Bernie Sanders announces 2020 campaign (and apparently raises a massive amount of $$$ within hours)

[Jhhnn]

I feel Amazon getting back over 100 million in tax returns justifies our feelings that certain players are not paying their fair share.

How does companies like amazon, facebook, google, exxon... not paying their fair share make me a liar?

Yeh, but you'll keep voting for the Party that keeps it that way & actually made it worse because reasons, or something.

 

[Thrashard]

We can't evolve anymore on this planet. I truly feel multiple planets will need to be involved.

 

[thilanliyan]

Isn't absurd tuition cost the direct result of massive amounts of money being poured into the system?

I think it's because the universities need the cash from students to function, instead of being at least partially funded by gov't. There are many countries in Europe and even Australia where university is heavily subsidized or free, and they seem to be doing fine. There's nothing wrong with having private universities, and at least in the US those seem to be the most prestigious but unless you are lucky enough to get a scholarship, most people cannot afford to go to those.

 

[zinfamous]

My opinion, Bernie is the best overall candidate. I disagree with his stance on abortion, but that is a democrat wedge issue.

How is it possible that abortion is a Democratic wedge issue? The democratic position on abortion = status quo. It can't possibly be a wedge issue for democrats, because rejecting the status quo means you are the one creating the issue.

It can't be any other way.

You know that words actually have meaning, right?

 

[zinfamous]

So if someone speaks their feelings that makes them a racist?

If they have racist feelings?

Why yes, that makes them racist. ...well, it doesn't make them racist. Their racism makes them racist.

 

[Texashiker]

How is it possible that abortion is a Democratic wedge issue? The democratic position on abortion = status quo. It can't possibly be a wedge issue for democrats, because rejecting the status quo means you are the one creating the issue.

You know that words actually have meaning, right?

Derp, derp, yes I know words have meanings.

Wedge issue in that it divides voters. Some people, such as myself, refuse to vote democrat because of moral issues with abortion.

If they have racist feelings?

Why yes, that makes them racist. ...well, it doesn't make them racist. Their racism makes them racist.

Just because someone says something does not make it so.

Take Anwar al-Awlakifor example. A lot of members here justified his murder, does that make you a murderer? Of course not.

When Trump says something that sounds racist, it does not make him any more of a racist than agreeing with the murder of Anwar al-Awlaki makes you a murderer.

There is a difference between words, thoughts and actions. Words alone do not make it so. If we based racism on words, then huckleberry finn, blazing saddles, the bible, ... just about every movie made before the 1960s was racist and sexist in some way.

Are we calling Mel Brookes a racist because the N word was used in Blazing Saddles? Of course not.

What is a word? Nothing more than a sound moving through the air. Its only meaning is the meaning your mind assigns to that sound.

 

[zinfamous]

Derp, derp, yes I know words have meanings.

Wedge issue in that it divides voters. Some people, such as myself, refuse to vote democrat because of moral issues with abortion.

right, so it's a wedge issue for republicans. Interesting that you point that out here, quite directly, but still don't understand how it works.


...as for you trying to draw some logical connection between racist words and racist actions, and response to an act of murder and an actual murder...well, I think you need to keep reading, bud. You honestly have serious context problems. It's observably bad

 

[Texashiker]

...as for you trying to draw some logical connection between racist words and racist actions, and response to an act of murder and an actual murder...well, I think you need to keep reading, bud. You honestly have serious context problems. It's observably bad

Its an analogy that thoughts and words are only real to those who experience them. If someone thinks of something racist, does that make them a racist? If so, what proof do we have? You do not have to answer those questions.

Words are just vibrations sent through the air. Words themselves are no different than any other sound. What makes words good, bad, racist? Nothing more than our idea of what sound means. Does this mean all sounds can be good, bad, evil.. etc? Or is it just human sounds? All of this is subjective to the person experiencing the sounds.

So words are neither good, nor bad, nor racist... etc, as they are just vibrations our voice box creates. What is important is your interpretation of the word, which is totally subjective to your opinion.

 

[Jhhnn]

Gawd. TH is arguing that language doesn't exist, that shared meaning of works doesn't matter.

So when Charlottesville Nazis chant "Jews will not replace us!" it can mean whatever I want it to mean.

 

[zinfamous]

Its an analogy that thoughts and words are only real to those who experience them. If someone thinks of something racist, does that make them a racist? If so, what proof do we have? You do not have to answer those questions.

Words are just vibrations sent through the air. Words themselves are no different than any other sound. What makes words good, bad, racist? Nothing more than our idea of what sound means. Does this mean all sounds can be good, bad, evil.. etc? Or is it just human sounds? All of this is subjective to the person experiencing the sounds.

So words are neither good, nor bad, nor racist... etc, as they are just vibrations our voice box creates. What is important is your interpretation of the word, which is totally subjective to your opinion.

you been eating the peyote, brother?

 

[Victorian Gray]

you been eating the peyote, brother?

It reads like he's having a pretty good trip.

 

[Bitek]

If they have racist feelings?

Why yes, that makes them racist. ...well, it doesn't make them racist. Their racism makes them racist.

Thank you for responding to that. I've had my fill of nonsense today and just couldn't.

 

[PlanetJosh]

I too think this tanks any hopes the Dems can win, and I hope they do, if he's the third party candidate.

 

[blankslate]

CNN had it's 3rd town Hall for a candidate...
obviously since I posted here it was Bernie's turn on the stage.

He's pretty much advocating the same policies as before...

