really don't think it would've been enough to beat Biden - the math & statistics just weren't on the Left's side when Amy & Pete joined with Biden & Warren snubbed Bernie. The lengths Bernie would've had to go to defeat those numbers seemed unattainable, especially when there was extremely little time to make the case & especially when the people he's trying to win are Warren voters, neoliberals, & Democrat-leaning black voters. Being more hostile towards Biden doesn't seem like it's the most effective way of winning those types of liberal voters (probably why Bernie took a soft approach to Biden & his voters from the beginning). However, again, I just don't know for sure. I think a change in strategy would've been better no matter what it was, but I highly doubt anything could've managed to pull out a victory, especially not enough of a victory so they couldn't steal it at the Convention (something that almost definitely would've happened if Bernie eked out a victory). I remember hearing the results of Super Tuesday & knowing right then & there that Bernie lost the primary, & then 2 days later when Bloomberg backed Biden & Warren refused to back Bernie, it made it even more clear.
Nowadays, my main opinion is just that the primary election was constructed for the neoliberal's safety & rigged by design. When Noam Chomsky said there was little chance a Leftist like Bernie could win the primary, I understand why now. We're not going to be able to overcome the DNC & corporate Democrats until their voters join us in our struggle for Universal healthcare & an end to wealth inequality. Things likely need to get worse before they get better, just like in the Great Depression that led to FDR's rise. It's just too bad the primary had to occur before the pandemic hit, it likely would've been enough to change the outcome.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's honestly way worse than anyone thinks too. Because not only are they under-prescribing the people with chronic pain, but they are having a crack down on opiods without doing anything about the millions of people who are addicted to their either illegal or legally prescribed pain meds. When you take away peoples prescriptions, completely cripple their health insurance by massively defunding medicare and medicaid, and then don't give them any options with methadone/suboxone treatment or counseling, you are essentially just telling them to go get Heroin. And then the people who are not connected enough to the black market will probably just kill themselves because I can guarantee 100% they are not going to be fine taking a fucking aspirin. Jeff Sessions should get his dick and balls cut off for that shit. It literally is harmful to everyone on both sides of the political spectrum, everywhere in the United States, and they've literally fucked this up more than anyone could ever know. The other day I had to watch a guy freak out in a doctor's office because his medicaid insurance wouldn't work anywhere to get addiction treatment. The system is set up so that most of the doctors actually lose money for taking patients with medicaid or some form of insurance that isn't silver or gold quality, and I live in one of the good states for healthcare. I am not fucking around people, the system for these supposed "people we are trying to help" and victims of the opiod epidemic are being spit up and chewed out and a lot of them will likely die in the next few years. It doesn't matter if their from California or West Virginia, they are all fucked unless they have really good jobs with insurance that will be miraculously be taken by these treatment centers, but even then the waiting list to get in as a new patient at one of these places takes months sometimes. Any sane person could've told them that they need to help the sick people first before they just cut off opiods to the entire country. Now it's going to be a million times worse. Fucking terrible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@majintroll4454 Wow what solid logic you've given. Not that you should actually vote for someone based on their policy and substance of their platform. Trump is the literal bitch-boy of the establishment, not even Joe Biden, the biggest corporate Democrat in the race, could be worse than Trump when it comes to doing the bidding of the ultra wealthy, billionaires, mega-corporations, and the fossil fuel industry that want to keep destroying the world and lead to the extinction of humanity. Though hey, anything to trigger them libs though am I right?
Doesn't fucking matter though, because Bernie's going to be the nominee and I bet, based on your hallow argument, that you will still pathetically vote for your daddy Trump while he's cucking harder than ever to the establishment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@xxxxOS Yeah no, I have no sympathy for Dore, I used to watch his show back in the day, but when he started doing the constant Bernie bashing and smear-campaign against Justice Dems just because Bernie wouldn't go on his show and essentially to push his own idiotic agenda of a 3rd party that he basically had to bash on others to promote, he lost all credibility as a "progressive". Like I said in my other post, he works backwards from his conclusion all the time and then his viewers just absorb his words as if it's gospel just like you're talking to me now. You're claiming anyone who "attacks Dore is dodgy af", how about people who attack Bernie, AOC, and Justice Dems? Are they dodgy as fuck too? Strange how your claim only works one way even though AOC, Bernie, and Justice Dems are FAR More paramount to modern-day progressivism and politics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@inteallsviktigt Any serious political analyst will tell you that mass movements in America only succeeded when they had both an outside movement of people pushing for change coupled with inside political forces pushing to ensure the demands of the people were heard, sometimes it's even a president empathetic to the cause. MY POSITION is that both of these forces are important or necessary because historically that has been the fact of the matter - you're the one trying to claim electoral politics means absolutely nothing and is pointless when that's simply not the case from a historical perspective, nor from a common sense perspective.
I'd hate to state the obvious, but if every single person with your same or similar political ideology were to never vote again or never participate in any level of politics again, you would likely see a political shift of the federal/state/local government to the opposite side of the spectrum that you're on, where the government would become even more pro-corporate, more anti-worker, & you're a fool if you think the state of the country and politics can't get any worse than it is now ---- A more specific example then ---- Imagine if every single Marijuana advocate, supporter or otherwise stopped voting entirely, stopped doing activism to push others to vote for pro-Marijuana legislation, all you would have left are the anti-Marijuana voters and then soon enough you would lose all states rights and recreational/medical laws allowing Marijuana to be produced & sold in any of the 36 states that allow Marijuana to be sold in some capacity. I imagine you DON'T agree with Marijuana becoming illegal and a felony in all 50 states again do you? Oh wait, that's right, "voting in America is the equivalent of eating McDonalds". You are straight foolish.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brian2440 "I literally listed 14 other possible plans for solving the climate problem..." No, you listed like 1 or 2 other "studies" in your previous post that you immediately shat on as well saying they're "highly improbable" and The Green New Deal is "even worse". You didn't give an actual recommendation or a solution, you just bitched about any transition to renewable period. The sources you just listed seem to be saying that we can't transition until 2050, however, why is it that there are numerous countries that are nearly almost entirely powered by renewable energy, and Iceland is the first country to be 100% powered by renewable. This is where all your "studies" and your smug arrogance on the topic don't mean dick anymore, when you compare the United States to other countries on the world stage who are already lightyears ahead of us on transitioning their energy consumption. Australia has gigantic land mass just like the US, and back in 2010 they released a Zero Carbon Stationary Energy Plan that made it a goal to transition their energy within 10 years to be above 90% run by renewable energy. So why the fuck is it that every other 1st world country has a feasible plan to do it within a reasonable time yet the United States DOESN'T? Even IF you can't reach the 12 year mark, which I'm not even saying you definitely can, you should still make it the goal, the existence of humanity depends on a rapid transition and human ingenuity finds a way when nations are backed up into a corner just like what happened with The New Deal, just like what happened in WW2, and just like what happened with the moon landing. I'm tired of this conversation, you clearly just want to complain about the transition and don't care about a feasible plan to do so without destroying the Earth in the process and waiting for a solution that won't hurt your precious bank account in the US. Solar energy is now cheaper than coal and could become the cheapest form of energy within this decade, so any argument about cost or why the transition should remain at a slow pace to minimize cost just doesn't work and we know from a historical standpoint that undertakings like The New Deal massively paid off in the future. Here's sources that refute what you're saying and why a rapid transition is not just possible but entirely necessary.
You missed a "study", here's a response to your critics on a rapid transition https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032118303897
Australia's 10 year Zero Carbon Stationary Energy Plan https://bze.org.au/research/renewable-energy-plan/
Why fossil fuels are holding back Renewable Energy in the US
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/What-Is-Holding-Renewable-Energy-Back.html
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Bungalo Bill - Yes, I do not really like the Clintons due to many factors. The biggest being their 1994 crime bill that has led to the mass levels of incarceration we see today and their extremely corrupt pull on the DNC. However, what I hate even more are attention-seeking "whores" that try to besmirch the ex-President's name with absolutely no proof and many things that work against their claims. I am not talking about Bill Clinton's possible sexual misconduct such as exposing himself to Paula Jones. He seemed like a promiscuous politician that ended up having extramarital relations with Monica and Gennifer Flowers, so I'm sure he has had at least one or two real sexual harassment charges against him just like many politicians in the past 50 years. Trump has had countless sexual harassment charges at this point along with his sexist bullying and crude statements to women on a daily basis, I think it puts him in the lead over any politician when it comes to sexual harassment and misconduct.
Juanita Broaddrick, on the other hand, who is the ONLY woman alleging Bill Clinton raped her (Look it up, it's a simple Google search away), seems to be fueled by political motives and greed for her allegations she is claiming against Bill Clinton. I have seen all the videos of that woman, and besides looking like a downright liar and fraud, she had previously stated under oath that she was never sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton (seriously just google it, it's not hard). Then she waits 2 decades to say anything else about it, and then once Trump began running for office, she all of a sudden claims she "lied under oath" and then gets all this attention on Trump's campaign trail as if she really needed the attention. The normal rape victim would not want that huge of a spotlight on them like she was making for herself. At the same time, her husband at the time that her "alleged rape" happened has stated that she is lying about her allegations and claims that Bill Clinton never raped her. She was also having her own extramarital relations at the time and sleeping around with other men that were not her husband. Also, Broaddrick cannot even remember the date that she was raped even though that would be a seared and branded date in any rape victim's brain. In addition to all these facts, the National Enquirer, a far right leaning media outlet, paid a lie detector expert to analyze Broaddrick's confession tapes, and he concluded that she was lying. It is hard to disregard all these facts when making a logical conclusion about Juanita Broaddrick, but if you were to do your research on her case and allegations, most people would come out with the conclusion that she was not raped by Bill Clinton even though there is no proof to entirely suggest she was or wasn't. However, it is completely naive to not make an educated guess based on these solid facts along with Broaddrick's own attention seeking behavior in the media.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AnyProofOfTheseClaims "He never once used a word that wasn't in the article" Okay, so now you're just nitpicking the truth to make it seem totally innocuous? & Yes he actually does, he adds the word "Despite" (along with changing the phrasing of several other words) to completely change the context of the article & misrepresent it. He Frankensteined that article together in a twisted way to completely change the context of it entirely. How is that NOT Dishonest? He takes two different sentences from two completely separate paragraphs in the article, knits them together, changes the wording around it, & adds "despite" to make it seem like it's saying the exact opposite of what the original article was portraying about Singapore's current policies regarding COVID. Honestly, do you actually believe the stuff your saying? In any other format, this wouldn't even be up for discussion. He GOT CAUGHT rewriting and misrepresenting a news article - that's the type of shit that can end a journalist's career, but luckily for Jimmy he has stans like you that are completely in defense of journalism malpractice & lying about the news. It's ironic, because his viewers claim that's why they watch Jimmy Dore in the first place, but turns out he does the same bullshit the mainstream media pulls at the end of the day. Fucking Sad bro.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adamdavis1648 Yes, since my original post you're responding to, Mueller's team did come out and say Barr was hiding some of their conclusions in his "summary" and Barr has walked back on his letter being a summary. My original point was that Barr is a political hatchetman and that recent news from Mueller's team only solidifies that point more. We won't know exactly what the conclusion is until the report is released. Either way, people are going to continue to over-exaggerate one side or the other, but not even Kyle and Greenwald are correct on this one, at least not until there is solid proof. They're taking a political hatchetman's word as fact, which is beyond foolish and, in their case, really hacky considering they constantly questioned Mueller for his history with claims of WMDs, but now are failing to even have slight nuance over Barr's obviously biased letter. As I said before, Barr is the guy that covered up the Iran Contra Affair, his "word" can be trusted just about as much as someone like Elliot Abrams.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Fidgety Rock - I agree with you. I value the opinions of the people at The Daily Show more than any other late night show. They seem more in touch with the people and circling less around the establishment. I love John Oliver, but he has had some really pro-establishment rhetoric sometimes and most of the time you won't even notice it because of how entertaining his show is.
For example, John Oliver has always just dismissed real populist candidates as jokes and with no chance at ever winning races. He did it last year with Melanchon in the French presidential race, he did it two years ago with Bernie Sanders, and then he just recently did it with Luigi Di Maio and the Five Star Movement in Italy. He outlines all the candidates that have recently included the two dominating parties, both populist, but one is on the left as a people's party and the other is on the far right that is fueled by xenophobia, hate and ignorance to the world's problems. Oliver will sometimes speak out against the far right party like Marie Le Pen and Donald Trump, but also sometimes he makes it appear that all the choices are bad choices and it doesn't matter which side you vote for, which is actually pretty dangerous. If you are given a choice between a populist left party and a populist right party, any sane person on the left would tell you to go with the populist left party of course, but since most of the time these parties are not a part of the establishment, John Oliver won't ever say one positive thing about them. Luigi Di Maio wasn't the perfect candidate, but he was very obviously Italy's best candidate and compared to a fascist like Matteo Salvini, John Oliver should have done what was right and given a fair analysis on Luigi Di Maio as the obvious better candidate, but instead just said he was way too young to be in charge of anything and then showed of a video of him in a wind tunnel as if it mattered AT ALL. Just like he did with Melanchon and Bernie Sanders in similar manners, but it makes it painfully obvious that John Oliver does not give credit to anyone unless they are a part of the establishment left.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rachaelchavez8766 "Youtube schoolyard bully"? Wtf. It's just a show on youtube, calm down spaz. You went on a long rant about how Kyle is apparently a "hilarious hyprocrite" and "sanctimonious and overly prideful" conflating him to Ben Shapiro while calling Sam Seder an "envious parasite" because he criticizes Dave Rubin and Jordan Peterson. You just gave a bunch of ad hominems without any real substantive argument. Care to explain WHY Kyle is a "hypocrite" and why Dave Rubin and Jordan Peterson deserve anything less than criticism. Dave Rubin is one of the biggest grifters on the Right. It's literally in his fake title as a "classical liberal", and he's doing so badly in his right-wing ecochamber, that now even his fans are turning on him, partly thanks thanks to Kyle, Sam Seder, Pakman, and tyt for calling his ass out for being a safe space for conservative thought while claiming he loves the "battle of ideas".
By all means though, continue to defend Rave Dubin, you're on a roll. "I have to say that my brain is still in recovery mode from taking in so many high level, important ideas".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michelleyip9507 The Taliban's treaty was with the United States, not with the Trump family. Do you understand how treaties work? Also, Trump released the Taliban's leader, whose most likely going to become president/ruler now so saying he's not to blame at all is ridiculous; he set a withdraw date for May 1st and if you think any "conditions" could've stopped this, you're a fool. The US has been in an unwinnable guerilla war for 20 years and the Taliban already hold the majority of Afghan's lands. Not to mention the US spent 20 years training 300,000 Afghan soldiers and 75,000 Taliban just took Kabul with barely even a single shot fired. You don't get it, any withdraw, from Trump, Biden or Obama was going to result with this, which is exactly why Obama went back on his campaign promise to pull out of Afghanistan and stayed in for another 10 years.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@princessmilkchocolate5246 Look, I hate Trump, but the reality is that, according to election results, Trump actually expanded his coalition since 2016 (among women, Black ppl, Latinos, & nearly every group). We need to analyze why that is or else we're going to be right back in the same situation in 2024. I think part of the problem is because Joe Biden didn't give people real reasons to make him president, but rather his arguments were always simply anti-Trump & focused on why Trump should NOT be president than why Biden should be, & yes, Trump lost because of a giant wave of anti-Trump sentiment (too many people wanted him out), but that doesn't mean he didn't expand his own coalition. I have no idea why it expanded since he bungled COVID & ran a ridiculous campaign talking about Marxism, statues & BLM "violence", but I have a feeling his expanded support is the same reason for the wave of anti-Trump support against him - basically people didn't like Biden & they rejected him (just as they rejected Trump) as an old-way outdated 90s politician who isn't offering them anything new & any real solutions except for a "return to normalcy", which, even before the pandemic, didn't work for most Americans, many of whom have been struggling since the 2009 financial collapse.
If Biden runs in 2024, he's going to have a tough time winning if there isn't that same anti-Trump enthusiasm to push him over the edge again. The Democrats need to actually offer substantive change for workers & Biden needs to not govern like a conservative or else the working class is just going to protest vote for another fascist in 2024 just to spite the establishment candidate (which will be attached to Biden if he doesn't do anything to fix the deep economic issues in this country). You are correct that conservatism is losing popularity fast, but Trump is holding onto a decently sized coalition because he tricks people into thinking he's the populist choice & the anti-war choice [not just the conservative choice]. This is entirely the case because of Biden & the Democrats' failures. They don't talk about policies & they just end up looking like Hollywood elites & corporate sellouts that are substituting policies for platitudes & flowery words - Biden & Kamala are already doing this & this type of shit is only going to lead to an even WORSE Trump in 2024 if we don't challenge them or replace them with a candidate that is offering real solutions & isn't afraid to talk about it.
Anyways, sorry for ranting so much if you've read this far, but this stuff is just entirely predictable, preventable & it drives me mad seeing this car crash in slow motion just like the way 2016 unfolded. Unless someone changes his mind, Biden is going to put Republicans like John Kasich in his cabinet, he's gonna govern like a conservative & then in 2024, when people are still in massive debt & still have no healthcare, he's gonna lose to a Trump 2.0 & then it might really be Game Over for Democracy next time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Peter Gobkoswki - Buddy, I'm not arguing with you on that. A lot of the Democrats are corporate puppets that will vote the same corporatist way with Republicans a lot of the time, and if they didn't have to worry about backlash from their constituents, most of them might just do that out of sheer corruption and the influence that their donors have on them. That coupled with constant Republican obstruction, is why they failed to pass an actual populist agenda for tax reform, a good healthcare system, etc. Most actual leftists think Obama was a terrible president. He constantly towed the fence between Republican and Democrat (at least when it came to the real issues and not identity politics) and was a gigantic corporate Moderate his entire 8 years, which is why we all came out of the Obamacare debate with a healthcare system that was created by Mitt Romney and a right-wing think tank. Most of those centrist Democrats do not want real change to the point where the working class is getting their fair share and a livable wage and corporations actually have to start paying their taxes that they evade due to legal loop holes and now a 21% corporate tax that they can easily drop down to 7% with the right techniques. I have a million and one problems with the Democrats, do not mistake that.
My original point though was that out of the two parties, the Democratic party is the only one going through a positive change. A lot of them are moving away from donor contributions because they are realizing that it does more harm than good in today's political environment now that people have finally caught on to the corruption that campaign contributions lead to. The ones who are not budging on their corporate PAC money and dark money are slowly getting voted out. There are various new left-wing groups that are banding together new politicians that are incorruptible who will primary Democrats like Dianne Feinstein, who voted for the Iraq War and constantly votes against the American peoples' interests, and Cory Booker, who has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from Big Pharma every year, even though he just pledged to stop taking any donor money (probably realized he was going to get booted unless he changed). This type of transformation will eventually lead the Democratic party into a leadership that has a populist message and real goals that help the working class and not just corporations. I do not see this type of change going on in the Republican party, the only thing I see is Trump constantly sowing chaos in his own party, and corruption at its utmost highest level. The Democrats are far from perfect at the moment, and I have very little faith in them until more populist candidates are voted in, but they have been heading in the right direction since Obama left office and are the only logical choice when it comes to the future of this country and the future for our working class.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Modi's economic policy is neoliberal at best. Saying he's only "slightly to Bernie's right" is fucking hilarious considering he's doing the exact opposite of Bernie on healthcare in India. He's literally trying to reverse government-run healthcare, massively slashing public programmes, and is bringing back private insurance and healthcare providers, something that any 1st world country aside from the US would laugh at. From everything I've read about him, he seems Trumpian in the fact that he scapegoats Muslims in the same way Trump does with Mexicans. His party basically came to prominence when they tore down a mosque in the 90s, and Modi himself has worked to remove 11,000 nonprofits from India that were linked to other religions outside of Hinduism, this includes Islam, Christianity, etc. Modi does some good things policy-wise, but overall his role in India seems problematic especially with this new development in Pakistan that essentially makes the region a powder keg.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+John Smith - Actually, I'm probably with Jimmy Cotreau on that. If Bernie doesn't win the Dem primary, it essentially means that the Democratic establishment all but killed Democracy because I think we all know Bernie is the most popular candidate to win and the only way the DNC is going to silence him is by seriously rigging the election to an almost comical level and a point where there will be riots in the streets. If a corporatist like Kamala Harris or Biden "wins", it means the Dems massively fucked its base over and they don't deserve anyone's vote. And if that all seriously happens, I'll likely be voting 3rd party as well out of principle. I mean it all depends on how screwed up the DNC acts in the primary, but they refuse to stop cheating and refuse to learn their lesson about not fucking over their leftist base. I only had one foot in the door during the last Bernie or Bust movement, but if the Dems do the same thing again, I'll have no choice but to go full Bernie or Bust. It just means the DNC doesn't give a fuck about democracy, it's voters, and only cares about it's precious establishment, money and desperately holding onto its fading power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@webdavis This is the trick. You "can't" give Biden credit on one issue because he's bad on a different issue - The withdrawal from Afghanistan is it's own specific topic, one that the Left should be UNANIMOUSLY in favor of since we've been talking about an end to that war for 2 fucking decades. Drone strikes, in this context, is a different issue even ones in Afghanistan. Why? Because one of those issues is absolutely a good thing and one of this issues is fucking bad. Shouldn't that be obvious?
Separate the goddamn issues so you can encourage a withdrawal while simultaneously denouncing drone strikes. What you absolutely Should NOT do though is completely stay silent or unreasonably adversarial over the withdrawal of all US troops and personnel from a war that needed to be done and over 20 years ago.
The withdrawal was a massive success from the context of what the Left has wanted for decades, so when the media tries to beat the war drum to try to get us back in that war after just leaving (effectively starting an even bigger war with the Taliban), every single person that claims to be anti-war needs to stand up and support the withdrawal, and yes give credit to Biden so maybe, just MAYBE he'll do the same thing in Iraq because he'll see the amount of support he had during Afghanistan - that's not going to happen when spineless cowards like Jimmy can't put his pride aside to support the larger issue or maybe is just too stupid to see the bigger picture. Either way, he's a fucking hack because of it. When the US military drone strikes a "family", you wouldn't stay silent over it, would you? The same goes for staying silent over a withdrawal that puts an end to many of those 20 year conflicts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
People who gave serious skepticism and warnings over Tulsi and Yang (especially Tulsi) & got heaps of shit for it. I'd say I feel vindicated for it, but if I had to guess, I'm sure the same thing will just happen again in 2024 or 2028. From what I've seen, people are generally too dense to read between the lines in politics. If Pete Buttigieg never made an early neoliberal heel turn in the 2020 primary, I bet even more people would've bought into his snake oil campaign - he was initially saying all the right things, but if you read between the lines, there was something off about him, same exact issue with Tulsi and Yang, except they didn't show their true colors until long after the primary ended. In regards to Tulsi, she supported torture before the 2020 primary, that was all I ever needed to hear.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bluesrockfan36 "no real solutions"? Sure, and giving out cash to everyone and having a raffle in the primary is not a "dog whistle" to anyone at all either. Saying on conservative networking that your basic income will 'cut social programs' is definitely not a "dog whistle" to conservatives and libertarians as well.
The difference between you and us is that we're not sitting at the edge of our seats waiting for our federal allowance of 1,000 bucks (talk about being placated), we realize that a world where 3 people own more wealth than the bottom half of the country is unsustainable and only becomes worse year after year. Taxing the wealthy is the only way to reduce the colossal wealth gap and income inequality, while you're claiming a small tax on goods, comparable to a sales tax, that is also regressive by definition, will somehow be the "REAL solution" to tackling the massive amount of accumulated wealth of the billionaire class. There is absolutely no basis to show that a VAT tax will even put a dent in wealth inequality and many analysts have even estimated that it could potentially benefit the wealthy more than the poor while even some others out there have made the case it would have unpredictable outcomes and end up hurting the poor in the long-term more than helping them.
We KNOW what the real solutions are for wealth inequality, you keep trying to do mental gymnastics on why a glorified sales tax will apparently fix the wealth gap, meanwhile you have studies coming out that show that this wealth tax will continually decrease the number of billionaires by more and more annually, however, we already know you yang supporters think billionaires 'deserve' their money and big tech should never be broken up even though they're too big to fail, filtering the political discussion, and constantly selling our data to the FBI, NSA and CIA. Also, apparently the thought of vast deregulation doesn't bother you considering your team wants to put a sunset provision on all regulations even Wall Street regulations, that proposal is insanity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Xeccelerator I was really just objectively stating why Jayapal was there & how it had to do with a bill she had been working on since January. I agree it's a mistake for her to even slightly give the impression she approves of Joe Kennedy when there's a competitive primary happening, however, it's not really surprising given her position in politics & always being a bridge between progressives & normie Dems, especially when it comes to her position as a legislator.
Unlike some others who watch this channel, it takes a lot for me to reasonably get angry or upset at Leftist politicians who hold the correct policy positions but who have political strategies that are disagreeable for many. Despite what this other person is shouting at me, I don't agree with Bernie's strategy post-primary, however, I understand it & acknowledge that the lesser of two evils argument is a valid argument whether one agrees with it or not. Both Noam Chomsky & Sanders have ascribed to its logic lately, so I at least understand where they are coming from. On the topic of AOC, Tlaib, & Omar, I'm not even sure what people's issue with them is considering they have actually been strong Leftists in gov't ever since they were elected. People want to point to an innocuous comment about Pelosi being "mama bear" as a way to ostracize them as now being part of the problem, a notion I find literally absurd.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CribNotes "Covid shut down the global economy in 2020" - The last time any big spending bill was passed was over a year ago & the first relief package happened 2 months after COVID "shut down the global economy", so you're point doesn't even make sense by your own logic. Strange how we didn't see inflation until 2 years after the first relief package was passed and over a year since any relief was given to Americans. And no, it's not just a "bigger factor", it's the primary factor. Almost all economists point to supply chain issues, surging demand, and production costs as the main culprits - basically everything I just listed in my last comment. Pointing fingers at a relief package from over a year ago is purely a political stance, not a deep dive into the real cause or an analysis based on what's actually happening with our economy. I've explained the flow of logic on how the supply chain crisis and similar issues are causing inflation, but in response you just tell me I'm crazy cause it's 'obviously' big gov't spending. Why don't you try to explain how that even makes sense. You think big gov't spending = more money being printed = inflation, but that's such a juvenile and naïve view on how one of the largest economies in the world functions. The US has been printing more and more of its money for years, but it never matters because the US controls its own currency. If over-spending was such a huge concern for the US, they wouldn't have been doing it for decades, especially under Republican presidencies who prominently and openly have way higher deficit spending than Democratic presidents (this is a fact). Besides, if you're going to point the finger at any ludicrous amounts of gov't spending, you should've looked at how the Trump administration was handling the initial impact of COVID and how the Federal Reserve, at one point, was pumping 1 Trillion a day into the stock market to keep it afloat, nevermind the meager relief checks sent out a whopping 3 times total, to everyone who pays, on average, 2-3x more on taxes for that year the checks were sent out. However, that's besides the point, because none of that even phases the US economic system anymore, so why would it now? Coincidentally at the moment when we're 100% seeing real issues with the supply chain, a lack of goods like computer chips that are needed to build even more goods like tech devices, computer parts and cars. In addition, you can literally track how retail stores like Walmart and others are raising their prices simply because online goods are at a higher price and higher demand. You see, these are real factors that can be manually tracked and analyzed. All you're stating are political biases and unproven theories about gov't spending.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@clintholmes2061 "if you don't understand why campaigning with despised people is bad strategy then you are too far gone". How about if anyone seriously says something like what you just said, they are 'too far gone'. Sounds reasonable right?
There is a valid argument to be made whether campaigning with Hillary and Biden helped or hurt him. Hillary has pretty bad approval ratings right now, but has had good ratings in the not-so-distant past, and Biden has pretty good approval ratings as well, so your point is very debatable to begin with and shaming someone for contesting the argument as "too far gone" is just smug bullshit. I personally, do not think he should have campaigned with Biden and Hillary, but I'm a progressive, so you have to think outside of your own bubble in this instance. You seem to think that everyone thinks the same way you do about everything, because there is possibly a 50/50 chance that those campaigns might've actually helped him or hurt him, or they canceled each other out with one helping him and the other hurting him, you don't know and you have no way to prove that. I just find your smugness overwhelmingly arrogant though.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
logic rules No it wasn't good before the midterms. The Stock Market has been super volatile this ENTIRE year starting with the gigantic plunge in February where it was a literal world record for the largest drop ever in one day in human history. Go look at the market charts numbnuts, this isn't even the first time "all the gains this year have been lost". The markets have just been going up and down this entire year and it was bound to eventually keep falling one of these times. Ever since those Trump tax cuts, the stock market has been inflated and entirely propped up by stock buybacks (but even before then as well, just not as critical).
This does not even take into consideration ALL the other factors of the economy, which have NEVER been good even under Obama (Trump just made it far far worse) such as worker wages, the growing debt of the population, student loan debt, the affordable housing crisis, 93,000 jobs outsourced just last year, and countless more parts of our economy that are fucked. The Stock Market is not even a good indicator, but now even that is failing and you and Trump have no one to blame but yourself. This is what happens when you allow the rich to just buyback their own stocks and allow Banks to gamble with people's money just as they did before the 2008 crash.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sweepthelegjohnny I'm not "strawmanning" anyone. I'm taking their comments at face value & making an analysis. Someone literally said that politics is never something you can be a part of - it's hard to see how I can 'misconstrue' that into some kind of strawman, it's already incredibly damning on its own. I'm just beyond disappointed with the state of the Left these days. There's no way leftists are winning anything when this is the attitude being circulated, I'm being serious when I say that, & no this doesn't just have to do with "Bernie Sanders", it's being reflected by every single Left-wing representative in government, am I wrong? That means it's a much broader issue to do with the Left & you even tipped your hat & said that it's anything to do with the Democratic Party (the party that the vast majority of the Left operates from).
Also, just an fyi about you saying "there is absolutely no chance or leverage to even gain a floor vote let alone pass the damn bill". Lowering Medicare age to 55 is literally what M4A does in Year 1 of it being implemented, do you even realize that? If you would just pull your head out of your ass you'd understand that improving people's lives doesn't always have to do with a singular strategy or a single bill. You fight like hell for what you can get because the alternative is just giving up and rolling over. "there is no real fight going on in the Democratic Party"? Boo fucking hoo. They have a fucking supermajority son. In addition to that, the Republicans are hopeless & you won't get even a single Rep vote on any legislation you want, so the Democratic Party is literally the only battleground there is right now, that's just the reality. You deciding to give up on any fight that has any relevance to the Democratic Party is you just giving up the policy narrative to likes of Joe Manchin & Krysten Sinema up-front. It's a true gift to them and all the other conservatives & even neoliberal elites. This is the exact shit I was talking about, & I'm not trying to pick on you, but there needs to be some kind of self-reflection for people who have decided to simply check out of the current political system - you're just giving the establishment exactly what they want & then brushing it off as if you've reached some kind of absurd enlightenment through deep cynicism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+21gramsoofsoul - Wow you really come off as a stable and rational individual with your childish name-calling and baseless smears. I don't even really know much about Crowley, but Ro pulled his endorsement, which should basically put the issue to bed, but you want to draw it out and smear someone for it when Ro Khanna has always been on the side of progressives and one of the only House members to not take corporate money. Both Ro Khanna and TYT both back progressive policies and are adamantly at the front lines of the progressive movement trying to purge the Democratic party of corporate Dems.
You want to deflect from reality and ignore facts, go ahead, but they've done far more for the progressive movement than your stupid ass who likes to sit behind a computer and bitch about who is "pro-establishment" to you personally today, which means about nothing to me or anyone else unless you have actual substance to back it up and your only accusation comes from a pulled endorsement that has nothing to do with actual policy. Do you back things like Medicare for All, free public college, a livable wage, breaking up the monopolies and banks? Then Ro Khanna and TYT should clearly be your allies in this fight against the establishment, but instead you want to attack people who agree with you on the policy and substance like a huge fool. You're like the BLM protesters who shut down Bernie's rally in 2015 because you're misinformed, illogically emotional and won't take yes for an answer. I'll put this more simply though, you are a partisan hack who is limited by party lines and can't see past your own hubris and naiveté. Grow the fuck up you hacky short-sighted dilettante.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Johnny-ci8mw "Bernie is going to SWEEP the midwest states that Trump only won by 1% or less in 2016". I appreciate you at least acknowledging the statistics and reality of politics, I see Kamala Harris supporters in constant denial and ignoring these facts when she's just a Hillary 2.0, which we all know how that turned out. Bernie did ridiculously well in midwest states and the Rust Belt, which is how Trump won his own presidency. With all the Carrier and GM factories closing in those areas, Trump is not going to win them again when faced with a true populist like Bernie. However, I think where you're wrong is when you said there will be a "red wave" in response to a Bernie presidency. Bernie giving healthcare to all Americans, raising the minimum wage, ending shitty trade deals that Trump renegotiated, and creating a jobs program and a new New Deal to fix our infrastructure will only win him praise among Republicans just as he won Republicans and "conservative Democrats" over Hillary in 2016. When FDR was president in the 1930s and 1940s, he had very little competition and Bernie is basically the modern-day FDR. In addition, if the Left is finally successful in flushing out Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer from leadership in 2020, then there will be even less of a red wave since those two are wildly hated not only by the right-wing but also by the left-wing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@serg10st I don't give 2 shits about Tulsi. She has 2% support (been in the race for over a year) when we're only 6 weeks away from voting. I'm responding to comments that are full of misinformation regarding Medicare for All.
Secondly, "Single Payer Plus" is not Medicare for All. There's a reason Tulsi doesn't call it by the same name. What she's proposing is a two-tiered system, where the private insurance industry still heavily exists and dictates the market in parallel to a publicly funded option for people. There are many flaws with this and the main issue is that the private insurance industry in America is incredibly powerful, it will continue to try to inch its way back into controlling the entirety of the healthcare industry as long as it exists and as long as it makes billions of dollars in profits. Australia's private sector is relatively small, if you try to implement a two-tiered system in the US similar to this, there will be a far far bigger piece of the pie and portion of the insurance market that is occupied by the for-profit insurance industry. You're not going to get rid of the greed involved in the healthcare insurance industry until you take away their profit motive.
Even in countries that HAVE a two-tiered system, the governments have usually taken the profit margin out of healthcare. Germany funds all of its private insurance companies as the single payer, while France forces all private insurance companies to be nonprofit organizations by law. You NEED to take the profit motive out of the health insurance industry, otherwise you're just going to have people getting screwed over, going bankrupt, and dying no matter how the system is structured.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Emanresu56 - I don't think Articnerd was refuting what you said about how it distracts, but we shouldn't be simply dismissing the Russia investigation as gibberish just because MSM overuses it as an excuse not to talk about those issues. Trump should be accountable for all his foreign corruption. That includes Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, China, and yes even Russia. I agree that MSM should be focusing on all of those equally, but just because they don't doesn't diminish the fact that the issue with Russia is still there once you clear out all the dust the MSM makes about it just like there is obviously serious issues with Israel vs Iran and Trump's military campaign in Yemen's genocide. His point was why we can't do both and include Russia in the mix, which is not only a swipe at MSM for not covering everything unless it's Russia, but is also directed at certain progressives who are fixated on discrediting anyone who investigates the Russia story and claims they're "pro-establishment". It's labeling someone as an extreme just because you disagree with one thing they do, which is the same thing neoliberals do when you tell them Russia isn't important and they call you a Putin bot. So you either get called a "Putin bot" or "pro-establishment" by one side of the conversation or another. Why can't people take a logical stance and assume maybe everything is a problem and corruption with the administration. Not just Russia, and not just everything besides Russia. That's what makes sense to me.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I somewhat disagree with you on the news issue Kyle. Reagan was the one who repealed the Fairness Doctrine and it has caused our mainstream press to become polarized, chaotic, and essentially allowed the cycle of propaganda to exist. If you look at places like Canada who still have their own Fairness Doctrine, their news is more balanced and their people are more informed about what's going on. In America, it's just pure chaos, so I think saying "I believe in the First Amendment, but we need a new Fairness Doctrine to give the American people more insight on controversial issues", that's a totally fair statement. I know Andrew Yang's take was more focused on "Fake News", but a new Fairness Doctrine, I think, is something America sorely needs and the fact that Ronald Reagan was the one to repeal it should say boatloads about it's validity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@l.w.paradis2108 Whether the one guy yelled the -n word or not isn't relevant to the case, you're just attacking his character as if you're saying he deserved to die, which is why I'm saying all you're doing is disparaging the deceased, which is ironic considering you're in favor of suing for defamation anyone who called Rittenhouse a murderer, not only making yourselves look like massive snowflakes and hypocrites after being the anti-cancel culture brigade for 2 years straight, but also looking juvenile for getting caught up on semantics, since it's just a verifiable fact Rittenhouse shot 2 people to death. Sure he's not a 'convicted murderer' thanks to a biased/partisan judge and loopholes in Wisconsin law that stopped Rittenhouse from getting jail time at the very least for reckless endangerment and an illegal firearm, but he still killed 2 people and it's pretty apparent those deaths are not weighing on his conscience at all since he seems to care far more about his public image than anything else. If this issue wasn't politically charged, everyone would agree this guy is nothing but trash, but just like how people eventually soured on OJ Simpson, I'm sure the same thing will happen to Rittenhouse, especially since most of the younger generation think he belongs in jail.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GnomesRox It wasn't truly universal. @Unelected_Leader's point was that if you had just changed the policy so the funding for it didn't just destroy the social safety net and instead funded it through say taxes on large corporations making record profits or even a tiny .01% tax increase on Wall Street trades, it would've funded it without doing nothing to lift up people already receiving funds through the safety net. What you're doing is giving everyone $1,000 EXCEPT the people who need it the most who would have the amount offset by any benefits they were currently receiving. And honestly, it didn't matter what the semantics of the cut funding was, because even if Yang didn't state in the policy proposal that it would cut the VA or social security directly, the policy is still going down the wrong path and if it actually made it to Congress, you would've bet shit like that would be the first thing to be compromised on. If you make the route for funding initially take the right direction, you set the premise for the bill right off the bat, but instead Yang was just giving a potential chance for Republicans to do away with benefits they've been wanting to cut for decades. Even despite that though, he still crafted it as a more Libertarian UBI that funds it through abolishing food stamps and funding that already went to the people most in need, which basically meant a guy making $250,000 a year would receive more net-income from the UBI than a single mom on food stamps and receiving child benefits - how the fuck does that seem like the correct way to do UBI?
1
-
1
-
@GnomesRox You're not getting it. It's not about "dismantling the safety net", it's about how the UBI funds itself by dismantling the safety net, RESULTING IN a millionaire or doctor receiving a larger net-benefit or net-income from Yang's UBI than the people at the bottom receiving benefits such as a single mother or disabled veteran, etc. The problem is the RESULT. Dismantling the safety net as a part of a whole isn't necessarily a good or bad thing, the issue that matters is what you're dismantling it for and what the result of that policy would be (and who would gain the most benefit from it).
Yang's UBI on its surface boasts wealth redistribution, but if all you're going to do is give a larger share of that wealth to the rich and Americans that aren't on any type of benefit, then your doing wealth redistribution that only shifts wealth upwards away from the poorest Americans. I don't know how you're not getting this. If you wanted to do a UBI that actually dealt with evenly and universally distributing wealth, then at the VERY LEAST you would offer $1,000 checks with no strings attached to the very poorest Americans, not offset the poors checks by removing their food or childcare benefits, resulting in a millionaire news anchor receiving a larger net-income from said UBI check than a single mother. That's idiotic and illogical, or just straight out of the Republican playbook.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@peterroberts4415 So the logical conclusion of your statement is that these people should just be allowed to starve - no assistance, no food stamps, let them starve cause they "aren't improving themselves". Wow, such moral politics you got there. In fact, we should just let them live on the streets, oh wait, we already do that for half a million people, including 35,000 veterans. Even if you're totally fine with starving the homeless or unemployed though, full-time Walmart workers still require Food Stamps just to survive, same with many other full-time workers, so I guess we should make those people struggle even more as well even though they're working full-time in an objectively broken system that doesn't provide them a living wage.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@serpent77 It's funny because, in reality, Yang's ideas are most accurately an evolution from Milton Friedman and Charles Murray, one a Libertarian and one a conservative. Yang's UBI is most closely aligned with their version of UBI, except even Friedman and Murray paid more out than Yang ($13,000 a year), but it's most similar in the way that Friedman and Murray planned to phase out portions of social programs just the way Yang's UBI does in a low-key manner. UBI is not some new idea that's an "evolution" to modern-day progressivism, it's been a concept for literal decades now, and you're just insulting progressives when you say uninformed shit like that. That our ideas are somehow so behind the times that a Libertarian and conservative from the '50s and '60s claim to be an "evolution" to common sense things like paying people a living wage, or more complexly canceling student debt (a modern-day problem in the year 2019) by putting a tax on Wall Street speculation. You just sound like you're pulling your arguments out of your ass to praise your candidate, your team, while trying to take progressives down a peg.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@satagaming9144 Going back to my very original post, the idea behind what I'm talking about is first you implement public financing aka vouchers (Washington state does it right now), this gives average people vouchers to spend on elections on their preferred candidates, which will begin to counter-act big money in politics at least part-way. This is a stepping stone to get to partially more clean politics (you haven't taken the money out completely so it will still have legalized bribery and tricks played in politics). Once you have more people-powered elections, you can start to implement reforms that remove corrupt money from politics, for instance stopping the revolving door and putting massive restrictions on lobbyists, but what will also be much closer to being achieved is passing a Constitutional Amendment that says to get all the money out of politics, the legalized bribery, the corporate special interests, etc. This leaves the only financial source for politicians as public financing and politics that is entirely driven by American citizens. A Constitutional Amendment would also likely overturn Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United and Buckly v. Valeo since they're in direct conflict with a Constitutional Amendment against corporate money in politics. There are ways to overturn them without the Supreme Court's judgement, but even if these court cases could not be overturned using policy, a Constitutional Amendment and public financing still ensure that new SCOTUS picks will be totally worker friendly and judges picked by the people instead of by Goldman Sachs. If you don't get it yet, the issue I'm laying out is a step-by-step plan to remove the money from politics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Gene Hendrix - Elon Musk didn't get on camera to talk about real reasons for a person to suffer which IS possible for a rich person such as if your wife dies, your child dies, or if your like Keith Richards and your massively addicted to heroin. He got on camera to talk about how he's working too hard at his multi-billion dollar company that he missed his own brothers wedding and he's sleeping too much with his hot musician girlfriend. Does that sound like suffering to you? Give me a fucking break. If I had his life I would be happy as fuck and I'm just one random person in the world, imagine a person whose homeless, addicted to drugs, or on disabilities/paralyzed for life. The reasoning he gave is just pathetic. Also, we don't like that people become "ultra rich" and then use their money and power to rig the system in their favor, resulting in squishing everyone else on the bottom, which is why wages are lower than ever and more people become homeless every year. And yes, it is why there is a giant wage gap, and people like David Doel and other independent media talk about those politicians all the time. It's the only politicians that they ever throw support behind because everyone else is just WRONG and essentially pro-corruption if they want to keep fueling our corrupt oligarchy that owns our government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This whole thread is so fucking stupid. Listen, BERNIE ISN'T A SOCIALIST! He is a Social Democrat not a Democratic Socialist. There is a fucking difference and anyone claiming Bernie is a "Socialist", or worse a "Communist", is beyond retarded and you have no right to even make ridiculous claims about Venezuela and other bullshit because you are instantly misinformed and self-intentionally blind to the truth. Social Democracy is the belief in a system that has a free market and capitalism, but has Social programs that are only run by the government and are off the table in terms of private corporations profiting off of death and people's heath and such. And why don't you all use your brains for once and think about the fact that America already has Social Security, a police department, a fire department, public education, and on and on and on that are all run by the federal, state, and local governments. This is not some new "Socialist" form of government. This has been going on since the dawn of man and the ancient Romans had more social healthcare than we have now. FDR made the country far more socialist after the Great Depression because that was what was needed to heal the country and gave us the most prosperous age of this country ever in the 1950s and early 60s.
It should be widespread knowledge that there are just things that should not be profitized in any way. It's the belief that your Grandma or mother should not die because an insurance company realized it wasn't profitable for the company for your family members to live anymore and so they stopped paying for their life-saving medication. This is not the way a modern country should work and if you really think so then I hope you get put in a situation that makes you think differently, because people are put through the grinder everyday with our broken healthcare system and college debt scams while the 1% get richer and richer. Anyone who is not with the majority of the working class on this is against us and automatically our enemy, because people shouldn't have to live like animals in the so called "richest country on Earth". Bernie's gonna change the world and there's nothing the misinformed right-wingers and smear merchants can do about it at this point, because at least Obama and Trump were right about one thing in this world, there needs to be a change.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@killerfunghoul3948 I want to make this perfectly clear though, that I am 200% AGAINST intervention in Venezuela. The Venezuelan people need to elect their own leaders, they need to redo the election where all the candidates are on the ballot, not let Maduro strongarm all his opposition, and not let Juan Guaido do a power grab just because he is the head of of the National Assembly. I do not even like talking about this issue to this extent because it shouldn't be the US population that debates over who should be the legitimate leader, it serves the premise that we should be dictating their politics when the Venezuelan people need to be fully in control of that debate.