The new questions are mostly how would he debate Trump if he became the nominee and new foreign policy issues such as Venezuela.

*edited to find valid link after original link was taken down*
I suggest downloading the video if you really want to watch it or wait until CNN puts up their own entire copy


______

 

[Blackjack200]

CNN had it's 3rd town Hall for a candidate...
obviously since I posted here it was Bernie's turn on the stage.

CNN stacked the audience with lobbyists and party insiders. LMAO.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1100385598597152768

 

[jmagg]

"Campaign finance: Refuse corporate donations. Limit corporate and interest group spending in campaigns.

In 2016, Sanders refused corporate donations and relied on small donors to fund his White House campaign. He has proposed a constitutional amendment that would effectively reverse the Supreme Court’s Citizen United ruling and ban corporations and nonprofits from unlimited campaign expenditures. The independent senator would also require any organization to disclose election-related campaign expenditures of $10,000 or more.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...elieve-where-the-candidate-stands-on-9-issues

I respect the Bern and agree with much of his platform but the above pretty much means /end

 

[glenn1]

"Campaign finance: Refuse corporate donations. Limit corporate and interest group spending in campaigns.

In 2016, Sanders refused corporate donations and relied on small donors to fund his White House campaign. He has proposed a constitutional amendment that would effectively reverse the Supreme Court’s Citizen United ruling and ban corporations and nonprofits from unlimited campaign expenditures. The independent senator would also require any organization to disclose election-related campaign expenditures of $10,000 or more.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...elieve-where-the-candidate-stands-on-9-issues

I respect the Bern and agree with much of his platform but the above pretty much means /end

Repealing Citizens United is attacking the problem from the wrong end. Like with the drug war we need to address the demand side rather than the supply - instead put the effort into a Constitutional amendment prohibiting political ads on TV or the internet. If politicians aren't needing to constantly raise money (which gets spent almost exclusively on ads) then those politicians won't need to constantly beg for donations from those corporations or wealthy individuals and there won't be as much value in those folks giving politicians $ for "campaign contributions."

 

[Jhhnn]

"Campaign finance: Refuse corporate donations. Limit corporate and interest group spending in campaigns.

In 2016, Sanders refused corporate donations and relied on small donors to fund his White House campaign. He has proposed a constitutional amendment that would effectively reverse the Supreme Court’s Citizen United ruling and ban corporations and nonprofits from unlimited campaign expenditures. The independent senator would also require any organization to disclose election-related campaign expenditures of $10,000 or more.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...elieve-where-the-candidate-stands-on-9-issues

I respect the Bern and agree with much of his platform but the above pretty much means /end

And... Everybody gets a unicorn. I think Dems would do well to go for things that may be doable in the near future, like HB1. We'd also do well to change the oft abused structure of money flow in non-profits. If we can't keep big money out of politics then we need for donors to reveal themselves & stand by what the pay to produce.

 

[jmagg]

Unfortunately, I doubt transparency would change outcome.

 

[thilanliyan]

If politicians aren't needing to constantly raise money (which gets spent almost exclusively on ads) then those politicians won't need to constantly beg for donations from those corporations or wealthy individuals and there won't be as much value in those folks giving politicians $ for "campaign contributions."

People/corporations will still "donate" money to get favourable policies, deregulation, tax cuts, etc. It needs to be banned/limited period.

 

[glenn1]

People/corporations will still "donate" money to get favourable policies, deregulation, tax cuts, etc. It needs to be banned/limited period.

So instead of corporations donating money to a politician to run a political ad, instead they buy the political ad directly without first giving the money to the politician. Somehow I doubt the politician will much care how the ad got funded and will remember those who paid for it with "favourable policies, deregulation, tax cuts, etc" regardless.

Or perhaps you're just one of those folks who actually enjoys watching 5,000 political ads per hour clogging your TV and internet feed during campaign season and can't imagine life without them?

 

[thilanliyan]

So instead of corporations donating money to a politician to run a political ad, instead they buy the political ad directly without first giving the money to the politician. Somehow I doubt the politician will much care how the ad got funded and will remember those who paid for it with "favourable policies, deregulation, tax cuts, etc" regardless.

Or perhaps you're just one of those folks who actually enjoys watching 5,000 political ads per hour clogging your TV and internet feed during campaign season and can't imagine life without them?

It's not an either/or thing...you can reduce/limit the ads AND reduce/limit political "donations".

 

[Jhhnn]

Meh. Money in politics, particularly dark money, isn't a bug but rather a feature of American politics for the big money donors behind the GOP. It's amusing how people who don't have the power to amend the Constitution go on about it, as well, as if that's an attainable goal at all. About the best that can be done after Citizens United is to alter the system in such a way that political spending can't be anonymized or done with pre-tax money. Free speech? No Prob, but you have to own it if you're paying for it.

 

[woolfe9998]

Meh. Money in politics, particularly dark money, isn't a bug but rather a feature of American politics for the big money donors behind the GOP. It's amusing how people who don't have the power to amend the Constitution go on about it, as well, as if that's an attainable goal at all. About the best that can be done after Citizens United is to alter the system in such a way that political spending can't be anonymized or done with pre-tax money. Free speech? No Prob, but you have to own it if you're paying for it.

Or one could appoint justices who will overturn Citizens United. It was a poorly reasoned decision. There is ample reason to throw it out.

We can also publicly finance campaigns.

 

[vi edit]

Reparations are not a winning ticket for dems. Ooof. Danger. Danger. Danger.