It does, however, annoy me that certain people are being completely disingenuous about the facts though and not even recognizing the clear case of corruption within the current regime, it's just as bad as when establishment figures completely ignore the fact that the US is sanctioning the fuck out of them and doing an active embargo to help collapse their economy. Both are strong variables in this issue, and to claim that the last election was "totally fair" (kinda like how people claim the 2016 primary was "totally fair") when nearly all of his opposition were arrested or fled because of trumped-up charges like the case of a fucking comptroller sentencing someone to 15 months for bureaucratic reasons or because a mayor didn't fully "suppress" protests in his city, then yeah I find that totally absurd and can't help but think you're just willfully ignoring the facts and reality of the situation even if you're also partly correct on the premise that the US needs to stay out entirely (something I wholeheartedly agree with). It is the specifics on the Venezuelan government that you are basically doing apologetics for authoritarian behavior, and it's mind-blowing to watch supposed "leftists" defend authoritarianism by claiming it doesn't exist.
I stand by my stance (and the facts) that Maduro's regime is both corrupt and rigged their last election, yet Juan Guaido is doing nothing more than a power grab. If either of them actually cared about democracy, they would be calling and pushing for a new election. The US needs to be completely uninvolved in what's happening, but that does not mean we get to pretend that Maduro is a perfect democratic ruler, when he's bordering on a dictatorship if not fully a dictatorship for his excessive acts of authoritarianism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@killerfunghoul3948 I never said anything about Guaido in the election, the names I listed were Henrique Capriles, Freddy Guevara, Ramon Muchacho, and. David Smolansky, who were all viable candidates for the election even worthy challengers. You can say what you want about Lopez and Ludezma (even though the alleged charges against them are Highly questionable), but those other candidates were ALL charged/arrested with bullshit charges especially Carpiles who was Maduro's biggest opponent given his narrow loss in the last election. He literally was BARRED from running in politics only the year before the election due to a government comptroller charging him with bureaucratic made-up nonsense "mishandling of donations". The article you sourced does not even talk about any of these candidates and how they were all arrested or barred from running (or had to flee because they were charged). It very briefly mentions Capriles and throws him in the same "terrorist" category as Lopez even though Capriles was barred from running from the likes of a goddamn comptroller for alleged "mishandling" of finances. Literally Maduro's biggest opponent, and you casually dismiss him with shit that is not even the charges that were made against him.
Your argument is "What if Trump was arrested the year of the election", okay how about instead what if ALL of Trump's political opponents (everyone running as the Dem nominee, Independent, Green, Libertarian, and so on) were ALL arrested or barred from running in the election. Also, you're a fucking fool if you think alleged charges of "committing terrorism" for being in a protest that went bad somehow has nothing to do with both of these people coincidentally being two of Maduro's biggest political opponents in the election, which is only backed up by the fact that ALL his other opponents mysteriously were charged with unrelated nonsense charges as well. This whole conversation is absolutely ridiculous. You're the one turning a blind eye to corruption and authoritarianism, OBVIOUS authoritarianism, while I'm making the case that they need a fair Democratic election where all the candidates are on the ballot and the election is not moved months ahead so to stop any new opposition from running in the race. I've even given my thoughts that Juan Guaido is doing an illegal power grab and the US needs to permanently stay OUT of their affairs, yet you are not satisfied unless everyone agrees with you that Maduro is somehow the farthest thing from a dictator and this uber-democratic president. We haven't even talked about Colectivos and how they are basically a gang of nationalists (armed paramilitary) that go around poverty-stricken areas beating up citizens and individuals that are dissenting voices against Maduro's government.
Maduro is NOT an ally of real Socialists or Democratic Socialists, he is a bane on our existence because he stands as a straw-man for conservatives and right-wingers to make an example of and bullshit claims that Democratic Socialism somehow leads to authoritarianism. It only makes the political careers of Bernie, AOC, and others harder who are trying to push for economic systems in Scandinavia and are fully against the type of authoritarianism that exists in Venezuela while simultaneously being against interventionism and regime-change wars.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@safwangreene185 "i pointed out they are convicted criminals". No, they're not, or you still haven't seen the list of individuals. I posted the fucking message twice in this thread. Here we go again, "More: Henrique Capriles, his biggest opponent who lost by only 1.6% of the vote in 2013, he was conveniently barred from holding any public office for 15 years by a comptroller alleging mishandling of donation as the reason. Freddy Guevara, leader of the Will Party that lead a 2017 protest, he had to leave Venezuela for fear of imprisonment and sought refuge in Chile. Ramon Muchacho, former mayor of Chacao, fled to Miami after the Venezuelan government tried to sentence him to 15 months in jail. Maduro charged him with "failing to suppress" last year’s massive anti-Maduro rallies in Chacao. David Smolansky, also sentenced to 15 months in jail and had to flee to Brazil. It must all just be coincidence that ALL these people were arrested for alleged charges all within a year before the election. The saddest part about this is that most Leftists would likely support Maduro if not for his corruption and authoritarianism."
I know you didn't read this or didn't actually think about it for 3 seconds because literally the first guy I mentioned, Capriles, is NOT even convicted of trumped-up charges like the others. He was BARRED from running for office for 15 years conveniently the year before the election. It was because of some comptroller bullshit aka alleged "mishandling of donations". The same goes for Muchacho who was charged with "failing to suppress" a protest when he was mayor. These are BULLSHIT charges, you are WILLFULLY Ignoring corruption and authoritarian if you're going to argue that these convenient weak charges, right before the election, are somehow legitimate and justified. I'm just about done with this dumbass conversation. I doubt many people agree with your absurd apologetics for authoritarianism by ignoring its existence entirely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Evan W. Craig - Power, phone, and now Internet access are common necessities for people, thus why they're "public utilities". Are Facebook, Youtube, Twitter suddenly necessities for people? This argument is absolutely ridiculous. I own 2 websites myself. Where does it stop? Because if you're going to make YT, fb, and twitter public utilities, what about instagram? What about Google? If you get Google, you'll have to take Bing. This is a badly thought out idea and I heard Kyle Kulinski say that yesterday, it's absolutely retarded because you're essentially just seizing companies that are not and should not be necessities for people. You do NOT need social media to live your life especially since there are dozens of them to choose from nowadays.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bradtaylor77 Okay just ignore everything I said. I'll reiterate, most people don't understand the issue one bit or are confused by it. When you consider polling regarding the voters that do understand the issue, it's far more complicated than just "we support Israel & hate Palestine". For instance, the support for Palestinian statehood far exceeds the % of people that don't support it, yet this is an issue completely at odds with Israel's settlements and their restrictive rights against Palestinians treating them as second class citizens. Even the polling is contradictory because, like I said, people don't understand the issue. Not to mention, the sympathy for Palestinians rises every year and now it's more of a 50/50 issue today than ever before, especially after Israel murdered over a dozen children a few months ago in a bombing that was totally unnecessary.
Also, your logic is disgusting and just plain wrong - "Let's do the immoral thing because it's more popular and the voters don't understand the issue well". If you said that for every issue, then "Medicare for All and UBI" wouldn't even be popular today, slavery wouldn't have been ended in the 19th century, & so many historically "immoral" & wrong positions wouldn't have been changed over time or even fought for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Yutani_Crayven I've heard the multitude and wide range of anecdotes about Musk and he just sounds like an overbearing boss these days that the majority of his employees are afraid of. I don't doubt that he had some managerial part in SpaceX's projects from one extent to another (from what I've seen in videos and documentaries, they range from managing employees in bizarre ways to simply brainstorming on projects), but as I said it is always a *Managerial role, he was never the hardest worker, yet he gets almost all the credit for the achievements off the backs of others. And whether he has understanding or not, he's not some Tony Stark whose the lead engineer on these projects, that's just detached from reality if you think that.
I don't doubt that he's intelligent and knows what he's talking about, but people act like the richest man in the world who spends hours on twitter every day shitposting, in random hostile takeovers of Social Media platforms, fucking Johnny Depp's wife in his free time, and has 8 children is spending all his time working on engineering projects at SpaceX, Tesla and managing Paypal, so he can single-handedly send us to Mars thanks to his sole genius. It's complete fantasy and the logic does not add up at all, especially considering where it seems his priorities lie nowadays.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dnciskkk9037 "The DNC pack" has no Medicare for All plans. You sound extremely uninformed if you seriously think the DNC is on the side of Medicare for All. They actively take millions of dollars from the private insurance industry and are an arm of big pharma. They don't even pretend to be on the side of Medicare for All, they constantly attack it with the help of MSNBC, CNN, ABC, and CBS and try to drive down public favorability for it. This is all proven stuff man. The only thing the DNC is for is Obamacare and slight tweaks around the edges, they say this literally all the time in no uncertain terms. If you want to know where the DNC lands policy-wise, just follow Third Way, who are basically in lock-step with the DNC nowadays.
I'm not trying to insult you or anything, just informing you about the internal battles among Democrats and the Left. Many conservatives are not really informed about the internal issues and fights within the party, which is unfortunate because it usually bogs down to corrupt pro-corporate elitist/neoliberal Democrats vs the populist Left side of the party that actually want things like Single Payer healthcare and to end the wars. I don't know most of the inner disagreements within the conservative circles and among groups like the Tea Party. I wouldn't presume to know what they are in favor for, which is why you should take my knowledge into consideration about the two sides of the Democratic party and basically the Civil War going on within it between populists/progressives vs neoliberals/elitists (they would try to argue they're "liberals" and "pragmatists" though).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Blake West Would you like me to hold your hand as well? The night AOC (and many other progressives) won, Jimmy was acting incredibly pessimistic and saying it was all meaningless change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2qiUqc_UBY
First comment I saw on the video: "but Jimmy, she did it with 10% of his war chest, she did really well. I am surprised that you're knocking her win.."
Another comment: "There’s no reason why we can’t celebrate progressive victories like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s and simultaneously keep pushing for a 3rd party."
Another comment: "Geezus Jimmy, give it time
I agree with Ron, this shit takes time. Change won't happen overnight"
Another comment: "Enough? Of course not. This does send a message, though. My faith has been restored with this victory. Pelosi's dog has been put down. We may be stuck with her, but she lost the heir to her throne. This isn't the first win, and it won't be the last."
Another comment: "Jimmy Dore, as part of arguing for Dem-Exit, points out a supposed downside of Ocasio-Cortez’s victory: “This [victory] gets people interested in the party again.” Yes, the downside of progressives taking over the Democratic party and kicking out the corporatists is that the Democratic party might become progressive. Wait! You have stopped making sense, Jimmy. If progressives are strong and popular enough to win as a third party, then they are strong enough to win as Democrats and kick the corporatists to the curb. You said we have not had much to smile about and Ocasio-Cortez’s victory is exceptional. That may be true, but it is even more true of third party progressives. I don’t see dozens of Green Party members in Congress. I don’t see even one Green Party person in Congress."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@scoop2448 Yes, he absolutely does and everyone knows it at this point. The top issue of his career for the last 10 years at least has been vax skepticism if not downright anti-vax conspiracies & unverified allegations regarding vaccines. He beats around the bush most the time in interviews because he knows his stance is unpopular & probably has at least some awareness he's playing a dangerous game questioning the stances of doctors and countless health professionals around the world who have been practicing medicine their entire lives compared to him, who simply wrote a book one time where he calls Fauci a demon. However, on a few occasions, such as the Lex Fridman podcast, he literally outright says no vaccine is safe. An absurd statement considering, for instance, the existence & historical significance of the Polio vaccine, or say, the Rabbis vaccine, which, if not taken, guarantees 100% chance of death without the vaccine.
Also, saying he was not to blame for America Somoa is, again, playing a game of semantics, because whatever the significance of his visit with Samoan leaders & his speech spreading skepticism, if not complete anti-vax disinformation, his own ideology is ultimately what led to the deadly measles outbreak there. And no matter how many people and children died from that event, RFK continues to spread the same talking points he made on that visit & apparently the deaths have not affected his stances even a little (he also just denies and ignores what happened as well, an even bigger slap in the face).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnkayoss5422 You're dodging my question. BDS is a small fragment of an enormous issue that has to do specifically in the area of foreign affairs. It is one single issue, & the overwhelming majority of Americans do not even know what's going on in Gaza, much less even heard of BDS. Hinging the entire label of progressivism on a single foreign issue like that is absurd, and again, I would ask you who you supported in 2020 or who you support in any branch of government for that matter? Based on the little information I've gathered about you, I wanna go ahead & guess you support Tulsi Gabbard in some capacity. If that is so, then you should be far more worried about her considering she's gone more against BDS than anybody that has labeled themselves a progressive, especially one on foreign affairs & war/interventionism.
Targeting a guy who hasn't even won his general election yet for a policy he's never even voted on is unreasonable, especially when you don't hold your other supported politicians to the same standard. It honestly just sounds like you're angry at him for accepting an endorsement from Obama - refusing that endorsement from the first black president, whose still incredibly popular among average Democrats, would be incredibly incredibly foolish for anyone, but especially for a black man with black constituents that still see Obama in a favorable perspective.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@em4475 The idea isn't to cut the entire military budget. It's to end the endless wars in the Middle East. The Iraq War alone cost us nearly $8 Trillion & rising. We spend collectively around $1 Trillion a year for all Pentagon spending. This isn't some far left idea, it's an idea that is shared by populist leftists, paleo-conservatives & Libertarians. I just saw Ron Paul talking positively about Tulsi & Bernie's foreign policy just the other day. They & even Tucker Carlson agree that we need to bring our troops home, stop bombing 8 countries at once, & reinvest that money at home. It's the same reason why it was Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul, & Mike Lee who spearheaded the use of the War Powers Act to try to stop the Saudi-led genocide in Yemen & move war power back into the hands of Congress just as the founding fathers wanted.
Here is what MLK Jr. said about the funding of militarism vs the cost of individual citizens domestically (remember this was in the 1960s): "It is estimated that we spend $322,000 for each enemy we kill, while we spend in the so-called war on poverty in America only about $53.00 for each person classified as 'poor'. And much of that $53 goes for salaries of people who are not poor."
To answer your question though, ending our wars/bombings abroad is not the only form of funding being proposed (in fact it was far from the biggest source of funding proposed as an option). There are many other types of funding like a speculation tax on Wall Street transactions (less than half of 1%), something that only effects the very rich & stock brokers. It also reigns in dangerous/risky trading that hurts the health & volatility of our markets. I can keep going but I imagine you get the point for now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Crista Ferrari-Girault Again, you say "radicalizing both sides", and yet one side is calling for universal healthcare (something you conveniently likely already have in your country), while the other side wants to privatize all healthcare so it's entirely unaffordable to anyone below the poverty line. One "radical" side wants to end America's wars and drone strike program, the other wants to invade Iran, re-invade Afghanistan, ramp up the drone program even more, and do a coup of Venezuela and Cuba. One "radical" side wants tuition-free universities and trade schools, the other side wants to end the public school system entirely and divert funds to private charter schools. One side respects religious tolerance and wants to continue the separation of Church and State, while the most radical factions of the Right are admitted Christian Nationalists and ultimately want a Christian theocracy and what would likely amount to "Bible Law". Most recently, the American Left wants to keep Roe v Wade in effect and allow women freedom over their own bodies within the first trimester of pregnancy, while the other side wants to ban it completely upon the moment of conception and force all states to comply in addition to banning same-sex marriage and banning even contraception.
You should actually learn about both sides before you just wildly accuse both sides of being equally "radicalized" when one side is simply just calling for basic shit the rest of the 1st world already has including countries in Europe.
I've supported a third party for over a decade: the Green Party, but that's because I know what they believe in, including ranked-choice voting, unlike Yang's party which is bringing in far right goons from the Reagan, Bush and Trump administrations in core leadership roles within the Party. Pair that with how they're already stating they will take corporate PAC money and they're already a lost cause. Doesn't matter if they support ranked choice voting or not, their corporate donors and lobbyists will never allow it to realistically see the light of day - that's how American politics works.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thekidnamedcudi8850 First of all, they would have to upend their entire lives to move to another country. Secondly, they get massive public scorn for doing something like that when it's clearly a ploy to not pay taxes. Just ask the guy who started Facebook, Eduardo Saverin, who got massive shit for moving to Argentina to avoid taxes to live with his family. Everybody hates the fuck out of that guy now.
In addition, there are ways to close tax loopholes so they can not get away with moving money overseas, our system is just so fucked right now that these tax regulations do not exist or have existing loopholes that the gov't refuses to close. Liz Warren literally just proposed a new bill that prevents billionaires from moving their money overseas to avoid taxes. If you think taxing billionaires would lead to the fall of the US economy, you're delusional. The fact that we're NOT taxing billionaires appropriately has already led to the death of the middle class and massive MASSIVE wealth inequality. Even IF billionaires somehow moved their wealth overseas, the US would be far better without them taking advantage of workers and any vacuum their business leaves in it's wake would get filled by new innovative industry that we desperately need, not just billionaires and millionaires hoarding their wealth and doing stock buy-backs. We need REAL economic growth in this country, something that's been lacking since the 1980s and has led to a constant boom-bust cycle where only the wealthy ever come out on top.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree with this strategy, and I think Kyle is being as real about the issue as any political analyst. However, I will say you're overlooking a few obstacles & complications that could make this harder than you think. Namely that Biden is still a conservative Democrat/neoliberal corporatist to his core, so if the Justice Dem caucus tries to obstruct and block him to get policy compromises, Biden could just turn around & start handing out compromises to Republicans to get them to the table.
He's already acting more accommodating towards Republicans than he is towards the Left in his own party, so obstructing and making an open enemy of him could have a backlash effect and push him towards the Republican members more - he's already signaled in the past he's willing to compromise to cut Social Security & Medicare so I'd say this is not a stretch as a warning & possibility.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to force his hand, but it does mean that this hostile strategy is more of a bluff than actual leverage. If you do obstruct him & he ends up buying Republican votes to make up the difference instead, then you will have to, at some point, break with the strategy when it becomes counterproductive to your policy goals & long-term political ideology.
My point is that this will not be as easy as some people think & even if you get most of the Progressive caucus on board, it could still not work (or have negative consequences) on a president who is a conservative at his core.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iggyboo Also, my guess is that if AOC would have voted "No" like she normally would've on this issue, you and the Left faction that despises her, almost to an irrational level, as "Mama Bear 2.0" would've never given her credit or even acknowledged her vote. She only gets any attention from this group when she does something they disagree with, but ignored when doing agreeable things (which is most of the time). I mean, you didn't give her credit when she fought previously to end Israel funding or even acknowledge what she was doing, so the bias from specific Leftist factions is blatantly obvious. - for ex, 'Ignore anything she did to fight for a $3.5 Trillion bill that would help millions, but then talk for 10 days straight about a gala dress she wore that realistically has no impact on anything'. I honestly don't even like AOC & think there are way better politicians, but the hypocrisy and bullshit I see from some leftists is getting so ludicrous these days.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I've been saying this since 2016. I WISH the Republicans would have an anti-establishment movement in their own party that doesn't just involve platitudes like "Drain the Swamp" that, in reality, just means 'get rid of Democrats' while their own party is packed to the brim with swamp monsters. If the Republicans really care about Draining the Swamp, they should be pushing their politicians to stop taking Corporate PAC money, however, the hypocrisy with them is strong and they will never disarm their 'Team' in the slightest or make them do anything that will make them weaker compared to the Democrats. Progressive anti-corruption strategy may hurt the Democratic Party in the short-run, but it is overall healthy in the long run and ensures it will come out on top as a labor party for the people, whereas the Republican party will die due to the voters own stubbornness to actually do anything to fight corruption. Trump, the Tea Party, all fake populism and no different than the neocons. The younger generations are more politically aware and will not tolerate this bullshit in the future, the Republican Party is doomed whether they realize it yet or not, the only thing that can realistically save them is if they start pushing against corruption in their own party.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CAFEkatArt I don't think that's the problem, the issue is that it doesn't do enough for poor Americans. Nobody's going to try to nullify a program that benefits the rich more than anyone. The bottom 90% of the country will use every penny of their $1,000 allowance, while the rich will just hoard it just like they always do. Then the VAT tax will ensure that everyone pays for the program, both manufacturers and consumers. When average Americans use every cent of their federal income, they, in turn, pay for the VAT tax more than any individual wealthy person who sit on the vast majority of their wealth that is not taxed at all, this is the case even with Amazon and corporations paying a share of the VAT tax, on the individual level it is still massively unbalanced towards the rich. This results in more money being shifted towards the 1% and top income earners because it does nothing to actually push the burden of UBI on the wealthy and relieve the people who need the most help, the burden will be on average people and the working class, whether Yang supporters want to admit it or not.
Then we get to the worst party, where the poorest and most vulnerable people in the country gain nothing from the freedom dividend when they're already receiving more in benefits from SSI, food stamps, and many other programs. These people will either receive nothing from Yang's UBI or will receive far less in total than people who are much more wealthy. These people will undeniably be the biggest losers in yang's proposed economy, especially the people who gain nothing, but, in turn, have to deal with the burden of the VAT tax in one way or another.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@annettemarionneauxstevenso6591 I'm not arguing whether the Greens proposed a renewable infrastructure deal first or not; honestly, it's really irrelevant who proposed it first (& I'm fairly certain the Greens adopted the idea from someone else as well). I'm saying that it matters Hawkins gets his facts straight about what's he's criticizing, considering AOC has been touting Bernie's updated version of the GND ever since she endorsed him in the presidential primary. For the past year & a half, Republicans, corporate Dems, & Leftist politicians like AOC, Ro Khanna, Jayapal, Omar, etc. have been citing the cost estimates, timeline, & policy points within Bernie & AOC's updated version that was released last year - a piece of a legislation that outright calls for a "Ban on fracking and mountaintop removal coalmining." Hawkins arguing with AOC's initial proposal from 2017-18' that was incomplete & far more like a blueprint than any serious piece of legislation, is borderline strawmanning on his part. He's not representing his "opponent's" position accurately & going off outdated & incomplete info. The way he's going about his criticism is either disingenuous or ignorant when you take into considering what AOC actually believes & their team's current iteration of the GND. There is already more than enough B.S. & misinformation regarding the Green New Deal, we don't need a Green candidate taking shots at an outdated & already highly criticized rollout of the GND before it was properly fleshed out into a far more complete piece of legislation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Progressive For Trump Huh? You realize that Kyle has attacked Biden for most of those issues right? Biden deporting more immigrants at a much higher rate than Trump, keeping Trump's "detention centers" aka cages, and Biden not doing ENOUGH to extend the eviction moratorium, a measure that was protecting old grannies from getting thrown out on the streets during hard times, or at the very least picking up the slack and helping families at risk of eviction by subsidizing their housing. Kyle has attacked Biden on those issues for being a neoliberal corporatist, something you wouldn't understand because you're a far Right extremist who likely doesn't even understand the divide in the Democratic Party or more accurately on the Left. Regarding the "hyperinflation" comment, are you trying to say Kyle is in favor of inflation? That's just fucking dumb. So is saying "vaccine or test" for corporations "is no different than the NSA spying on your emails". However, let's look at one of your most insane and retarded claims: "TRUMP BIGGEST BLUNDER WAS TO APPOINT THIS TRAITOR ANTIFA WOKE GENERAL" - Do I even have to explain this one? If you think any high-ranking General, especially one in the Trump administration is even mildly in support of Antifa, you are officially Too Far Gone. And Trump was THE Commander in Chief, he could overrule any general, so saying the generals were stopping him from withdrawing is just inaccurate bullshit, you really think the Generals supported Biden's efforts to withdraw? You're a fool if you think they would support any president's de-escalation of a war or invasion that's making billions in profits for the MIC. Trump just happened to be weak as fuck & not willing to pull the plug on a war aka he didn't want the MIC & media backlash like Biden received for his withdraw, an action that Trump knew would inevitably result in the expansion of the Taliban, who already controlled a majority of Afghanistan pre-withdraw.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@spencedog Only 10% of farmers earn income over $100,000 a year and why is that? It's nearly always because they inherited the family business and lands aka they didn't work to achieve it (Over 60% of ALL wealth in the US is inherited). The average salary of a farmer is about $45,000 per year and I doubt the median is any better. Also, in regards to the stock market, you mean it's increased over the past 2 years because of mass stock buybacks (which used to be an illegal practice), the stock market has over-inflated itself and kept it artificially going up, even though it's mainly a mirage. If you actually listened to what real economists are saying (maybe step away from Stuart Varney on Fox Business), they're pretty upfront about how our economy is a house of cards. Any one little thing could set off a Recession this time. Last time it was the subprime mortgage crisis, this time it could be because of student loan debt, the current housing crisis, credit card debt, pick one. Either way, it's going to be a bad Recession this next time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Tony Wilson I think what you're touching on is totally different than the quality and content of his actual manifesto however. If you're suggesting that Corbyn wasn't concise enough with his messaging, I completely agree with you on that point. I just don't think it had much at all to do with going "too far left"; it was far more about the focus of this particular election, the state of British politics due to their drawn out conflict over Brexit, Labour's perceived waffling and "fence sitting" on the issue, and the Tories ability to capitalize on Labour's biggest weakness by only focusing on Brexit. The Tories did have a concise and clear message, which was "Get Brexit Done". If what you're saying is primarily about messaging, I agree with you to an extent, but we shouldn't let that totally dictate policy.
I also strongly believe the indistinct messaging was only a portion of the problem, while Brexit clearly being the lose-lose issue for Labour that hurt the party the most. The main indicator for this was that Corbyn and Labour largely won their last election using nearly the same platform as this time. The one issue that was noticeably different this time around was Labour's position on Brexit. Not many people are talking about this, but Corbyn sided with leaving the EU in the last election. Despite objections from his base, Labour ended up winning a large number of seats, and this was primarily due to Brexit being popular among battleground seats that Labour needed to win politically. Fast-forward to the 2019 election, Labour decides to switch their position on Brexit and suddenly they get wiped out in those seats that were clearly pro-Brexit, in which a large portion of the Labour vote went to the Brexit party instead. Based on the data, this was a very distinguishable reason for Labour's loss.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kekwayblaze3176 Firstly, none of that was actually confirmed at all, it was a rumor created in a Tweet by her Tulsi's brother (conveniently after Tulsi got huge backlash over her endorsement) and then circulated by Jimmy Dore who, whether it was true or not, needed an excuse to explain why his preferred candidate Tulsi would endorse the corporate Democrat over the Left candidate.
Secondly, let's just say hypothetically it is true - So it's Bernie's fault that Tulsi endorsed the senile corporate Democrat before the primary even ended? Does that sound like a good excuse? Did Joe Rogan first ask Bernie before he endorsed him? It's funny that even snake-lady Elizabeth Warren had the sense to wait until the primary was at least over before endorsing Biden. Was this decision off the table for Tulsi or something? In other words, that excuse makes no fucking sense and there's absolutely no reason she couldn't just wait for the primary to end, unless.....to my third point:
Thirdly, seeing all the crazy shit Tulsi is saying today and her extreme Dave Rubin-esque right-ward shift, I'd say it's not below her to make up some lame excuse for why she wouldn't endorse Bernie (or even just forget about the Bernie side of this for a second) so she could then have the opportunity to extract something out of the next President-elect, or even be on the list of female Vice Presidential candidates, a thing everyone was talking about around that time - many people immediately pointed out this was a clear possibility, with Tulsi hoping she could get in Biden's good graces by turning on the Left-wing side of the Party & voters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bluesrockfan36 Okay, so first it was "Bernie attacked other progressives in the race", now it's his "surrogates", next you're going to admit you're simply talking about his supporters, and if that's the case, you've already lost this ridiculous argument. I feel like this has been a constant theme with you for awhile now - blaming candidates for what their supporters say on Twitter and social media and YES that's exactly what happened with Warren and the same lame ass excuse she gave for why she turned against Bernie aka "His supporters were sexist & mean to me on Twitter" aka the same bullshit Hillary Clinton used as an excuse in the 2016 (they're "excuses" because those politicians were never going to turn around and play nice with Bernie to begin with, Warren was always going to endorse Joe Biden, and Clinton was never going to pay Bernie back for endorsing her). I'm so tired of hearing this shit and I realllyyyy don't want to rehash it now, but this whole line of argument has already been thoroughly debunked about a million and one times already. Not to mention, it's straight foolish to base your opinion of a candidate on what his/her supporters say on Twitter & it's even more dumb to blame them directly for what their supporters say. If there were "surrogates" who were crossing the line to get into heated arguments on Twitter, it wasn't under the orders of Bernie Sanders like you're implying, that's just beyond silly. And pretty sure only you and ex-Hillary Clinton people are actually convinced Bernie is this conniving old man who "runs dirty campaigns" from top to bottom. It flies in the face of everything that actually happened in the primary in actuality, not from the warped perspective of an upset Yang supporter with perceived-slights against the candidate's Twitter supporters.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alienzenx THE International law, the law that all countries should be abiding to so we don't have genocides happen and travesties like the Iraq War or the Occupation of Palestine. Obama should be in prison for his monstrous warmongering, but he at least tried to close down Guantanamo Bay and ordered its closure but was blocked by Congress every time. In addition he imposed stricter policy to end the use of torture. If Obama can, at the very least, understand the implications of torture (along with a Republican like McCain), then it's unforgivable that Tulsi can't and admits that she would use it if she were president especially since someone like Obama was always against torture but ended up comprising on it due to Congress, imagine what Tulsi would compromise on given the chance. Also, I don't know how anyone can be "naive" on their idea that anal rape torture is bad just because "horrible things happen in war", you know, wars that America STARTS on countries that didn't attack us. We invade them, and then torture them, are you really trying to insinuate that America is justified on doing that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm pretty sure the one case where the woman said "no" (when he asked consent), CK is stating he did not proceed after he asked consent. If she is claiming he went ahead with it, then I'm sure she has little proof to back that up and only CK knows the truth for sure. Either way, the man asked consent every single time. CK is a perv, no one is debating this fact, but if the wrong thing in that situation is not getting consent from the other person, and asking consent is apparently also the wrong thing, then what is the right thing? Some people just have perverted fetishes and/or are sex addicts, it's just the way things are in the free world. If someone like that can't be who they are at all and never even ask consent for any type of action in the first place, we are going to start reverting back to being a country of sexual repression and prudes. Starting to micromanage sexual conduct between acquaintances, friends, and potential lovers is not going to help anything. This story is ridiculous when there is far more awful predatory shit going on right now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Chander S - Hey buddy, you might want to hold your tongue until you see the projections for 2018. It's standard for every presidency to have the economy remain on it's projected path for 8 to 12 months after a new president takes over. Everyone who knows anything is aware of this, which is why it took Obama about a year before his policy started to clean up the shit storm of the Recession that Bush left in his wake. Obama went into office in Jan 2009, the unemployment rate peaked in October 2009 eight months into his presidency, but it wasn't until 2010 when the economy started to get better after GE was bailed out and Dodd Frank was passed into law. Obama was a shitty president for a lot of reasons, but fixing the economy like he did was one of his greatest achievements for sure. Trump may have some to do with the economy being slightly better when he took office, which might have to do with his tax cuts that preempted billions in stock buy backs (not necessarily a good thing for workers) and just the excitement of large corporations surrounding the idea of having a corporatist like Trump running the country and giving out corporate welfare, but this year will be the real decider if Trump's economy is actually viable, which so far this year, it has not been a good sign considering the market has been up and down since January's crash and the market has not really gone net up or down since. Everyone else on here is giving it to you straight though, and the "unemployment" as you refer to is one of the worst indicators for the economy considering many people are underemployed and a massive percentage of the country does not make a living wage.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@holylibations Stop telling me to do research, I literally just gave you 6 different links in my post to Kalida. All her votes are right here https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/129306/tulsi-gabbard/?p=1#.XPscgYhKiUk
There was ONE vote for the DoD vote and it was called "HR 6157 - Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 - National Key Vote". There was arguably some good stuff in there, but looking over it, the majority was bad. The education section of it gave more funding to Charter Schools, and it bumped up funding for every single part of the Department of Defense (Air Force, Marines, Army, Navy) and then her second and third vote that amended it gave funding access to Homeland Security. Like I said, both Gabbard and Gillibrand voted for this bill, while Bernie was one of the only Dem/Independents to vote against it in the Senate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@firstwavenegativity6379 Multiple parties for one and in case you haven't realized parliamentary systems incentivize multiple parties where numerous parties hold small minorities of the total seats in parliament. Secondly, a parliamentary democracy doesn't elect a King like we do here with the president and executive branch (who, over the years, has only gained in power and influence, going as far to just ignore the Constitution when it's convenient). At the end of the day, Congress has the least amount of power out of the House, Senate and the White House, and yet it's undoubtable the most democratic part & democratically elected sector of the federal government. If the US wanted to be more democratic but still retain a republic and representative democracy, we would transition Congress as the US's parliament and do away with the Senate and the executive branch almost entirely. You make the president the prime minister who leads and, in turn, serves parliament and then you have the districts and the people directly control their representatives, which would determine which parties hold what percentage of seats. It's essentially been proven already, but this more direct democracy is why other countries are able to elect multiple parties into parliament even if they're just holding 1-5 seats total. American corporate corruption and the media have a lot to do with the existence of the duopoly too, but it's just as true that the convoluted separation of the federal gov't into an executive and legislative branch has only eroded the American's people control over their own gov't and laws.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@enmac500 "Infiltration can and has worked" - The Justice Democrats are already an example of "party infiltration" & yes they vote on good legislation & push progressive policies, but essentially every Democrat (or Republican) has an annoying habit of protecting their party when they're actually elected into it. The primary thing Justice Dems have gotten criticized for is that they do too much to benefit the party & not enough to take an adversarial position against it & this is even after they've sworn off corporate cash & funding (something I've noticed that Yang hasn't made a requirement for his group).
The problem is that when people join the Democratic Party, they're bound to it & that may be fine to push for things like Medicare for All and a specific ideology that's impartial to the interests & health of the Party itself, but when you start pushing for ranked choice voting, that's a policy that actually hurts the Dem (or Rep) party because it lessens their electoral power. You might as well ask Democratic leadership & other party members to support Republican gerrymandering, because you'll likely have the same amount of success getting others on board, if your rare politicians even follow through on their promises at all.
I'm not saying it's impossible that a person elected into either Party will not vote for ranked choice voting, but it's going to be incredibly rare to see someone fight for it & especially as a priority issue, when pushing an issue like that, which directly hurts the Party, is going to be the equivalent of putting a target on your back. If you think Justice Democrats have faced adversity when pushing for good legislation, it's going to be hard to imagine the pushback a Democrat would get by vying for a policy that's an active detriment to their own Party and position within that party.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lowering the age of Medicare is literally a part of Medicare for All. If you lower it to 55, that's what Medicare for All does in year 1, it doesn't just suddenly cover everyone. We have a real chance to start doing Medicare for All. This is the group of people who were urging "People are dying, this is urgent", so why tf are half the people here acting like we should do fucking nothing & saying we should just abandon Bernie in his fight? I'm disgusted by people here saying this shit, I thought politics was supposed to be about getting systemic change, but some of the people here care more about their egos & their contempt for the Dem party than actually getting the change to help people.
I used to think progressive politics was the one shining light in a sea of corruption & greed, but now it's just become a cesspit for pessimistic self-wallowing, pity, & hyperbolic condemnation of the only people trying to help people in government. Seriously, you people need to either get some fucking Prozac or stop torturing yourself by watching politics & just leave, you're no help & you're just spreading hopelessness & genuinely being counterproductive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chopcooey The same thing can be pointed at UBI but even worse in that case. If 30% of the workforce is supposedly going to be automated that means some people WILL be unemployed when there is not enough work to go around in the current system. Say as a result, many many people will be solely relying on $12,000 a year to survive which is simply not a livable wage. WHY would we not even try to revitalize job growth (to new modern jobs rebuilding a Green infrastructure, tech and such) but settle with the idea that many people will just have to cope with being unemployed and $12,000 a year down the line. That sword cuts both ways and arguably the outcome is far worse in the scenario with UBI.
In comparison, Bernie has put forward a bold proposal, the Workplace Democracy Act, that is massively pro-union pro-worker, incentivizes worker co-ops and more worker representation on company leadership in already existing corporations. This allows workers to have a say in IF their jobs get outsourced or replaced due to automation OR if they keep their jobs, keep their salaries, but end up just cutting all the employees' work days in half or a third. This is a long-term scenario where automation translates to leisure for ALL workers and top execs across the board and we don't have to worry about if $12,000 is a enough to sustain people because people will STILL have jobs in an economy that works for the many, not for the $500 million bonuses and benefits the CEOs receive from automation and outsourcing deals as they do now and STILL would within a yang administration as far as I can tell.
Here is Bernie's Workplace Democracy Act, read up if you're really a Bernie supporter: https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/workplace-democracy-act-summary-?inline=file
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Not this again. Right-wingers like you always force me to have to defend TYT since all the crap you say about them is fundamentally wrong. Whether you're claiming they're "pro-establishment" or because they committed genocide against Armenians. I'm tired of this crap I don't even watch TYT. How is it a channel that backs anti-establishment candidates, founded Justice Democrats to purge the Democratic party of corporate corrupt Democrats, vehemently backs progressive policies such as Medicare for All, free public college, unionizing workers, taxing the 1%, and so on and so forth, how is it that they are "hardly progressive". Reporting on Trump's supposed crimes is not enough of a reason to claim they are not progressive. You're acting fucking silly, but I'm not sure what I expected. As for the Bernie being "a sheepdog" line, I don't even care, you can stay ignorant. Bernie said in 2015 that if he lost he would endorse the front-runner and if he 'betrayed you' in your eyes, then you're a fool because it just means you didn't do your homework but whatever.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MrBlitzkrieg1991 As other people have pointed out, if you're going to make such a claim that "Obama was worse", you better look at those death toll numbers. Obama's drone program killed a combined total of around 1,124 innocent civilians, a horrific number to even be that high. In Libya, the NATO airstrikes (according to Libyan health officials) killed a combined total of 1,108 civilians. These were by far Obama's bloodiest conflicts. Now, let's stack this up to Bush's bloodiest conflict, his war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush's wars (one of which that he lied us into) has led to 244,000 innocent civilian deaths between Iraq, Afghanistan and operations in Pakistan, wars that are still happening today 18 years later and have continued to rack up body counts. That's an increase of 110 times the number of civilian body counts as Obama, and again this is just going by body count; this doesn't even take into consideration how Bush was the one who turned the US into a torture state, normalized the use of Guantanamo Bay for illegally detaining and torturing prisoners, destabilized the entire Middle East region and led to many of the conflicts going on today, created a nanny state by initiating the Patriot Act to massively ramp up unconstitutional NSA spying, and let's not forget the very real potential that Bush and his administration knew more about the attacks on 9/11 than they were letting on.
"Whataboutism doesn't start from the counterargument" No, I'm pretty sure it starts when you respond and try to change the topic of discussion from Tulsi to Bernie.
And I never "objected when someone opens Bernie's [criticisms]", I literally went ahead and commented that he said unappealing things about the drone war before you even responded, you're the one trying to deflect buddy, don't act like I didn't immediately debunk your whataboutism by pointing out Bernie's flaws and then promptly refocusing on the actual point being made, you just don't like it because it defeats the purpose of Whataboutism when we don't then switch focus to something else and stay there. It says a lot when the only thing people can do to defend their candidate is to attack 1 of the other 20 people in the race. I see Bernie supporters defending Bernie all day long and they never have to say "but what about Andrew Yang" or "what about Joe Biden", and when Bernie does something wrong, they admit it just as I did here over the drone program. Stop being such a hack and admit when your candidate is wrong without deflecting to someone else.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mike P Do you have proof that they've been "able to rebuild after a little time"? Because there have been ongoing reports of sex workers having to go back to relying on pimps and finding other methods to get by. It wasn't just detrimental to sex workers either, who now have a far more dangerous job because of it (and in many cases are way more likely to be victims of sex trafficking), but it's also crushing for website owners, content creators, and developers who make a living off of these things and are now completely liable for what anyone says on their websites. You realize what those laws say right? Entire websites can be shut down if someone random is doing something illegal on their sites even if the owners or administrations don't know about it because forum websites are sometimes too huge to keep account of. Taking into account that those laws don't do shit to stop sex trafficking in the slightest because as you said "they were able to rebuild over time" which, if it's even true, almost exclusively applies to people doing illegal activity, then what the fuck is the point of those laws if not to just crush Internet freedoms and liberties of people who were obeying the laws before.
If anything it pushes "online sex traffickers" even deeper into the onion of the Internet and possibly more into the dark web. If that's the case, then you have those people, who were easy to investigate before, now are using completely anonymous forms of communication and far harder to investigate. All you're doing is pushing them into the shadows and punishing law abiding citizens in its place.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I watch you every day Kyle, but the way you're framing this issue in this video is disgusting. You're presenting this as a false dichotomy by hoisting up this clip, where NOBODY, neither side, is even acknowledging the fact that Trump never pulled out of Syria, we're still there. This was a troop movement, AT BEST, so that Erdogan would get the green-light to invade Syria and commit an ethnic cleansing of the Kurds. I don't give a shit who the Kurds are, you don't allow ethnic cleansing to happen if you can help it, and the obvious choice was to make a deal with Turkey, the Syrian gov't, or the U.N. to stop such atrocities. Really disappointed in this framing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Hey Donald Trump, The Science is on My Side and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!"
"Hey Donald Trump, The Science is on My Side and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!"
"Hey Donald Trump, The Science is on My Side and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!"
"Hey Donald Trump, The Science is on My Side and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!"
"Hey Donald Trump, The Science is on My Side and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!"
"Hey Donald Trump, The Science is on My Side and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!"
"Hey Donald Trump, The Science is on My Side and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!" "Hey Donald Trump, The Science is on My Side and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!" "Hey Donald Trump, The Science is on My Side and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!" "Hey Donald Trump, The Science is on My Side and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!" "Hey Donald Trump, The Science is on My Side and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!" "Hey Donald Trump, The Science is on My Side and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!" "Hey Donald Trump, The Science is on My Side and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!" "Hey Donald Trump, The Science is on My Side and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!" "Hey Donald Trump, The Science is on My Side and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!" "and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!" "and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!" "and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!" "and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!" "and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!" "and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!" "and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!" "and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!" "and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!" "and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!" "and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!" "and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!" "and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!" "and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!" "and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!" "and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!" "and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!" "and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!" "and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!" "and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!" "and I'd like to See How YOUR HAIR Would Fair in a Blizzard!"
"Like When He Called Me Snow Woman"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@White_Oak_ "Support drops to 37% if people think their taxes will go up, which is why Warren came up with a plan that doesn't do that." Except an employer head tax WILL cost people, she's more likely to get called out for being dishonest about it than her political calculation working. The question about taxes going up was already bogus theatre; the media is going to ask that question no matter what, and when they find out Warren's plan still implements a flat head tax that effectively costs the middle class even MORE in the long run, they will double down on their claims that Warren is not being honest about the cost.
Also, it's pure fantasy to think that Warren's new funding for Medicare for All would be more likely to pass through Congress. She includes a wealth tax and immigration reform as part of her plan; including those issues is only going to make Medicare for All much much harder to pass through a partisan Congress (I actually support a wealth tax, but attaching it to a large healthcare bill is only going to exacerbate the struggle for Single Payer). At least with Bernie's proposed funding, our primary goal is to just convince the public that 98% of people will save money by implementing a progressive payroll tax that funds a Single Payer system that is free at the point of service, just like our fire houses, police forces, public construction sites, and government buildings are all funded by an income tax and additionally Social Security and Medicare are funded by their own payroll taxes. Trying to complicate the framing is only going to make things more wonky and harder to explain to people, and especially with this issue, we need a politician to be short and succinct to get their point across easily to the American people so the maximum amount of people understand the issue; we're going to need all the support we can get.
1
-
@White_Oak_ "the employer head tax will not affect employees because it is not a new expense for employers". This is incredibly false, under a flat head tax, employers for low income earners would be paying up to 68% in taxes of what their workers make (what they pay their workers). If you don't think that's going to effect people's income you're incredibly naive; employers would be paying nearly double for their workers' services, the people who will get punished are the workers. This possibly maybe wouldn't be the case if Warren just made the head tax progressive and linked to income, but it almost guarantees workers will get stiffed by making them far more expensive to employ. It also makes the system incredibly flimsy when you make the taxes the same for a worker making minimum wage as you would for an employer making hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. Not to mention she adds in giant loopholes for companies being exempt if they have less than 50 employees or if the employees are subcontractors. This already exempts large corporations from having to contribute to a head tax, but the ones that it will effect can just restructure the companies to include several small companies composing of less than 50 employees and then they will have to pay nothing. The whole thing can unravel at any moment and it's already incredibly unfeasible making the head tax the same flat tax for everyone, it's only going to end up harming workers more, whether it's from employers slashing pay or from more job loss due to companies being unable to afford a 68% tax rate for a job that could likely be scrapped, automated or outsourced. Meanwhile, with real Medicare for All, the first $29,000 of income is tax exempt and low-income earners are taxed the least, while high-income earners are progressively taxed more. I agree with the idea in theory to tax the employer, not the worker, but when you make it a regressive flat tax and when you conclude that it's terrible distribution that most likely wouldn't even work, then no I don't support it nor do I think it's a good idea when a payroll tax is by far the more progressive option that also has a much more likely chance of being passed than tying a healthcare bill to immigration reform and 5 other issues.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Man there's so many people in this thread making shit up and strawmanning other progressives. You sound like Shapiro fanboys with your strawmen and manufactured outrage. Pakman and TYT made predictions about Russiagate, same as Kyle, they just happened to be wrong in their predictions (based on the Trump AG summary) and Kyle happened to be right. You're acting like they betrayed the country or some shit and said things to Kyle that they never did. They're literally all friends, Bernie supporters, and in the same network. They were always just giving predictions and, even though I personally disagreed with them, they had grounds for what they were predicting based on Trump's constant firing of people investigating him along with the guilty pleas that were coming out of the probe. If you thought you knew for sure what was going happen, you were full of shit, it was always an open question, so stop acting like fucking children and strawmanning people who probably align with you over 80-90% on policy because of an issue that was always up in the air. I've always hated Russiagate for this reason, it was always divisive garbage for progressives and made us all look like squabbling idiots.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bjornyesterday2562 "Voting is walking the walk. This is talking, and means nothing" - just thought I'd point out how you're deflecting from my point on the significance of any & all voting and now you're throwing "her own words" at me as if you didn't literally start off by saying words are meaningless. In all sincerity, I personally actually do think words matter, at least to some degree, but that's the exact opposite of what you originally said. I can only come to the conclusion that you're working backwards from your conclusion, why else would you be contradicting yourself at every turn and make unreasonable claims about voting only being of importance when it's a deciding vote.
See, at least to me, this is no longer really even about AOC (or maybe it never was) - I personally just think the logic you're using to get to your position on AOC and the squad is mostly irrational and broken ie why I said you seem to just be working backwards from your conclusion regarding her votes, specifically her correct votes that you disregard under the baseless assumption that they're all "performative", & then when I press you on the matter, you switch to trying to demonstrate how "her own words" somehow indirectly prove that all her positive votes are out of self-interest for media coverage and brownie points from leftists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@shgalagalaa If I was going to get into the deeper substantive arguments regarding Chomsky, we would be here all day. That was literally just my response to Pj K saying "So any person who's like 90 or older is automatically above criticism". Your assuming quite a lot from my quick response that was simply just stating age is not the only thing Chomsky has - clearly, any dimwit could tell you there's more to Chomsky than just being an MIT professor; that is just the prerequisite to Chomsky's wisdom, but still, his record is impressive & is not irrelevant like you are insinuating.
However, if you've read up to this point & you still want to feign ignorance in an attempt to 'school' me or whatever, I'll just say that if you've ever actually listened to Chomsky, especially in the past 2 decades, he'll usually cut straight to the most serious issues plaguing society & always finds a way to make day-to-day politics seem inconsequential & childish when he begins talking about, for instance, exactly why the doomsday clock is closer to midnight than it's ever been in contemporary history (ie it's 100 seconds to midnight). Unless he's pushed to answer a question about interparty politics, political drama, the current balance of power in the gov't, & so on, he'll usually always default to speaking about the serious issues that will most likely wipe humanity out over time. He also tends to masterfully link modern politics back to these urgent international matters in an incredibly persuasive & professorial way. If he makes some innocuous & honestly painfully obvious comment about how Biden is less damaging as president than Trump, you can believe he's making that analysis from a place of pure urgency & concern for this nation and this world. If you actually think he's making comments like that because he's sucking up the establishment or has suddenly become more content with the status quo, you're an absolute fool or simply just haven't listened to anything he's said past the headlines, which would then just make you an uninformed fool.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@spicymemes7458 "He is more comfortable accepting half measures and advocates for them" - Again, this sounds like you just disagree with him on the policy. Kyle believes that the positive changes that the Biden admin has made for labor and unions (many decisions that came from Bernie Sanders himself on the Labor Board) is enough to give him at least tepid support specifically in swing states in the general election. Aside from this, he literally says he's not voting for Biden in his safe state, New York, and is even actively trying to challenge Biden in the general election through Marianne Williamson, his only leftist challenger. Not only are you giving him very uncharitable interpretations, but you're acting like your policy disagreements with him are evidence that's his character has "changed", which as far as I can see, is not the case at all.
Even when Kyle was ardently opposed to Joe Biden being the nominee, he laid out his principled stance against him, saying "If I knew Biden even had 2 core issues or good things I agreed with or knew he'd follow through on, I'd support him over Donald Trump, but I don't even see 1 from Joe Biden" - this led Kyle to not vote for Joe Biden in 2020 & did not argue in his favor at all. Now, in 2023, Kyle's opinion has clearly changed BECAUSE OF the 50 different issues Kyle lists out in this very video. His argument for this is that Joe Biden has obviously passed his test for at least having "2 core issues" that align with his own ideology and politics and has said the administration has even passed his expectations beyond that. You can have a different purity test, but this is Kyle's, and he's made it very clear both here and in the past. Acting like he's changed and turned into some neoliberal lite commentator is just ignoring all evidence of his own stances on the subject.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@suspendedtwice4sayingrasis261 Imagine if this law was active in Virginia when the Unite the Right rally was happening. A neo-nazi literally drove his car into the opposing side of the protest because he didn't like them doing counter-protests. A woman literally died that day and under DeSantis's Orwellian bill that objectively takes a hatchet to the first amendment, the guy would've been let off with immunity to literal Vehicular Homicide. I'm sure you would've loved that though because your profile pic looks like an Adolf Hitler impersonator.
Let's go a step further though just to understand the kind of chaos this law could potentially bring. Imagine, if in retaliation to the neo-nazi killing people with his car, you then had a counter-protesting drive his own car into the Unite the Right side of the crowd, killing who knows how many people. Then you had another person from the Unite the Right side, drive another car into the other side and so on until the roads are cleared of protesters, along with numerous people dead, 20x more injured, and an absolute clusterfuck of a mess to clean up, because now the Governor has to explain how his bill basically lets all the murderers go free with impunity. I mean ffs, what a world we live in.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rachelkent3180 Nowhere in my comment did I say people shouldn't go on Fox News. In fact, they SHOULD go on Fox News to challenge the neo- & paleo-conservative viewpoint and Fox's metaphorical news bubble. However, Fox News is a propagandist channel; if you go on their shows, the one thing you shouldn't do is feed into their propaganda and ultra partisanship narrative without giving any pushback aka giving a leftist perspective. I haven't watched all of Greenwald's interviews, but over the past years, I've definitely noticed him going on and agreeing with them more and more & giving less and less of a real Left perspective on the issues. If he's going to go on to agree with Tucker Carlson the whole time about the Democrats being bad and corrupt, then he should at least mention that out of the two parties, they're the only side even trying to make the attempt on things like healthcare, childcare, and gov't reform to help workers and that despite the Democrats always falling short due to their corrupt neoliberal leadership, the Republicans on the other hand are completely void of any sense of helping working class families and are 100% looking out for the interests of the billionaire class and special interests. Not saying things like these (while you're presenting yourself as a Leftist) is just lying by omission, & this goes for all Leftists that make appearances on Fox News, not just Greenwald. It might give you more clout among Carlson and conservatives, but what good is it if all you're doing is feeding into the propaganda that's designed to put the more corrupt politicians back in the driver seat in Washington. Even if these people don't want to outright say the Republicans are worse than the Democrats, they should at least have the decency & integrity to point out just how corrupt the Republicans are in general and not just gloss over that fact to rant about how frustrating the Democrats are when they're too divided and broken to deliver on their promises. This type of omitted rhetoric only works to drive more people to the Republican Party, an outcome that is in no way a solution to any of the working class's problems.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elijahlees8655 It generally just seems like things alternate based on which party has a president. Under Bush, you had nonstop John Stewart and other edgy commentary regarding his illegal wars that triggered the conservative of that era, when Obama was passing cultural reforms (many times overreaching on certain issues), you had a gigantic anti-PC backlash and is basically when all the directly-addressed political correctness commentary started, and now you have Trump as president, who is trying to do a new conservative version of political correctness; examples being with the National Anthem, "saying Merry Christmas again", constantly taking shots at the First Amendment, and now you have that same edgy leftism comedy in response to this new Trump era, while the new triggered snowflakes like Ben Shapiro have an obsessive backlash to it.
The irony is that as Shapiro and others are participating in their updated versions of PC culture, they think their joke policing and pearl clutching are to somehow combat political correctness. Last time I checked, a vulgar joke on abortion was the exact opposite of political correctness though, pretty much everything Michelle Wolff has ever said has been totally politically incorrect, sometimes even setting off Democrats, and then you instantly have the right-wing getting triggered by anything she says. It's amazing to watch honestly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GhostlyJorg If you agree with Kyle, then I don't really see how you disagree on the other part because it sort of goes hand-in-hand with everything that Kyle is saying in this video. Unless you're trying to claim that we 'EVENTUALLY' have to go to a new party, which is something i half agree with depending on how things turn out in the next 2-6 years. There's a good chance that the progressive message just takes over the Democratic Party completely to the point where the corporate Democrats basically get put into place like how Trump has completely dominated the corporate Republicans (even though he doesn't have a real populist agenda, which makes it easier with little backlash cause they're not worried about losing money).
I'm entirely convinced though that this cannot realistically happen without a Bernie Sanders presidency and an onward push from groups like Justice Democrats, DSA, PCCC, and Our Revolution. They need to get to a point where they're powerful enough where a legitimate switch to a new party is effective. This would likely be after a Bernie Sanders presidency and then if he ran a second term could run as an Independent or under a 3rd party. Being the current president would basically guarantee him access to debates and media attention even if he ran outside of the Party. However, none of this can realistically happen in the short term. If you think it can, then you're basically putting a Bernie Sanders presidency in jeopardy just for a Hal Mary when the last 3rd Party candidate for president got around 1% of the vote.
You need to plan strategically for the future and Kyle even says in this clip he did extensive research and mulled over the strategy when he formed Justice Democrats and you can tell he's thought about this more than anyone even his other co-founder Cenk. Trying to go that route too early would be a mistake and if the progressive takeover is more successful in 2020 and onward, especially after a Sanders presidency, a switch to a new party may not even be necessary if you dig out the corruption, which we are currently seeing the beginning of. The urgency for a 'new party' by Jimmy Dore, before we even get Bernie elected as president, does not seem rational to me and pretty much everyone else outside the Jimmy Dore Show circle.
1
-
@GhostlyJorg Dude, I'm not a fucking mind reader. You're expecting me to pull all these points from a simple sentence "I think Jimmy and Kyle are both right". Stop whining that I'm not "reading your comments" when you're just not articulating your points correctly.
In regards to what you just said, the Dems being "salvageable" is far more feasible and likely than all the stuff you just laid out on your wishlist. In addition, you made your "plan" be dependent on Justice Democrats, something you're literally trying to argue against while simultaneously claiming they need to "make the switch" so the new party can work. This plan was not remotely feasible a year ago and it's still completely ridiculous now after the midterms even when you're throwing Justice Democrats into the mix. The logical and smartest way to move forward is to continue to grow Justice Democrats and all other progressive groups on the federal level. You know, the thing that's been actually working while the Greens, you mentioned, don't have a single representative in US Congress after 20 years of "hardships" and only have 2 people on the state level in total out of all 50 states.
As I said in my last post, I'm not opposed to a "new party" idea when the time is right, but you guys are really trying to jump on this too early. You were trying to do it before the midterms and you're trying to do it now, it's just not the right time and it won't remotely work given the political climate, which is why no one besides Nick Brana listens to Jimmy's ideas and takes them seriously and people tell him, at the very least, use the Green Party if he's deadset on going the 3rd party route. If you actually watched the video, Kyle gives countless reasons why the "new party" idea won't work right now (it's not a matter of if we SHOULD do it, it's if it will work), but you clearly did not care to listen one bit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@insightfulhistorian1861 I honestly think there are deals that would appease Russia while also halting their imperialist ambitions. I mean Russia is hurting really bad right now economically. Giving them a lifeline in exchange for peace seems like it could work in the right circumstances. So all you would need from the Russian side is to give all the land back in Eastern Ukraine & sign a ceasefire treaty. In exchange, you give away a satisfactory number of economic benefits to make Russia whole again (considering their economy is currently imploding) - for instance, you open trade back up, end most the sanctions, give them benefits to ensure they remain the #1 petro state providing fossil fuels to Europe, which would boost their economy. As I said before, you could give them 10-15% of profits from shale oil reserves in Ukraine, remove all taxes on Ukraine's oil pipelines, and most importantly open the water supply back up to the Crimean Peninsula. Even if you gotta go further than this, I think making concessions to fix the Russian economy would at least temporary halt their military ambitions; you could even make all these economic concessions temporary and make them easily able to be revoked the moment Russia violates the treaty to try to efficiently and quickly cripple their economy again the moment they do another illegal invasion.
I mean shit, there's gotta be smarter people than me out there to draft something like this, why the hell hasn't anyone proposed something like this? I think any "deal" that gives Ukraine territories to Russia is a mistake and just asking for Russia to continue their invasions 4 years from now. If you halt their invasion now, so they end the war with no new lands, then any invasion 4 years from now is going to feel futile to Russia and their military, as if they're just pounding at a brick wall.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jn1346 Yeah, I've actually had that happen too, last time I went to the dentist was over 2 years ago and got done $3,100 of dental work, I'm literally still paying for it to this day just so I wouldn't have cavities and get a normal cleaning. Even after I got done, I still had 2 cavities, a chipped tooth, and needed a deep cleaning, which yeah costs like $2000-$2500 out of pocket, about the same as the chipped tooth. I'm still in my mid-to-late 20s, and a full trip to the dentist costs about the price of a new car. Not to mention I HAVE insurance, just not dental, and I still have to pay $200 every month for a 15 minute appointment to my normal monthly doctor I see. Thankfully my prescriptions are covered, but that's literally the cheapest cost out of all my health expenses. Our country is so fucked, I can't believe these delusional fucks are desperately trying to defend it as if everything's great and perfect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Pan_Z Bernie Sanders may label himself a Democratic Socialist (which is more akin to Libertarian Socialism), but his policy platform emulates Social Democracy, which is a mixed system with state-administrative socialist policies (like Social Security, Medicare, public schools/highway construction, universal healthcare, etc) but still utilizes a free market in numerous industries such as consumer goods, vehicles, regulated housing, etc. This is why he constantly holds up the Scandinavian and Western European countries as his ideal system for what he wants America to look like - it's basically what most of those countries already implement, and to far greater success than America's current uber-Capitalist kleptocracy. Expanding Social Security and Medicare is in the same ballpark and these are things both Biden AND Trump talk about (expanding socialist policies on the state level for the improved financial well-being of seniors).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+TA 72 -
1983: Bernie opposed Reagan's war against Nicaragua, said it was "illegal and immoral" and strongly opposed funding the Contras.
1990: Opposed and voted NO on all-out war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein in Kuwait in 1st Gulf War.
- At the time stated: "I was not only opposed to the war because of the potential destruction and loss of life, but also because I believe it IS possible for the major countries of this planet, and a virtually united world community, to resolve crises without carnage. If this matter could not be solved without massive bombing & killing thousands of people, then what crisis could ever be solved peacefully?"
2003: Opposed Iraq war, voted NO on authorizing military force, voted NO on approving removal of Saddam Hussein and voted YES every single time on pulling troops out of Iraq.
2006: Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date.
2007: Voted NO on designating Iran's Revolutionary Guards as terrorists.
- At the time stated: "I will oppose the Kyl-Lieberman amendment for one simple reason: this administration cannot be trusted. I fear that this President might use the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity as a pretext to use force against Iran as he sees fit."
2015: Supported bettering relations with Cuba and the removal of Cuba on the US's list of "nations sponsoring terrorism".
2015: Stated that the US should not be leading the fight against ISIS and that the Muslim States need to lead the efforts against the "barbaric organization", but stated "we cannot and we should not be involved in perpetual warfare in the Middle East".
2017: Voted NO on putting sanctions on Iran and Russia, which resulted in breaking the US's side of the Iran Deal by adding sanctions that it promised to not invoke.
2018: Opposed pulling out of the Iran Deal, which could possibly lead to regime change in Iran.
Today: Bernie is heading legislation with Rand Paul to take back control of US power to dictate war away from the president and give it back to Congress and is in favor of auditing the Pentagon and military industrial complex.
1
-
+TA 72 - Jesus christ man. AUMF was UNANIMOUS. Nobody voted against capturing Osama bin Laden after 9/11 and if Bernie had, you would be calling him "weak".
Then you're straight up lying about the Libya and Syria intervention. Bernie opposed both of those wars, said we should take a conservative stance and use the tax payer money on our own American citizens. They weren't even up to him! Both of those were instances where Obama (and last year Trump) circumvented Congress and declared war without congressional approval. Bernie has been strongly opposed to any actions like this and it's why he's in Congress this past week grilling generals and trying to take the power away from the president so they can't dictate war without Congress's approval anymore. This is literally what he said:
“I think one of the things many people are upset about is this war took place without consultation of the Congress, without debate within the Congress. Look, everybody understands Gaddafi is a thug and murderer, but I think in the midst of two wars, I’m not quite sure we need a third war.”
The only one you're being halfway truthful about is Serbia, and with that one you're just completely dragging it out of context as usual. Also, did you see my above post about Serbia/Yugoslavia? Yugoslavia invaded Serbia and was executing innocents in mass, performing ethnic cleansing and it was a full-on genocide. Bernie has stated it was a hard decision between the two philosophies of "Never again War" vs "Never Again Auschwitz", but in the end he made the decision to end further genocide. Bernie has been opposed to and voted against NATO expansion and pulling troops away from the Russian borders so that contradicts the image you're trying to paint of him being an interventionist. Bernie has always favored using diplomacy and economic pressure as a primary tool over interventionism, so pretty much the few examples you gave are either total bullshit or mostly bullshit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Nategodmafia Well you've been lied to on a massive scale then. A single payer system works in virtually every single first world country on the planet. Finland, Sweden, Denmark, France, Japan, Canada, Germany, Australia, Taiwan, Span. Even Israel, a country the US gives massive financial aid to has a single payer system for their citizens. You are MISTAKEN my friend.
1
-
@Nategodmafia The USA has wait times as well, and in our case we prioritize and ration based on wallet size rather than necessity of care. Canada takes care of the sickest people first so if you have cancer that is spreading fast, you will be taken care of near immediately rather than in the US having to wait a month to get the okay from your insurance company. More importantly, 32,000 to 45,000 people die from lack of healthcare in the US, these numbers do not exist in Canada, which tells you all you need to know about our system vs theirs.
Also, I'll just point out that the Medicare for All bills in the House and Senate still allow for supplemental private insurance, they just use it so you have to opt-out to get it instead of having a private system where you opt-out for the public option, which is exactly what Yang is saying he supports. Basically the Obamacare private insurance market but with a public option, same as Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris and Cory Booker are pushing for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Liam V - So a lot of what you said is misleading to put it lightly. The whole "3 not 17" intelligence agencies thing is a parrot of what Trump said in one of his rallies and it's ridiculously misleading considering it is 4 intelligence agencies and they're the only 4 agencies that were tracking the Russian interference while all the others were not engaged in any usage. It was the FBI, the NSA, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. These are the 4 largest agencies by far and the others tend to be for specialized use like the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency who focus on satellite imaging. Secondly, you're using the fact that the CIA had bad intel back in 2003 as a reason to trust Trump instead when you're completely ignorant to the fact that the executive branch has been even MORE untrustworthy considering that same event, Bush was the president who lied to the American people and exploited the fear surrounding 9/11 and bad intel from the CIA to DECLARE WAR on a country we had no business attacking EVEN IF they had WMDs. So your argument to trust the word of the executive branch over the intelligence agencies based on historical events back in 2003 makes absolutely NO sense and the executive branch, Trump in particular, has proven to be pathetically untrustworthy and is even considered a pathological liar. Also, those reports back in 2003 that Iraq had WMDs were not in agreement between all the largest agencies. I'm not even arguing for one side or the other here just trying to correct your misleading and false information. I consider myself more balanced on this issue than most, in which even Mike exclaimed that we should all take a nuanced stance on this issue, which I whole-heartedly agree with. The fact that you're telling us to trust Trump and parroting his talking points from rallies tells me you haven't thought much on this issue past your biased perspective.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zackdarpinian9980 "I really wish I could reconcile my fears of Bernie's FJG". I don't understand why Yang supporters are fearmongering over a program that gives people the option to have a job and FJG is a sub-program of his Green New Deal, a proposal to boldly tackle the existential threat of Climate Change. It's ironic how Yang's supporters constantly invoke MLK for his brief support of UBI, but fail to acknowledge that a Job's Guarantee was a center-point of MLK's vision in that same work where he talks about UBI to a lesser extent. Many Yang supporters are saying silly things like "it makes us government slaves", when the point of a Job's Guarantee is to lower unemployment so private companies have to compete for labor and as a result, wages INCREASE. I haven't seen 1 single Yang Gang person accurately represent the issue of a Job's Guarantee, they just smear and fearmonger over it as a government takeover, when the whole long-term goal is to increase wages in the private sector, rebuild our infrastructure, create new Green infrastructure (you know, cause Climate Change is a tiny bit of a problem), and give good paying jobs for those who choose to take them (aka the "freedom of choice" I hear so much about these days, ironically being slandered as "slavery").
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Bernie Sanders for President,
Nina Turner for VP,
Tulsi Gabbard for Secretary of State,
Elizabeth Warren for Treasury Secretary,
Ro Khanna for Commerce Secretary,
Jill Stein for Head of Health and Human Services,
Keith Ellison for head of Housing and Urban Development,
Barbara Lee as National Secretary Council Adviser,
Pramila Jayapal for Attorney General,
Raúl Grijalva for Budget Director,
Timothy Berners-Lee as the head chairman of the FCC,
Noam Chomsky as National Trade Council,
Alan Guth as Energy Secretary,
Gavin A. Schmidt as head of the EPA,
and I could keep going with listing people who will actually be massively beneficial to this country and the American People.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidabarnes1993 Yes, those work for Portugal and Taiwan, however no other country has anything like "Democracy dollars" nor a national version of UBI. Finland had an experiment for years but ultimately decided against it. When it comes to the successes of other countries, this is where Bernie's plans come in, because all of his plans are proven successes in other countries and he just wants to take us to where the Scandinavian countries are. This involves a robust social safety net and a basic standard rather than a basic income. Healthcare, education, housing, etc. are all a guaranteed minimum if people in a civilized society cannot afford it. Yang's UBI would not guarantee these things because we have no idea what his UBI would have on the market, inflation, the effects on wealth inequality (which are massive atm) or what it would lead to, this is because NO OTHER country has had success with it. Bernie's plans are fully paid for, directly reduce and tackle wealth inequality, and are all proven successes in other first world countries. Why are you throwing the dice on Yang whose policies are untested, has next to no foreign policy ("Why would we reduce aid to Israel"), is not for breaking up big tech and monopolies, and has zero political experience in Washington?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rabbitsforyang8273 Lol Yang flip flopped on Medicare for All you dumbass. He didn't have some brilliant strategy, he twisted into a pretzel just like countless politicians do. He went from supporting Medicare for All for most of the campaign to suddenly changing his position the moment a little bit of pressure was cast upon it by ill-intentioned debate moderators & corrupt special interests. It's literally the exact same thing Elizabeth Warren did as a way to piggy-back on the popularity of Medicare for All without actually committing to it. I'm sure if Yang suddenly changed his position from Universal basic income to Selective basic income with a cutoff point for income & a case by case basis selection period, you would of course be giving him hallow credit for "a better idea". You're such a hack buddy. Yang got the attention he did because he was bold & you're over here giving him "strategy" credit on the one thing he was spineless over, just because Yang did it so, of course, it must be the correct choice. The thing is, Bernie got massive widespread backlash from his own supporters when he endorsed Joe Biden in the general, a guy who was such an anti-thesis to the Leftist platform, but in comparison, Yang endorsed Joe Biden in the primary & he never got a peep from his supporters & they never even tried to course correct him. It's pathetic to watch the lack of individualism & free thinking in your "gang", but you especially are the embodiment of that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@user-bp3ou2dq2q In my opinion, it should be calculated by how far away your positions are from the majority view and opinions of the average American and where the people stand on the issues. If 65% of the American people believe Marijuana should be legal recreationally and 91% believe Marijuana should be legal medicinally ie the vast majority of Americans want legal cannabis, then a politician or political group that takes a position of Marijuana usage or minor possession being a felony offense with potential penalty of jail time, imo that person is an extremist on that issue specifically, because they strongly disagree with ~90% of the American public on the legality of cannabis.
If you go issue by issue and look at the aggregate data and polling average by Americans on the policy positions, it shows that the Republican and Democratic Parties are both out-of-step with the American people on most issues. With the Democrats, they claim to support some of the popular issues, but their voting records as a whole don't reflect that, same thing with Republicans on specific issues. This is most evident when you have direct ballot measures, like in the last Florida election, when Ron DeSantis was elected as governor, who doesn't support a higher minimum wage, but the state voted to raise the minimum wage to $15 on a direct ballot initiative and it won by 60%. The same scenario can be applied to numerous Democratic politicians and the overall party as well.
This is why considering "the center between the Democrats and Republicans" as the "moderate" position is fundamentally flawed and the popular position among Americans is actually advocated by those "10% of extremes" on the Left such as marijuana legalization and universal healthcare for instance and even sometimes by the Right such as public opinion regarding "the deep state" ie the CIA, FBI and NSA, organizations that are officially supported by the "moderates" in both Parties yet have extremely low trust and confidence by the American people. In other words, choosing the median/center view between both shitty parties is still going to be out-of-touch from the positions and views of the average Americans & the American people.
1
-
@user-bp3ou2dq2q The United States is the center for worldwide kleptocracy. The fact the US is a representative Democracy definitely doesn't help the situation (ie politicians are elected to vote on the policy directly, very rarely are the people able to vote on the policy themselves) since it makes Democratic rule much less open and direct. However, the real factor that's causing a deterioration of American politics and the people's trust in Congress (currently at a 12% approval), is it's becoming impossible to ignore the massive amount of corruption that goes on in Washington. Lobbyists and the revolving door of politics has created what Donald Trump would refer to as "The Swamp", and though Trump is a self-serving narcissist & delusional in countless ways, he's not wrong about his initial 2016 criticisms of Washington politics. There are no term limits on Congress and many of the same corrupt goons are passed around different administrations and unelected positions, so these people just become numb and used to the corruption over time.
In many instances, it's completely legal as well since these are the people who write the laws. It's a massive problem in both Parties & one of the things they have in common. Bipartisanship in Washington is usually never a good thing, because more than likely, it's on an issue where both parties agree on the corruption. Just as an example, there was a bipartisan bill about 4 years ago that had an 11% approval rating among the public - it basically stated that corporations could sell your personal information and without even asking you or informing people - this bill was easily passed through Congress and the Senate because it had overwhelmingly bipartisan support with a few Democrats voting against it. The reason this happened, is because both parties are massive recipients of corporate money from tech companies such as Google, Facebook, etc.
Yang is correct when he states that the 2 party system is part of the problem, but he always tends to overlook what many consider the core problem in US politics, the corruption and onslaught of corporate power.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Chris-oz9qx It's obviously more complicated than that. Viruses evolve over time if they're not eradicated or gotten under control aka if they're allowed to spread from host to host, then they evolve, which is why we're dealing with the more contagious, more deadly Delta variant in the first place (btw, if anyone "doesn't have faith in the vaccine" it's because the vaccine was created for the original COVID-19, not the Delta variant we're dealing with now). When we have surges that are almost unanimously among the unvaccinated, it's going to allow the virus to get out of control & have a higher chance of evolution, then we'll be dealing with the Epsilon variant or whatever comes next, which will also likely need it's own vaccine after it's been 2 generations removed from the original COVID-19 virus cause that's the way science works - the COVID vaccine was developed for the initial COVID-19 virus. This is a problem that everyone should care about, because on a macro-scale, it's going to cause us to deal with the same problem over and over again until we either get the virus under control or until an extremely dangerous variant is mutated & we're forced to start taking it seriously.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@creaturecore13 I don't think Brand is a grifter, but I do think he's had a bit of audience capture over the past 2 years on his Youtube channel, even if he's unaware of the change himself. I have a hard time believing someone is so pinpoint focused on vax-skeptic arguments simply because they think the issue is incredibly important years after the vaccine was even introduced. It's become pretty common knowledge that you can explode your Youtube channel just by joining the anti-vax club even if it's in a more mild capacity like Brand's content is. So it's either unintentional audience capture, just a big coincidence and he really is that concerned about the niche topic of vaccines pertaining to the pharma industry, or he is in fact a grifter to some degree.
I personally don't see Brand being a grifter, at least not one with real greedy or malicious intent, and I don't see the big coincidence argument being likely, so I tend to think it's just subtle audience capture for why he's overly focusing on vaccines. An alternative reason could be that he's self-aware of the audience capture, but actually sees vaccines use by big pharma as a somewhat important issue but leans into it more cause he knows it's where the views are despite it empowering the anti-vaxxer perspective. I don't really see Brand being an inherently greedy man obsessed with Youtube cash, but I do think he really likes spreading his ideas and ideology, so the more views the more that feeds his own desires for that kind of political infamy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eydemarie2367 A 3rd Party will never happen. Wish it could, but it's about as likely as you getting struck by lightning as you're reading this now. Also, you seriously think the corruption stops at party lines? Not only is the system rigged against 3rd parties about 1000 times worse than it's rigged against populists or outsiders within the party primaries, but the harsh truth is that if the Greens or a hypothetical "People's Party" ever actually gained real electoral power, they would have the same threat of being co-opted by corporate pressure & be just as likely to grow accustomed to Washington corruption as anyone else. What matters is the individual, their message, and their commitment to putting people first.
It matters far more that there is a growing trend for small dollar donors & everyday people to fund politicians' campaigns rather than any talk about starting a new 3rd party or even trying to gain more power for the Greens (and let's be honest, if you're dead serious about going 3rd Party, don't be stupid, go with the Greens, who have already spent 1-2 decades gaining the bare minimum to at least qualify to run in most state elections - starting over would be an extreme waste of time and is the WORST idea out of all the options to gain electoral victories).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@darkdaxterversionz Well now you're just gaslighting me. When the fuck did I ever say you need to "blindly worship them". I said when they fight for legislation you fucking acknowledge their doing good work so they keep making the right decisions in the future, when they make the wrong decisions you criticize them so they don't do it again. It's that goddamn simple. If you wanna take my words and reinterpret them as "Dur you have to worship them and kiss their feet" then you're just being purposefully dishonest in this conversation.
You honestly sound like someone who doesn't care at all about these policies, otherwise you would put aside your personal bullshit you have with these people and support the POLICY. I don't like Joe Biden one bit, but when he pulled out from Afghanistan I supported that, vocally back his decision, & defended him from the media's attacks. Though I'm sure you would've just considered it "Biden just doing his job", which is just the same thing as being a fucking hack who can't support a military de-escalation just because it's someone you personally don't like very much, and yes, that IS Jimmy Dore-like, who puts his personal feelings above any kind of policy ever. At the end of the day, these politicians are tools to achieve substantive goals for the American people. If you don't use the Stick AND Carrot approach to politics, & only continually just use the Stick (even when they're doing the right shit), then you're being absolutely foolish & playing the game like shit. More than anything though, you're just a hack on this subject.
1
-
@darkdaxterversionz If I'm gaslighting you in any way, then it goes double for you. I'm making what I consider an extremely reasonable argument with how to both view politics and leave personal feelings out of these issues. As I said, a stick and carrot approach is needed on these issues as an effective way of playing politics, but it's also just a sign that an individual has principles & will give credit when its due, which is why I mentioned Biden pulling out of Afghan.
You're "disagreement that they did everything right" on the Spending bill was absurd or excessively uncharitable towards their actions at best. They had already tried to push for a higher price tag on the bill and $3.5 Trillion was the number the Dems made them lower it to just to get it into reconciliation, so you were just simply wrong about that part. In terms of "they're just doing their job", I already explained how they're not just voting for the bill (which yes, you consider 'just doing their jobs'), they're also corralling other members to shoot down the Infrastructure Bill, doing interviews all over the media - so they're also *Leading on the issue, & most importantly playing Machiavellian politics to try to force their way. It's incredibly hypocritical that many leftists will bash them relentlessly for not signing onto the "Force the Vote" strategy, but as soon as they Force a Vote on THIS, it's crickets from people or in your case it's, at best, perceived as "Well they're just doing their job". It's pretentious and more importantly a dumb way of handling politics and politicians if you actually want these people to continually make these decisions in the future. It's insane to me that you don't see the logic of this argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
playah That doesn't disprove anything I said. Your first quote is the only one that is relevant to Trump. It was said in response to ONE meeting between Trump and Putin, Trump's actions speak entirely different stories where he's literally trying to start another proxy war with Russia over Iran so then we'd be in 2 different proxy wars. You missed Chomsky's entire point there, he was saying the mainstream media needs to stop focusing on the most trivial things with just a basic meeting to improve relations even if it doesn't do much, he literally said it was "trivial" in that same appearance, and then went on to warn about NATO troops on the border (which Trump has only made worse so your point is absurd) and the proxy war with Syria, which completely contradicts Trump's meeting and words of "wanting to better relations" with Russia. THAT was his point, which is why people like Kyle are frustrated when mainstream media does the opposite claiming Trump is "too soft" on Russia when he's literally making things much worse, and THEN Chomsky went on to talk about Climate Change, which is endangering the entirety of humanity and warned about this far more than what's going on with Russia.
"I don't know what word applies to people of that kind who are willing to sacrifice the literal existence of organized human life of the distant future so they can put a few more dollars in their highly overstuffed pockets. The word "evil" doesn't begin to approach it. THESE are the kinds of issues that should be under discussion, instead there is a focus on what I believe to be more marginalia".
Nice job rearranging Chomsky's comments to spin his actual opinion, but no, he believes Hillary was the lesser evil, that's a fact. Stop pretending otherwise. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/noam-chomsky-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-a7438526.html
Also, it was not just Clinton to expand the NATO troops on the Russian border, but also Bush and Obama did the same even if Clinton was the first one to begin to after the Cold War. Trump is also making things worse just like every president before him so this idea that Trump is somehow 'better' than Hillary would've been on that front seems to be trivial in comparison since they are both bad just as Bush and Obama were as well. The real threat Trump causes to humanity is over Climate Change which Chomsky warns about as a more critical threat than literally anything else.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Clyde illusion No he wouldn't. At first glance, Ojeda comes off as a strong Republican personality but is a registered Democrat, Bernie is an Independent and has been for the last 40 years in office. The reason Bernie is able to reach out to Republicans especially ones of low-income is because everyone knows him as an Independent and doesn't have to listen to the Dem Party if he doesn't want to. This allows people to look past his label and listen to his policy substance, something many would likely ignore with Ojeda even with his populist rhetoric and Republican-esque appearance.
If you think everything that I just said is debatable, then think about the fact that Ojeda has nearly no name recognition outside of progressive circles and outside of West Virginia. This is why Bernie lost the primary in 2016, because he started with little name recognition and he had already been in politics close to 35 years at that point. Ojeda is still a newcomer and even most progressives only heard about him for the first time a month or two ago before the midterm general election.
Your also forgetting about the fact that Ojeda has to get past the primary, which is why when you say "he would be stronger in the general" it doesn't really matter if he can't get there and ends up losing to Joe Biden or Hillary so then they can go lose in the general. If Bernie wasn't running and Ojeda was the only progressive in the primary, he would more than likely lose due to lack of name recognition to someone like Biden or even Kamala Harris simply because she has the media doing puff pieces on her all day long, while Ojeda gets a complete blackout. Bernie is strong because he is already a household name, he's known as a revolutionary and populist in a time of deep hatred for the elites and establishment, and we already know his words and rhetoric are powerful on a mass level because we've seen it for the past 3 years now and the effects it has.
Making the simple claim that I think Bernie's the stronger candidate because I'm a "social liberal" is absurd given all the logic I've just laid out for you. Do you care to refute anything I've said or give me a reason that Ojeda would somehow be stronger despite all these constricting parameters? I like Ojeda a lot, but Bernie is still the better candidate policy-wise by a long shot and is literally the front-runner for the Democratic primary if you look at polls that the mainstream media hasn't skewed for their own agenda. You seem biased towards Ojeda, but just know you would be throwing away a winning race horse in Bernie for someone who is not nearly as strong on the policy and has next to no name recognition on the national scale.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TCt83067695 "he was sad because he had not been giving enough opportunity in quote "10mins" to champion Biden's mediocre accomplishments" - you're kinda giving yourself away here that it's not the "tantrum" (whatever that means, it's a debate), but it's that you don't like him giving Biden credit on his so-called "mediocre accomplishments", and honestly, some of the things he listed were not just mediocre but actually huge wins for labor and unions. If you care about labor and unions, you would at least recognize these are very good, especially the one about automatic union recognition if union busting is suspected by corporations.
Like for the first time in my lifetime, we seem to actually have a president whose at least nominally on the side of labor and unions, it's not enough to get my actual earnest support, but it is enough to at least have an honest discussion about whether it's far more productive to ensure he wins over Trump, who has proven he will drive this country in the wrong direction at a 1,000 miles per hour. You can't just dismiss anyone having this conversation as voter shaming, this is an incredibly important conversation to have.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RayCromwell I agree with some of what you said. My point was that Yang's UBI and a VAT are not only 'not enough', but they are entirely the wrong way to go about fixing class inequality, something he has said that he thinks the Freedom Dividend would do. The way wealth is distributed in America needs to be systemically changed to begin with, rather than standing aside and letting the market screw everyone over, taking away large portions of the workforce, and allowing the owners of production to hoard all the wealth and THEN simply just taxing their goods by 10% after they're already making record-profits off of automated factories that no longer have expensive payrolls anymore. A 10% VAT is clearly not enough, but I have serious doubts that any VAT would be enough to actually fix the problem.
On the other hand, you would also have large portions of the workforce unemployed and actively trying to live off of $1,000 a month, something that currently can't even be done by most people in cities or anyone with a family. If automation decimates the workforce like Yang says, then why is his solution to simply give people an allowance below what is considered a livable wage. If these people can't get jobs (because their jobs have been automated), then it seems like the best and only solution would be to develop a system where people are NOT fired to begin with, but the amount of work is divided up between workers. This way, when new machines come in to automate more work, the result is not 50,000 workers losing their jobs, but everyone keeping their salaries while having their workdays cut in half or by a fraction of what it was before automation.
This seems like the logical step to get to the point where automation allows people to be "born retired". Yang's future would result in 99% of the world being born with allowances that keep them perpetually poor and always 'wanting', while the owners of production, and all their heirs, will be able to have a tight grasp of the production and the wealth until something changes in this dystopian system people have dug themselves into. It doesn't sound like a solution at all, it just sounds like a catalyst to make things worse, especially in terms of wealth and class inequality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Want to give any evidence of any employer forcing their employees to pay "$1,000 a month in COVID tests". Last time I got tested, it cost $20 & IF employers aren't paying for the tests themselves, that's $20 a week aka max $80 a month, not $1,000. If you can't afford $80 a month at your job to uphold your dumbass beliefs that the vaccine is evil or whatever the fuck, then maybe you should be rethinking your employment. No offense to the anti-vaxxers, but society shouldn't be making these people comfortable with refusing the COVID vaccine, just like public schools shouldn't be bending over backwards to accommodate parents who don't vaccine their children for Measles, Mumps, Rubella or god forbid Polio.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nathanfielure4305 There are already solutions being presented by the progressives running for president. Bernie Sanders, Warren, and even Tulsi (I think) have introduced legislation that increases workers' voices and shares within a company. The ACTUAL solution to automation is to eventually transition to having worker-owned cooperatives where the employees of a corporation all hold a share in the company and all have an equal voice. We have widespread global Democracy on the governmental level, it's time to match this with having Democracy in the workplace and Democracy within corporations.
There are already gigantic fully-functioning corporations like this in Europe and scattered across the world. The Mondragon Corporation is one of the biggest examples of this with something like 250 subsidiary companies and it works better incredibly well. Within these types of scenarios (or even in more mild situations where we just increase the number of workers on a board of directors), we can PREVENT automation from decimating the workforce, not just plan for the eventual fallout like UBI does.
In a corporation with sufficient worker representation, automating machines would end up BENEFITING all the workers, cutting their workdays in half or by a third and keeping their jobs and keeping their salaries the same. In our current American corporate structure, automation ends up benefiting the CEOs and people at the very top, sometimes CEOs profiting hundreds of millions of dollars just for firing workers or outsourcing jobs and factories to China or Mexico. With valid worker representation and power within companies, the workers can STOP outsourcing deals and top management from making decisions that massively negatively impact the workers above all else.
Seriously, this is the real way to deal with automation in America and the real way to help fix our broken system.
1
-
@oakinwol I'm not saying worker representation would stop automation, I'm saying it would redirect who exactly automation benefits and "prevent" the negative consequences of automation as its happening now. Currently automation and outsourcing benefits those at the very top (CEOs receiving $500,000,000 deals for firing 50,000 people). Worker representation in corporations and to a larger extent, worker-owned co-ops, would create a corporate structure so that when automation inevitably happens, it does not lead to the firing of 50,000 people, but instead leads to shorter workdays for everyone in the department effected by automation. Automation would HELP workers instead of hurting them. I don't understand how you think that a universal program that drastically changes the entire economy would be better or easier than creating sensible and moral legislation that incentivizes Democracy in the workplace and gives workers more rights. Spreading democratic principles into the corporate ecosphere is the common sense next step to create a better society that benefits everyone. As I said before, UBI would only be a band-aid and would not actually fix the underlying causes. If anything, it would lead to the wound festering and getting infected by not directly addressing the real problem and the real solution. Just casually allowing unemployment to blow up and hoping a non-livable federal wage will fix everything is NOT a real solution to the futuristic problem Yang correctly addresses.
1
-
1
-
@oakinwol This isn't really a debate, worker-owned cooperatives already exist in places like Europe and they not only thrive, they're far far better for everyone involved (except maybe CEOs and the people at the top who don't make ridiculous amounts of money). Look up the Mondragon Corporation in Spain, it's one of the largest worker-owned businesses in the world with something like 250 subsidiary companies under it. When you say things like "I'm unsure how it would work or how to legislate democracy in a business", we ALREADY know how it would work and it works BETTER for everyone involved. That's the difference between Yang's plans and the core progressive platform, nearly all of the progressive policies are tested and are proven to work better than our current system, all we have to do is look at places like Scandinavia, Japan, Australia, Portugal, etc. whereas Yang's core policies, especially UBI are untested and we haven't even had a social experiment with it as Finland has done in the past (but never implemented since it didn't have the results they were looking for).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+paul sticks - In response to your second post, "Explain how this gives more power to the drug companies". It's literally one of the key goals of the whole fucking proposal to give the pharmaceutical companies "MORE POWER" to negotiate drug prices, but the thing is the pharma companies are not being forced by the govt or from foreign competitors to lower drug prices, so Trump is basically giving those companies the power to negotiate (primarily so they can re-negotiate drug prices outside the US) without actually giving them any reason to lower prices within the US. The REAL way Trump could've lowered the drug prices in our free market was by allowing the importation of drugs from Canada so the US pharma companies, which completely rip off the American people on high drug prices, would've actually been forced to compete with much lower prices from Canada, who have far lower prices of drugs than we do in the US because they don't allow drug prices to be dictated by privately owned insurance agencies, which do shit constantly like Martin Skrelli did when he raised prices just because he fucking could. But you know what Trump did when he had the chance to vote on importing drugs to directly lower US prices? He fucking VOTED AGAINST IT. Why? Because he's just another bought politician who is a bitch for the pharmaceutical companies. And now all this proposal does it allow big pharma to pressure other countries into raising drug prices in other countries so they specifically can make more money, NOT the American people. In this country what we do is we socialize the costs and privatize the profits, which the pharma companies have been benefiting from for decades now. Also, if this proposal was Soooo good for the American people and bad news for the pharmaceutical industry as YOU suggest, then why the fuck are the pharma companies high fiving each other after Trump's speech when their companies' stock prices skyrocketed during Trump's Rose Garden speech. That wouldn't have HAPPENED if Trump actually did something that would've raised prices on them, but NO, it fucking helps them. All a person needs to do is actually look at his godawful proposal. So your turn. How the fuck do you explain how this proposal actually "lowers drug prices"? Explain in as much detail as I did now, because I think it's pretty obvious which one is full of shit at this point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@evodude919 I have made a similar point a few times now. UBI, at this point in time, is only a band aid (as you mentioned) on our ridiculously corrupt and broken system. If we institute UBI too early while we still have this broken system, it will only work to appease the population and a huge portion of the movement will stop focusing so intently on fixing the tax code, removing for-profit industries like for-profit insurance markets, for-profit prisons, and the for-profit loan industry. These things will not go away unless we push vigorously for reform. If you go straight for UBI it will only allow these corrupt players to keep operating even longer. There is a reason why tech billionaires have been pushing for UBI with what people have been fearing is malicious intent to appease the masses. I have seen David Pakman address this at one point, but not many others. My recommendation is to fix our broken system first, and then push for UBI. Class inequality and Climate Change are two of the biggest looming threats right now, automation is a threat too, but not as large at the moment. It is more down the line and should be pushed for AFTER everyone is able to go to the doctor without going bankrupt. Medicare for All and some type of Green New Deal should be foremost along with fixing the tax code and campaign finance laws. I'm just not convinced UBI is a priority over any of these things and would actually hurt efforts to fix those embedded problems in our system if we pushed for it too early.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
proud American Oh fucking please, if that's seriously the best attack you have against him then you might as well give up the presidency right now. Normal people think that talking point is so pathetic, it only works in your deep right-wing bubble like on Fox News. Bernie wants to tax himself MORE along with all other billionaires and millionaires who are ridiculously more wealthy than him or you, so that those tax increases go towards saving average Americans thousands of dollars in medical bills, give them a living wage, and fixing the housing crisis and our crumbling infrastructure. He's not just trying to increase taxes for the fuck of it. Without implementing his policies that help the American people, those tax cuts are lost on the military budget and tax cuts for the 1%, which is what Trump's tax cuts ARE, you're basically admitting that in your dumbass broken logic. Without proper government policy, he'd be handing over charity that no one else is paying in the country so that it can go into the Walton family's and Jeff Bezos' pocket, a guy that Bernie rails against constantly for paying $0 in federal taxes unlike him. Your argument sounds pretty fucking silly when I explain it huh?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@calebhohneke8482 Yeah, let's just shelve that last point, cause I think it's totally valid that there's no real evidence these are legit (millions upon billions of bored people on the internet after all). But let's assume they're 100% real & Roiland said all this shit when he was wasted. Maybe I'm biased or just understand this drunkass mentality better cause I had friends in college (or at least 1 in particular) who were a lot like this when they drank too much but in actuality were basically harmless despite their big mouths & dumbass lack of inhibitions. They would get so drunk that they'd just stop giving a fuck completely about what other people thought and would use shock and awe humor even if they were the only people laughing at it. Don't ask me why some drunks are like this, but they are, & I think literally every one of us is guilty of sending embarrassing or insane texts when we've been too drunk, but I'm pretty certain guys like Roiland do it on another level, especially cause he has a drinking problem.
It's also important to remember Roiland comes from the Tim and Eric and Eric Andre type of shock comedy sector of entertainment, so if I had to guess, this is exactly who he is on a personal level. These comedians aren't just actors & put on a mask for the camera, someone like Eric Andre is actually quite insane and doesn't have a filter. Ironically, this is what attracts people to their content and work to begin with. Roiland, for instance, pretends to be one of the biggest drunk assholes in television as his day job, it's not really shocking to find out he's also a drunk asshole in his personal life.
The reason the domestic violence charge matters is to determine whether he's a violent drunk asshole who needs help, or whether he's just a regular drunk asshole who just has no filter when he drinks but is basically harmless. I don't think the DMs would've had anywhere near the same impact if they hadn't been released within days of info about the DV case. If Roiland is completely innocent of the DV as the dismissal of his case suggests, then I don't really see the DMs as anything more than idiotic drunkass behavior. Also, if I'm being honest, I don't think that one message was "grooming" either, it just seemed like Roiland was yelling insane shit in all caps and ending the conversation right there by saying something shocking. I mean, he literally calls her a "F*GG*T" in the same sentence and it's basically said out of nowhere. So yeah, he's still a moronic drunkass who gets creepy to women when too drunk, but without the DV stuff, it basically loses all the menace behind any of it. This is all just my opinion of course, but I feel like it's a lot more accurate than most of the stuff people are saying.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sieglindeeilserv8853 I mean, I'm all for constructive criticism. I do think AOC makes mistakes quite a bit and needs to be reminded of her roots, but what some people do just goes way way beyond that & is only destructive & counterproductive to actual left-wing goals. This is even more so the case with other progressive Congressmembers and even organizations like DSA, Sunrise or even Bernie. Constantly attacking & turning our backs on all these people and organizations is the equivalent of turning our backs on any Left progress that's been made for the last 6-7 years. This is the actual intent of a few who would rather see all that energy taken & put into starting a 3rd party (even though that process has an extraordinarily low success rate), but the rest who are doing this & actually care about the policy outcomes are making foolish mistakes by only further disjointing any combined front of activism & any real establishment opposition we have in Washington - that's why, when politicians & organizations don't fight harder, you pressure them to do better & encourage that behavior, not immediately jump to attacks, smears, or publicly exclaiming to cross them off as corporate shills. How do people not understand yet that this only hurts us & plays right into the establishment's hands?
Honestly, my faith and outlook for the Left is lower than it's ever been. There needs to be a united front Now more than ever if real progress is to be achieved, but people are too busy fighting, splitting hairs over innocuous shit like this, & seem to care far more about bashing AOC in every way imaginable rather than trying to work with her or anyone else for that matter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ifeelbetterabouthis.louis3 Yeah, YT deletes my comments constantly. Your original comment made it sound like Trump was the automatic better choice simply because Cheney has it out for Trump and endorsed his opposition. Don't get me wrong, Kamala promoting this endorsement is such a foolish mistake, I don't even know where to begin, however, even hinting that Trump must be better because of it, is completely antithetical to any objective reality regarding their actual policies. I'm personally not voting for either (I'm not going to be complicate in either of their sins on foreign policy, & Kamala hasn't proven she's going to reverse course on Isr4el unless she can miraculously get Bibi to agree to a ceasefire), however, I'm not a fool & know full well Trump is worse on practically every single policy, and yes, that includes foreign policy, especially Isr4el & what he's planning to allow Isr4el to do to the West B4nk
1
-
@ifeelbetterabouthis.louis3 *Sigh*.. Neither are good options in truth. The only way Trump is "good" is that he messes up & destroys the federal gov't so hard that it leads to a complete change in gov't entirely, but that change is most likely (almost certainly) towards an autocratic dictatorship in the pockets of an extreme corporate oligarchy. I know leftists want to dream of a socialist gov't, social democracy, or an anarchist utopia/dystopia if or when everything burns down, but the trajectory of US politics has been going in the rightward direction for the last 50 years - it's just not gonna happen & we're most definitely headed towards something far worse with Trump steering the Empire's collapse. Pogroms against immigrants like in the UK is just the beginning.
On the flip side, Harris has proven she simply stands for more of the status quo, if not maybe slightly better than the incremental change of the Obama administration - it's not enough. I think most people's only hope is that Tim Walz will take over as president in the future & actually reform US democracy and the social safety net, but who knows. Again, neither are good options, but the option of Trump is, I would say, a 90-98% chance we end up with some kind of dystopian Christian theocratic corporate oligarchical dictatorship & not the fun kind.
1
-
@ifeelbetterabouthis.louis3 *Sigh*.. Neither are good options in truth. The only way Trump is "good" is that he messes up & destr0ys the federal gov't so hard that it leads to a complete change in gov't entirely, but that change is most likely (almost certainly) towards an autocratic dictat0rship in the pockets of an extreme corporate oligarchy. I know leftists want to dream of a socialist gov't, social democracy, or an anarch1st utopia/dystopia if or when everything burns down, but the trajectory of US politics has been going in the rightward direction for the last 50 years - it's just not gonna happen & we're most definitely headed towards something far worse with Trump steering the Empire's collapse. P0groms against immigrants like in the UK is just the beginning.
On the flip side, Harris has proven she simply stands for more of the status quo, if not maybe slightly better than the incremental change of the Obama administration - it's not enough. I think most people's only hope is that Tim Walz will take over as president in the future & actually reform US democracy and the social safety net, but who knows. Again, neither are good options, but the option of Trump is, I would say, a 90-98% chance we end up with some kind of dystopian Christian theocratic corporate oligarchical dictat0rship & not the fun kind.
1
-
@ifeelbetterabouthis.louis3 *Sigh*.. Neither are good options in truth. The only way Trump is "good" is that he m3sses up & destr0ys the federal gov't so hard that it leads to a complete change in gov't entirely, but that change is most likely (almost certainly) towards an autocr@tic dictat0rship in the pockets of an extreme corp0rate olig@rchy. I know leftists want to dream of a s0cialist gov't, social democracy, or an anarch1st utopia/dystopia if or when everything burns down, but the trajectory of US politics has been going in the rightward direction for the last 50 years - it's just not gonna happen & we're most definitely headed towards something far w0rse with Trump steering the Empire's c0llapse. P0gr0ms against imm1grants like in the UK is just the beginning.
On the flip side, Harris has proven she simply stands for more of the st@tus qu0, if not maybe slightly better than the incremental change of the Obama administration - it's not enough. I think most people's only hope is that Tim Walz will take over as president in the future & actually reform US democracy and the s0cial safety net, but who knows. Again, neither are good options, but the option of Trump is, I would say, a 90-98% chance we end up with some kind of dyst0pian Christ1an the0cratic corp0rate olig@rchical dictat0rship & not the fun kind.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I don't understand why the justice system even exists for white collar criminals and politicians. Even when their found guilty, they end up getting away with no jail time. It literally tells you all you need to know about our justice system, in that jail is for the poor even when people don't even do anything like not being able to pay a court fine for some trivial traffic violation or child alimony. Rick Gates just had all his charges reduced to parole with no jail time because he flipped and is fully cooperating. But then what is the end game with that? Because if you just kept doing that until you got all the way to the top with Donald Trump, you would've let everyone go without jail time, and then when it gets to Trump, he's not even going to be given jail time because I don't even know if a President can go to jail. It just might not be possible with the amount of senators, politicians and powerful people he knows. Oliver North was actually found guilty for the crimes in the Iran Contra Affair with selling weapons to the Iranians to fund the Sandinistas, but then when the time came, he was cleared of the charges and simply ousted. Imagine if that's how we dealt with other every day criminals. As if someone tried to rob a bank or sell weapons on the street, and then they were found guilty and instead of seeing a jail sell, they were simply told to stay out of the illegal arms dealing business and then just set free outside the court house. The US is able to have 33% of the world's prisoner population but we don't have 1 more jail cell for some of the biggest scum in modern political history. I won't be holding my breath that Trump actually wears an orange jump suit in a year or two although it would be pretty priceless to see him wearing orange over his orange skin.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@imFurbs That's why I said "HALF" the party. The other half is rapidly changing and includes people like Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders who a lot of paleoconservatives can even get behind on foreign affairs and class inequality. There is a giant movement on the left to reform the Democratic Party to a party that ends the wars and transform it into a party that backs low income families and the middle class over the goals of the ultra wealthy. However, there is NO movement like this on the Right. I wish there was, but there isn't. More often than not, conservatives always fight the left on issues of ending the wars and fixing class inequality, the same exact pushback the progressive Left gets from corporate Democrats, however, at least the Dem party fights among itself and there are people in the party that fight to fix these problems. This is probably the largest reason for why the Democratic Party has hope for it, while the Republican Party is a slowly sinking ship that will never change its ways. Trump claimed he was going to pull troops out of Afghanistan and Syria (troops he initially sent to Syria), but now he backed out of those promises saying it will take "18 months" to MAYBE pull half the troops out. Republicans thought Trump was "different", but he is nothing but the establishment's bitch-boy just as George W. Bush was. We already know for a fact if Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard held the presidency, they wouldn't just make vapid promises, they would act immediately to pull troops out of these forever wars.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HayteStreet Not if it substitutes current social programs for a $1,000 flat flee. In many cases, people will take the lump sum even though it's less than they receive in disabilities, child care, food stamps, and other programs. The promise of cash in hand will actually net save the government money in many circumstances. As I've heard some progressive commentators explain, this is similar to the option that Republicans were trying to give people with Trumpcare and healthcare tax credits. You get a lump sum for healthcare to do with whatever you like, which sounds appealing at first, but then in the long term, it actually screws people when they then need real care and it's only a thin level of insurance because the credits run out quickly when used on a serious health issue. If you made UBI supplemental on top of these programs, you wouldn't have to worry about these numerous complications.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The world is becoming somewhat more nationalistic, but I would argue the world and every 1st world country is becoming A LOT more populist. The nationalism is almost a symptom of the widespread populism around the world. People are sick of the establishment in every country and people are trying to take back their governments. The nationalism is a smaller section of this though and most of the "nationalist" parties are actually very very populist most of the time. Just look at Trump's 2016 campaign. He ran on getting rid of NAFTA, stopping the outsourcing of jobs, "draining the swamp", which had a huge anti-Wall Street and anti-Big Banks vibe to it, and promising he wasn't going to cut Medicare, Medicaid, and healthcare. A lot of what he said aligned far more with populism than it did with nationalism, which is arguably why he won and was able to sway those voters that made the difference. Now 2 years later, pretty much everyone who doesn't ride the short bus has realized Trump was lying about basically all his populist promises during the campaign and now we know he is just another corporate shill, who is arguably worse than Obama, which is hard to do.
Bernie actually means the stuff he says because he's been preaching the same populist message since the 1970s, and anyone can literally look up videos of him in the 70s, 80s, and 90s basically warning about things that came true to this day like how the Iraq War was a huge mistake and how class inequality has gotten far far worse over the decades.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@donHooligan Exactly, this is what I've been saying for months. It is just sheer harsh reality that Bernie is going to be the front-runner for progressives and essentially the entire Democratic Party (maybe he'll be challenged by Biden). Backing these other progressives who are basically nobodies outside of progressive circles is only going to hurt progressives and help them lose in the election and split votes, this is what Kyle Kulinski has also been saying for the past year as well. Ojeda, Gabbard, Yang, Warren, I'm glad they're all gonna be spreading their message on the debate stage, but hoping that one of them is going to overcome the neoliberal challenger (or even Trump) is just a pipedream and it's only asking for a repeat of 2016 where progressives just barely "had it". It's Bernie all the way, he did the leg work in 2016, he's a household name, and he's the type of politician who only comes around every 100 years just like FDR. Anything else and we get Trump for another 4 years, and that's a seriously scary fucking thought. Bernie 2020 or BUST.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fifthgear93 That all sounds pretty accurate from what I've read about the fall of the USSR. I've heard Russian citizens who lived through it compare it to the American Great Depression. Countless people not only had to get used to huge economic changes, but they had to exceedingly change how they lived their lives. You're probably right (regarding the avg happiness statistics) that there is a great deal of nostalgia among Russians for times when they didn't have the ever-present capitalist-born fear of falling into abject poverty and homelessness, the very same thing that led to those "very very tough times" of the post-collapse 90s. Suddenly a few people at the top snatched up all the wealth and post-USSR Russia quickly became a kleptocracy, while the citizens struggled to survive. The threat of homelessness and a "free-for-all society" means there is suddenly far more violence and crime that scales with the growing financial insecurity. With the majority getting poorer as the select few rich got richer and hoarded all the newly unfettered wealth, the standard of living declined for most or many citizens, average life expectancy fell, and people that were especially vulnerable such as the elderly or disabled lost their homes.
I think another reason for Russia's financial troubles (and Russian's distrust with the West) has to do with America's involvement in the Cold War. Russia was never a rich country even before the USSR (so much of their vast land is not even farmable), but America spending endless amounts of money to "stop the expansion of communism" basically led to Russia trying to match America in defense spending despite having less wealth and resources overall. Not only were they fighting (in proxy wars) in Vietnam & East Asia to directly hinder Soviet controlled territories, but they also worked to bankrupt the USSR, leading to poorer conditions for Soviet citizens who all had to deal with the impact in their socialist system. The idea that US leaders knew Soviet communism was "destined to fail" is complete garbage. If they knew it was going to fail, they wouldn't have spent 50+ years pulling out every stop to end the cultural and geopolitical spread of the Soviet's influence. They weren't certain communism would fail, they were extremely worried communism would succeed, which is why they worked to sabotage it for decades and then when the dust settled acted like it was doomed from the start - the same exact thing we do with Cuba, Venezuela and every country we embargo, sanction to hell, and pretend like we're not actively sapping the country of its wealth & resources.
However, just because I'm seemingly defending the USSR, specifically from the blatant propaganda and misinformation from the United States for the past 70 years, doesn't mean I agree with their ideologies. I think the USSR had many successes, but it also had many failures. It's the same with Capitalism in America. This is why I've always believed in taking the successful aspects of both systems and putting them together. It's honestly pretty close to common sense if you really think about it, but Americans have been fed misinformed horse shit on Russia and the USSR for so long that our citizens are basically incapable of making educated decisions on such matters. Thankfully many Western European and Scandinavian countries have already done this and inevitably had major success with their systems that incorporate administrative socialism with robust social safety nets along with a free market for things like consumer goods & industries that Capitalism benefits from.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@georgenelson3719 Obama promised those things about the ACA back when he claimed there would also be a public option. Once he took his proposals to Congress, he folded to Republicans almost immediately, which is why we ended up with NO public option and essentially RomneyCare by Mitt Romney's right-wing think tank, the Heritage Foundation. The Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare was garbage because it's in essence a right-wing moderate plan, that yes, leaves 25 million people uninsured because he never added in the public option or many things he claimed he would do. However, you can tell Bernie Sanders is serious because he doesn't compromise on these things compared to neoliberal moderate hack Obama, which is exactly why every Amazon worker in the US and the UK now have a $15 minimum wage, because Bernie never compromised, and which is why he's now doing the same thing for Walmart with the "Stop Walmart Act" and has just this week proposed a plan to drop prescription drug prices. Obama and Trump just pretend to want change to steal votes from their base, but Sanders is not even president (and just one senator in a sea of corruption in D.C.) and he's already bettering the lives of millions of Americans. So yes, I do believe a populist like Bernie Sanders far more than I believe liberal centrists like Obama.
Also, Medicare-for-All is projected to save $2 Trillion because it costs $2 Trillion less on the the taxpayers than our current healthcare system, which has a ridiculous amount of overhead spent on for-profit insurance companies. The savings are likely higher than $2 Trillion though because at this moment our current healthcare system under the ACA and Trump would cost $34 Trillion over the next 10 years for what it is now, but it is projected to continue to bubble and grow in cost due to the instability of the ACA coupled with Trump's efforts to defund healthcare and derail the ACA to the point where people are ready for his even worse Trumpcare. So for the next 10 years, our current unstable system could cost more like $37 Trillion or as high as $49 Trillion according to one Harvard study. In short, we can't afford NOT to switch to Medicare for All because prices are just going to get worse and worse for consumers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Listenbuddy1 - You and the other fools in the trump base are more wrong on this issue than any other, and that is an impressive feat since you have countless warped views and "alternative facts" that are influenced by a moronic demagogue. Even if you don't believe in climate change, it is almost a certainty at this point that the renewable energy industry is going to be worth trillions, which is why China is trying be at the forefront of it. You and your blind trump-supporters want America to be number 1 in the world, but your ignorance and stupidity is going to hurt us economically and push us back years in R&D and development of renewable energy once a competent President retakes the White House. We could be creating countless new jobs for constructing solar panels, wind turbines, geothermal and wave energy machinery and parts that we could be exporting to other countries and bringing in more capital and raising our GDP from this new source of wealth for our country. However, you and the rest of what's left of the trump-supporters are blind to even money, let alone saving our world from certain destruction if we don't act immediately. Also, if you even think there's the slightest chance that climate change is real (which I think you secretly do deep down and 97% of scientists say it is), then you have to accept this by default or else your miscalculation and overall arrogance will result in a global catastrophe for every country on Earth including the United States most of all, who the rest of the world will point their fingers at as the only country that didn't do something to stop this epic disaster.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mckenzie.latham91 Bernie's taxes are public record (unlike Trump and Biden), you can literally look up where his money comes from, which has only been above $1 million (combined with his wife's income) the 2 years after he wrote a best-seller in 2016. In 2015, him and his wife made a combined $260,000 before receiving income from book sales. In 2016, they made a combined $1.1 million, in 2017 it was just barely over $1.0 million, then in 2018 it died down to $560,000, and it is likely going to be even lower in 2019; that's how book sales work. Instead of looking up these simple facts and determining where his extra money in 2016, 2017, and 2018 came from, you instead decide to regurgitate uninformed shit.
The only explanation about Bernie's wealth being so low after taking away his book sale income and wife's income is that he does NOT take any corrupt money, legally or illegally, using his powerful political position even though he's been working as a Senator, Congressman, and Mayor for the last 30-40 years of his life. This line of attack is so limp especially when it comes from Trump supporters, who support a self-proclaimed billionaire who refuses to release his taxes and who has decades of fraud and a past 3 years of massive corruption involving the Saudi, Israeli and Chinese governments. Seriously, it's like comparing Enron to little Timmy's Lemonade Business and accusing little Timmy of embezzlement and a mass pyramid scheme.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Blasto2x Here's even more info on his policies: https://feelthebern.org/
Click on any subject, go to a sub-category like Personal Freedoms > Privacy, it gives several different policies like Restore Our Privacy Act, all the pro-NSA legislation he's stood against, proving the NSA violates the 4th Amendment in the courts, ramp down & cut funding for 17 of the surveillance agencies operating all over the US, ending the PATRIOT Act, ending FISA legislation, opposing warrantless wiretapping, opposing facial recognition surveillance, protecting Net Neutrality, ending SOPA/PIPA, Online Competition and Consumer Choice Act, all the bills he's tried passing in the past to protect internet freedoms. I think you get the idea.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+D.J. C Cham - It wasn't just "criticism", it was a flat out smear job. Kyle Kulinski and Progressive Voice gave "criticism" of her actions, what Jimmy did was falsely accuse her of a full throat "endorsement" by cherry-picking 9 seconds from CNN interview with Jake Tapper where Tapper was trying to trap her into speaking negatively about Cuomo, which she responded with saying she wanted to support all Democratic nominees 'even the governor'. From the way Jimmy talked about it, you'd think she was campaigning for Cuomo, when the reality is she campaigned for Nixon for MONTHS to BEAT Cuomo. If she had done the same thing that Bernie did with HRC, this would be an entirely different conversation because I'd be on your side. That isn't the truth though and you're making it seem like a 9 second clip on CNN somehow outweighs her hard work for Cynthia Nixon where she was campaigning for her with Cortez's own volunteers. Jimmy's criticism is complete horseshit and same with the crap he says about Bernie, which he says near every single day on his show. His behavior is toxic as fuck, and he's barely even a real progressive anymore especially when you criticize Bernie, Ocasio-Cortez, and progressives all day long and then barely even touch on the current right-wing establishment in charge of all branches of our government. What a goddamn joke.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
i get it Social Democracy is a mixed economy. It's a Capitalist system with a strong social safety net to keep people from falling into poverty & homelessness, what you would refer to as "socialism". By this logic, we already have "socialism" in the United States because apparently any social form of gov't or program is socialism. That would mean Social Security ("Social"), Medicare, Medicaid, all public transportation, roads, bridges, all socialism. The truth is that this is not a black & white issue. You can have a free market for all consumer goods that are not deemed necessary for the survival of citizens, while taking certain industries off the table like healthcare, in which every other 1st world country already has some form of a Single Payer universal healthcare system, while also usually having at least some private companies on the side. The same way we take the construction of major roads & bridges off the table, which are maintained & built by local townships & state gov'ts. If we did not leave this up to the gov't, then every single road would be a toll road just as privately owned turnpikes are tolled. You seem to be at least somewhat knowledgeable if you know what Social Democracy is. You should reanalyze the nuances regarding this subject.
Also, I hate to tell you but Joe Biden is simply a corporatist, he does the bidding of corporations & the elite - that is entirely at odds with him believing in any kind of programs that would actually help average workers & the 99%. I don't know where you get your info from about Joe Biden, but it's not accurate at all. I wish it was, but it's not.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jamesjustice21 Normally I would agree with you. Yang came out of nowhere tepidly backing Single Payer as an after-thought to his own UBI ideas and I never trusted him to follow through with anything healthcare related. Tulsi Gabbard was the same deal when she backed off Med4All and proposed "Single Payer Plus". The difference for me is I didn't know those candidates and there wasn't much record of their beliefs to back up their convictions. Where Bernie Sanders differed was that he had been a mayor, Congressman and Senator for ~40 years and had shown strong convictions to bettering healthcare and supporting workers since as early as his days as Burlington's Mayor. He's on record showing without a doubt where he stands, and that's on the side of workers and against the insurance companies & large corporations.
Jon Stewart may not have as long of a record as Bernie Sanders, but enough is on the record to show me personally that he's actually a fighter for workers. His writing at the Daily Show gives some background on his beliefs earlier in life, even while he held an executive producer position, he held some serious Leftist politics (obviously not without some faults, but overall very good nonetheless). After quitting the job, he's only become more Left, popping up in national news Twice now to successfully fight for and Win healthcare for 9/11 responders - actions that show he's not afraid to fight against insurance companies and Congress, show that he has serious potential to be an effective political leader, and show that he could be incredibly electable with bipartisan victories like that under his belt.
Outside of those "Mr. Smith goes to Washington"-style federal battles, you can see where his politics lie by watching either his podcast or his new channel "The Problem with Jon Stewart", a show where he's bucked orthodoxy on economics and the financial sector, race issues in America, and many other topics you can tell he feels strongly about. On the show (& podcast), he's gone as far to call the whole economy a giant scam utilizing extreme Crony Capitalism and going as far as to call the whole system an oligarchy or describe it as "I don't know what it is anymore but it's 'Crony' something" stating that the American people are all victims of flat-out Greed.
The more specific point towards healthcare is that Jon Stewart has advocated for European-style Single Payer numerous times over the decades. I trust him that he actually believes that's the way healthcare should operate in America. Does that mean he'll adopt Bernie's Medicare for All? Maybe, but maybe not - the more important thing to me is if he gets in office and sees how fucked up the healthcare situation is, will he do something about it? And I think the answer to that is Yes. Even if he doesn't focus specifically on healthcare though, it's clear to me he would try to tackle issues that he believes are either as important or possibly even the core problem with the insurance and healthcare system's corruption and over-arching problems caused by corporate greed & lack of transparency. And I don't believe for a second that he would get in there and turn a blind eye to the needs of workers over corporations or the business-as-usual politicians and forces in Washington.
The thing is, Bernie's moment has passed. I think most people see that. I don't know if we'll ever get another candidate as transformative as a Bernie Sanders or a George McGovern who have a long history of political battles fighting for workers and opposing the Iraq and Vietnam wars. I thought it might be Nina Turner, but she's getting walled off at just the Congressional level, which isn't a good sign even if she did win next year. My next best option is someone like Jon Stewart, who has key political victories despite being an outsider and has the decades of records and videos showing his convictions towards the policy platform he believes in.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+SnowboardWithYourGF - Yeah this has always baffled me about Kyle. He goes so far to call Trump "Netanyahu's puppet", but then completely rejects the entire idea behind the fact that there is at least some corruption between Trump and Russian oligarchs. It is more than likely that both are true considering Trump is one of the most corrupt politicians in history. His corruption in Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, Russia, Ukraine, China/ZTE and more have all been disgustingly brazen. I don't know why anyone thinks that Trump's corruption is exclusive to only Russia or other people who think Trump's corruption is exclusive to every country BESIDES Russia. There is evidence to point to corruption in all or most countries that I listed. I get annoyed at both sides on this issue because outlets like MSNBC constantly overexaggerate the Russia story, take it to an extreme, and use it as an excuse to not report on other things, while outlets like Secular Talk still slightly annoy me as well because he spends so much time trying to disprove the Russiagate conspiracy and ironically talks about how MSM never stops talking about Russia. Honestly, I can't wait until the whole investigation is over because it's just taking up too much time in all media circles.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Catloves997 Yeah I'm still not at all saying Warren is somehow better than Gabbard overall, just better on the issue of LGBT rights, which again, is not even in the upper percentile of important issues for me, but still sympathize for progressives that it is an important issue for. However, from the way the mainstream media covers Gabbard, you would think she's a dictator-loving terrorist. The absolute worst arguments they've made are about Assad and Syria. I stand by my analysis that there are extremely hacky and desperate smears on Gabbard by mainstream press, while there are also serious criticisms and concerns such as the torture issue, ties to far-right Hindu nationalists, and her absurd anti-Palestinian views ('How dare Hamas use women and children as human shields'), and then there are criticisms that remain in the middle such as the LGBT issue, which depending on who is using it, can either be a valid criticism or a ridiculous smear.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikek9488 Germans understand the difference far better than you, they're taught it in their schools in detail so history never repeats itself. The difference is that, here in America, FDR is given credit for the New Deal and he is given credit for leading us to victory in WWII, but his politics and struggle towards fighting far right fascism in his own country is never addressed, and never fully acknowledged by history teachers. The year that Roosevelt was elected, there were Nazi rallies happening in Madison Square Garden. The threat of fascism was not only foreign, it was domestic. FDR proved that one of the cures to far right fascism was Social Democracy and a labor movement of the people that transcended party lines. Even after elected though, the corrupt special interests that opposed him and his New Deal, which in this case was a Morgan bank-centered cabal of powerful financial interests, teamed up with Nazi supporters who plotted a coup to remove Roosevelt and replace him with a puppet government that would be controlled by a cabal of wealthy financial plutocrats with the backing of the Nazis. As a report made clear, "the intention of the conspirators was to use the anarchy and chaos produced by the coup, to eliminate for all time the threat to their power represented by the U.S. Presidency and U.S. Constitution". The attempt had been close to succeeding and might have if not for Marine Corps Maj. General Smedley Butler and FDR himself.
You don't have to agree with everything from FDR and you don't have to agree with the Social Democratic ideology of a mixed economy where healthcare, education and minimum guaranteed housing for the homeless are taken off the free market, but you should at least acknowledge American history and exactly what happened in the 1930s and 40s when Nazi fascism not only overtook Germany, but it had threatened to take over America, in some cases, by force.
https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2006/eirv33n32-20060811/eirv33n32-20060811_046-the_morgan_fascist_coup_plot_and.pdf
https://timeline.com/business-plot-overthrow-fdr-9a59a012c32a
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Manny - See this is the problem with many people here and the majority of people with an opinion about the case. You are talking in definitives. You are claiming there was "no statistical impact" on an open investigation that is about to likely start indicting some of the more high profile persons of interest (hopefully Jared Kushner as Kyle has said recently). I was talking about it in a nuanced way and saying people should take the available information and evidence (yes evidence) with a grain of salt. For you to make an assertion that you could not possibly know for a matter of fact, is just naive and ignorant to the rational overview of the case and also in consideration of what we know so far, in which your statement is highly debatable on whether the events that happened, that we know of so far, have actually had "no impact" in the slightest. I would argue that claiming the cyber attacks had absolutely "no impact" at all is very unlikely. You can claim that it didn't effect the final results of our election, but even that point is debatable. To be clear, I'm not saying it did or it didn't, but I'm saying you're likely wrong that it had absolutely "no impact" and didn't effect any votes or any final state counts.
Also, I was never arguing that the "dems" are somehow doing it right, because they're not. I was strictly talking about how the available information and evidence of the case should not be simply dismissed and the case has actual validity to it if you look at the facts without getting swept up in your feelings you have about the case summed up as "EVERYONE LOOK AT RUSSIA, SCARY!". I'm simply taking a logical approach at looking at the case whereas many people who entirely dismiss the investigation, I would argue, are not thinking rationally if they believe it as a fact. You can disagree with MSM's over-sensationalism of the story, want politicians and the media to stop talking about it so much, and still actually find that the investigation has valid arguments to it, which we will not even know the total amount of conclusive evidence until it is over either, a point many forget on both sides of the spectrum.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Heavy Metal Collector Huh? I don't even know who that is, but my point was that even most states in the US consider 17 year olds adults & if you were in another country it wouldn't even be an issue at all, so acting like a 30 something year old having a relationship with a 17 year old is some huge sex scandal or even akin to "sex trafficking" is just kinda silly from how I see it. Have you ever lived outside the US before? Because most people in other countries, from what I've seen, don't find relationships with a 17 year old (an adult in most states and other countries) as some immoral practice. I get it the law is the law, but you could say that about drug possession too and it's a law I see as far more ridiculous. I honestly don't care about this personally, but I remember when I was 16, I dated a European girl my same age and she told me her ex was 30 years old (her dated her at age 15) & nobody in her country even batted an eye about it, her parents even knew about it. I'm just saying, that this seems to be one those strictly American issues that aren't actually a big deal in other countries and on a moral level, don't even come anywhere near close to something like sexual assault, or any act where the person does NOT give consent (in this case there was consent & technically nobody was causing harm). I mean, I'll admit maybe I'm the one whose wrong here, maybe it's more subjective than you think, but I'm just giving you my honest opinion about it. Relationships can be even more creepy or socially uncomfortable between a 65 year old and a 30 year old, but as a society we don't condemn the elder as a "statutory rapist". I'm just saying that there's a chance that maybe American society is wrong (or too strict) about this one, don't take it personally or anything, just giving my thoughts on the matter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+QuantumBraced - Exactly. I agree with every single thing you said. It's not just one particular person's fault, it's just the culture in general that is causing the behavior to flourish to begin with. Western civilization, America especially, seems to reward aggression, persistence, and basically treating a woman like she is helpless weak and then certain women even feminists are outraged when it is done in a manner they dislike. If you want to eradicate toxic behavior in general, you need to stop making it normal to portray the illusion that a woman is weaker and needs help from a big strong man (what some woman frame as chivalry) because it is ultimately that idea that leads to extreme examples where men believe their persistence will be rewarded, but is just stalkerish behavior in certain cases, and then in situations like the extreme misogyny that led to the MeToo backlash, which has been going on for decades. We need to reshape the culture if we want this kind of stuff to go away, you can't have it both ways where women want to be completely respected in the work place and in culture but also want to be coddled by the men they're attracted to, pretended like their "princesses" and are weaker/always need help.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@howo357 Yang changed his policy page awhile ago to make his freedom dividend specifically stack with SSDI, however, it does not stack with SSI another form of Social Security that is directed at the disabled and it does not stack with countless other social programs. The primary form of funding for his freedom dividend is to cut social programs, it is number 1 on his list of funding, that would not be the case if those types of programs were "not affected". And do research on a VAT tax, it is considered incredibly standardized in the countries it is implemented in right now, meaning it is not progressively applied like an income tax, but a standard tax on goods equally for everyone who buys those goods. This is still the case even if a VAT is not applied to groceries and clothes. A VAT tax is controversial in the countries that implement it, because as Investopedia says (in Investopedia's definition of a VAT tax): "Advocates say it raises government revenues without punishing success or wealth, as income taxes do." Later in that Investopedia definition, it says that VAT is controversial in the European Union and countries that implement, saying "Critics [in those countries] charge that a VAT is essentially a regressive tax that places an increased economic strain on lower-income taxpayers, and also adds bureaucratic burdens for businesses."
Do some research, this is another explanation of a VAT tax from the Tax Policy Center https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/who-would-bear-burden-vat
Here is the original Investopedia definition: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/valueaddedtax.asp
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+TheNextTurn, +AlexCrivellone - Do either of you even watch TYT or do you just take the word of other people when they talk about "TYT's coverage of Russia"? TYT factually reporting on news from the Russia probe does not somehow make them "mimic MSNBC". That is total bullshit, especially since their opinions on Russia, Mueller probe, and Stupid Watergate are nothing like MSM's and they have said countless times they think what will end Trump is not "collusion" but it will be for money launder, fraud and his close ties to Russian banks and oligarchs. If some day Trump were to be impeached over Mueller's findings of money launder, fraud, etc. would that still make reporting on the Russia probe nonsense to you? It would be incredibly enormous news and you would prefer your channels just don't cover it AT ALL? Imagine if people had the same sentiment about Watergate back in the 70s, nobody would've ever reported on Watergate and Nixon may not have been impeached/resigned since the public wasn't holding his feet to the fire, and imagine if a news station didn't report on Watergate at all back then because they thought it was all bull like what you think about Mueller's investigation. That would make them look pretty fucking stupid that they didn't report nearly once on the biggest news story of the decade.
Do you really want all progressive stations to just have a full black out of any Russia or Mueller probe news whatsoever? We all rail on Fox News constantly for omitting any news that doesn't fit their agenda and we all rail on MSM in general for never covering American poverty, income inequality and only ever talking about Russia and Stormy Daniels. Is TYT factually reporting on the Mueller probe really that big of an issue that you would spit on them and call them MSNBC, who is essentially their polar opposite when you break down what issues their both in favor of? You and everyone else with this mindset need to seriously rethink what you're saying, because you're honestly starting to sound like the establishment that omit news constantly and smear anyone that doesn't share their same views.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's nice to see yang being polite towards the guy who revolutionized politics, but I do agree with others here that he's been mischaracterizing Bernie's positions, something I don't think Bernie did to him and definitely didn't deserve an aggressive attack from Yang in response (for simply not supporting UBI), which has only been amplified 100 times by some of his supporters. The truth is, Bernie is in a threeway race with Warren and Biden, attack him and we're more likely to get Warren or Biden, I don't agree with yang's passive aggressiveness towards Bernie, we should be going after the corporate Democrats, that's the whole reason Bernie hasn't been bashing on Tulsi, Yang or even Warren, he knows we can't let Biden, Buttigieg or Kamala win first and foremost.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"There is simply not enough money". Are you serious? They literally just gave a handout to corporations and the 1% in the area of around $1.5 trillion. We'll even subtract the 18% of that that had gone to the 99%. So 1.23 trillion was just handed out to the rich and corporations at a time when profits are at record highs for them. They claimed it was to boost the current economy, but since they did so, the stocks and bonds markets have been dropping and become very volatile when they're not dropping. Also, let's not forget they just increased the defense budget. We were already spending more money on the military budget than the next 8 countries combined. Let me repeat that, the next EIGHT countries combined. And then they just decided to increase it more by a whole other $100 billion almost, and it looks like they're going to increase it again. Why? Who fucking knows, they can't even protect the country's own elections with 3/4 of a trillion geared towards "defense" every year. There's even more tax payer money that gets thrown out like this but let's just stop there for now. So 1.33 trillion was for sure just wasted this past year. That amount alone would pay for every single bit of initially implementing Medicare for All. That is a fact, and the thing is that the transition to Medicare for All would initially cost this much money, but they've done numerous studies on it and they say that it could save up to $6 trillion in the next 10 years after it's implemented. It is because tax payer money would be going directly to healthcare instead of all the money that gets wasted in our current broken for-profit insurance system and this would save tons of money in the long run in addition to the added benefits of employers not having to pay health benefits anymore, which would increase workers' pay and increase jobs.
After this were to occur, you can add up all the tax payer money saved in for the next 2-3 years afterwards, which would be around $1.8 trillion if all the studies are correct on the amount of tax payer money that would be saved by Medicare for All. But even if those saving are not immediately there, just by a "President Sanders" closing all the tax loop holes alone (NOT even increasing taxes) would add billions and maybe even trillions to the overall budget considering the top corporations in the country paid an average of 18.5% tax in the past few years, when they were supposed to be paying 35%. That is 16.5% of the the biggest income provider for the US government that just completely decided to shift the burden on the working class. More than 90% of corporations don't pay the corporate income tax, and many companies actually had 0% tax rate or even "negative tax" meaning that the government on net paid them like Boeing who had somewhere around -80% corporate tax (80% of its profits paid back to it from tax payer money), and then Amazon who effectively paid about 0% last year. This is money that is being stolen from the American people, and after Medicare for All is put in place, just a fraction of this money (if they close tax loopholes and take it back) could be used to fund free public institutions in the country, which is growing more and more necessary considering it's almost mandatory for a student to go to college if they want to make a living wage in their life, which is fucked up. We need Medicare for All and we need free public college for the future. Bernie and the progressive half of the Democratic Party and Independents just understand that it's inevitable and if we want US citizens to live in a country of opportunity still, then we need to make these changes sooner than later before class inequality gets out of control and tears this country apart limb from limb.
And in response to your last sentence, you do realize you could just look that up right? You think it's this gotcha question, but it's really just a simple fucking thing your asking, which is why I've been ignoring you. Do people ask you, "What's conservatism mean? You don't even know". Democratic Socialism is the ideology of wanting a government that is a full democracy, while wanting an economic system that is inherently socialist that has a tight grip on the market to stop Depressions and Repressions from occurring every 8 years, which seems to me like it is the main reason people are behind it considering every few years the banks completely fuck over America and spiral us into another Great Repression and the next time it could be a Depression. However, if you actually research your term "Democratic Socialism" (which I doubt you have actually done), you will learn that the ideology completely rejects any form of authoritarianism, which completely debunks your statements about Leninism and Venezuela. Why? Because Vladimir Lenin was an authoritarian, because Nicolas Maduro is a fucking dictator, which is why your argument is total bullshit. So if you've made it this far in my response, I hope you've either learned something or at least go look up the political stance on your own so that you actually realize what it means when Bernie says he's a "Democratic Socialist".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Mendicant Bias - No actually his assessment was correct with knowing how to spot the obvious scams, but the problem was he was very obviously trashing coins that he personally didn't like that he knew others thought were good investments. Perhaps he had a biased opinion about Ripple, Bitcoin Cash, IOTA and TRON, but they're definitely not scams and definitely have value to them, which is why so many people have defended them in this thread. He was right though about Bitconnect and all the other "garbage coins"/pump and dump schemes. When I first started trading in the crypto market, I heard about Biconnect in passing, then did about 90 seconds of research on it and found out immediately from countless sources and community threads that it was a blatantly transparent scam and this was back when they were still scamming people out of money. I honestly feel like any half-intelligent person can figure these things out once you have a basic understanding of the market and how the technology works. There are much more garbage coins out there than there are sound investments, but I personally don't know one person or any of my friends who had started trading and didn't understand that a good place to start your research would be to check out the cryptos that are on the top 10 or top 25 listings on the market. Anyone who immediately starts trading without doing this very basic research deserves to get scammed by ridiculous companies like Bitconnect, since it would've been inevitable they lost their money eventually if they make choices like that.
Again though, the main poster's problem was that he put legitimate coins in his "garbage coins" list. I see way too many people do this, and I have no idea why they would call out IOTA, Ripple, etc. as "garbage" when all you have to do is glance at their white papers to see they have bright potential in their R&D and have made very high gains on the market that have placed them on the top 10s list at certain times. Also I just want to say I don't have any coins of IOTA, Ripple, etc. and am honestly just defending them because I know better than to naively dismiss them as "garbage".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Devin Nunes' Cows Brother Obviously it was started by Hillary, but when I try to tell people, who are using it as a slur, to not use it because it's incredibly misleading & a smear, they respond with "That's literally what they call themselves", & they're not wrong on that. Too many Bernie supporters own the term, which is a nice sentiment on redirecting negative energy, but it's still an overall problem because, to this day, many people still think Bernie supporters are just majority white males & a big part of that is because of the Bernie Bros bullshit. Right now we have 51% of Latinos in Entrance polls in Nevada, time to get rid of it so we can dispel the media's bullshit about race & gender demographics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Michael-Archonaeus Yes, if you're eating pure vegetables or salads every day, specifically ones that don't cost as much money, but realistically people don't want AND CAN'T eat that way while it still being considered a "healthy" diet. Basically, the only people who really eat like that are vegan, but those people don't get the protein and other nutrients they need without costly supplements that make your budget far MORE expensive. This is paralleled in the restaurant industry too, where the vegan or gluten free options are always objectively more expensive.
I've had friends & girlfriends who have all been through various diets and I can tell you they always spend more on their diet compared to me & any person with a normal diet. However, if you're not vegan and not going to buy supplements, then you have to buy meats, which can also get expensive. Someone whose eating unhealthy by eating hot pockets, ramen, pizza bites, and frozen dinners every day are always going to spend far less money than someone planning out their meals. Even when you make salads, you're buying food in bulk to make meals with, but much of that food might expire, whereas unhealthy frozen foods won't waste any food at all. There are so many variables that go into this, but saying it's less expensive to eat healthy is just assuming those people will eat & sustain themselves on cabbage and tomatoes every day, but that's just not realistic for a normal person.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Michael-Archonaeus In some cases it IS depending on the grocer. In almost ALL cases, it is close to the same cost, only a couple cents apart. And this is all assuming a person eating healthy ONLY wants to drink the same flavorless drink for the rest of their life. Most people want, no need, variety. So yes, flavored water, carbonated water or something even more pricey like coconut water is MORE expensive than coca-cola. This is the same reasoning for all food. You can't just expect someone to live off of lettuce, celery and carrots. People need variety and they need healthy ingredients, seasoning, etc - in most cases these are the biggest cost difference between eating healthy and eating unhealthy. For instance, gluten-free alternatives are usually always +$3 in cost, if not more.
I have no idea why you're shilling for the unhealthy American food industry, but it's gross. Just stop already.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Hipfireturtle Yeah I remember that, it was such a bullshit admission and he's such an opportunist snake oil salesman. The guy spent years making nonstop hacky videos in support for Tulsi while simultaneously ripping apart progressive Congress members & even Bernie Sanders as if they're the worst people on the planet and then once Tulsi started flipping on her entire ideology, he goes and lumps them together as his way of "admitting" Tulsi is simply "disappointing". I mean, the "Squad" members (such a dumb name) have been disappointing a number of times in that they don't fight hard enough strategically & aren't good enough at playing politics, but it's incredibly disingenuous to compare them to Tulsi's inauthentic transformation into a full-blown Fox News mouthpiece and now a Tucker Carlson stand-in, which is far beyond the same type of "disappointing". Those Congress members might be toothless on strategy a lot of the time, but they still vote for Leftist legislation all the time and most of them even played hardball on the BBB and infrastructure fight, yet for years Dore consistently acts like they're the worst people alive & still to this day acts like they're far far worse than Tulsi Gabbard who is now literally on Fox News pushing MAGA talking points.
This might be a random comparison, but his shtick has always reminded me of an episode of Seinfeld where Kathy Griffin is trying to be a successful standup comedian, so she becomes a one trick pony where all she ever does to appease her audience is to call Jerry Seinfeld "the devil" & keeps having to take the act to extreme and weird levels and starts having to stalk Seinfeld and his friends to find more material for her show or else her audience will grow bored, cause on her own, she has no innate talent or ounce of humor in her body to survive without the 'devil' shtick.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1