Idk as a rule all American political commentators are stupid unless proven otherwise.

I Googled crystal healing and now I can cure cancer gee thanks Google. — StreetlightX

I'm only responding because your remark is so disingenuous as to make me wonder why you bothered.

Someone asked me for references to support an opinion I expressed. I found them some references. Now you're unhappy I posted references.

Whatever dude. I admit it's a slow Sunday. I'm watching the XFL game. For a jonesing fan of the NFL this is like a heroin addict making do with an aspirin.

I'm unsure where your getting the idea that Bernie is setting up companies to failure due to red tape???

Can you actually support this with some evidence?

Universal healthcare is cheaper than what we got already. So, he's actually simplifying things there. Education should be free, I think? The benefits are found in higher employment and efficiency or productivity. Human capital stands above the debt imposed on the government, yes?

Tax laws will be simplified and loopholes closed.

I mean, if your going to attack his program then at least address the policies and logic and not some pejorative term such as woo-me "socialism".

Well, did you know lobbyists and lawyers of corporations can write bills? What would you expect to find within those bills? — Xtrix

Laws written by unelected officials. People who are knowingly writing pieces of legislation which err on the side of major corporations' profit margins, and in doing so against everyday Americans...

Speeches as well are written by people who are not a candidate/public official.

These sorts of things are wrong on all sorts of levels.

Why would I be unhappy I can cure cancer this is great!

Why would I be unhappy I can cure cancer this is great! — StreetlightX

The notion that Hillary will be selected by a brokered convention is OPINION.

So even though you are trying (and failing) to say something snarky and clever, your analogy is wrong from the getgo. @Maw asked for references to OPINOINS about Hillary preparing to be nominated at a brokered convention. I supplied several of the opinions. The point you're trying to make isn't there.

The notion that Hillary will be selected by a brokered convention is OPINION. — fishfry

You also said that was your "prediction" and shared op-eds from random if not outright shoddy political commentators, mostly I should add, from October 2019, but you haven't provided any substance behind this prediction of yours.

I'm not trying to make a point I'm just laughing at you because you said a dumb thing which has been apparently repeated by other people saying dumb things.

The articles can barely even be called opinions. It's just speculation based on comments made by a long-term Clinton adviser (who obviously benefits from having his boss be talked about in the news) written-up and published as click-bait so that these publications can sell advertising space at a competitive rate, and Fishfry actually believes it.

I'm not trying to make a point I'm just laughing at you because you said a dumb thing which has been apparently repeated by other people saying dumb things. — StreetlightX

Like when the smart people said Trump could never win. You lack imagination. And an underappreciation of Hillary's all-consuming ambition.

lol dumb thing

I hear some incredible 2-5 people are employed at the SEC... I hope someone changes that... Ehem.

What Bernie wants is classic social democratic goals, universal healthcare, free education and to tax the wealthy more than others. And raise taxes. And create a lot of new regulation and fees and taxes. A lot of red tape from rules from diversifying corporate boards to worker participation and requirements for stakeholder charters. All kinds of new programs and laws that companies have to make. Just massive amounts of red tape. — ssu

Much less red tape is being created than is definitely being stripped away...

So...

If red tape is bad... Bernie's policies are more good than current convention.

You'll have to do better than that.

The articles can barely even be called opinions. It's just speculation based on comments made by a long-term Clinton adviser (who obviously benefits from having his boss be talked about in the news) written-up and published as click-bait so that these publications can sell advertising space at a competitive rate, and Fishfry actually believes it. — Maw

That seems to be a reasonable report.

Click bait is unacceptable if it knowingly and deliberately misleads the American electorate. A free and fair election must have a well informed electorate. Allowing mis and disinformation to rule the public airwaves is...

...grounds for revolution.

Clinton somehow becoming the democratic nominee as a result of a brokered convention would be as well.

Don't be surprised if that revolution does not take "no" for an answer when it comes to having the best government policies regarding good healthcare. Those policies will have the direct and unmediated result of all Americans having good healthcare not just 'available' to them - we've heard that schtick before - but also used at one's own discretion.

Freedom and liberty regarding the important choices about one's own healthcare.

What a fucking novel idea.

Americans are not idiots. They are criminally governed.

Taxes are much better understood as user fees.

Government is a necessary evil. It takes funding to operate. The American government was designed to operate on tax revenue. The United States federal government is the body of people tasked with the sole aim of using that revenue for acting on behalf of all Americans whenever and each time it is possible to do so. Taxes are to be spent on paying politicians who are acting on behalf of all Americans whenever it is possible to do so. The result of their doing so is an improvement in the overall quality of American life.

We do not have that.

Therefore, all the pieces of legislation that led up to where we are now, need to be corrected, and those who voted for them at the time, or argue in their favor today, ought be removed from public office.

The authors of those pieces of legislation ought be made readily available to the American public during these political revelations. The unmasking...

No elected official will publicly nationally admit to acting on behalf of a corporation instead of the overwhelming majority of everyday American people despite knowing of the irreparable harm that would result. Plenty have done it. These are the people that need to be removed from public office, for they are clearly guilty of dereliction of sworn duty. They are not alone.

Taxes are necessary to run an effective government of the people, for the people, and by the people. The United States of America has precisely such a government. When more Americans require being helped along, the American government is required to do more in order to help them along.

Increasing the taxes on the wealthiest Americans and others who do business in the American marketplace is a necessary and just step in the process of making sure Americans get the healthcare they ought.

Bernie Sanders may indeed raise taxes as a means to implement the healthcare policy he's forwarding. Taxes are not bad in and of themselves. The increase in personal income tax will be more than offset by the individual savings in healthcare itself. That is true for the overwhelming majority. The decrease in health care expenses will exceed the increase in personal income tax for those currently with average healthcare costs. The net result is a savings. The result is healthcare for everyone and a bigger paycheck for the everyday American who needs and deserves... fair pay, good healthcare, and the peace of mind knowing that unfortunate health circumstances will not put one in the poor house, or keep one financially obligated to pay huge sums of money for the rest of one's life in order to receive necessary emergency medical treatment.

It's a disgrace.

Obamacare did not fix the problem. Rather, it just made it more complex. In Obama's defense, the actual bill was significantly different than the one originally introduced. It was a step in the right direction. Now it's time to get it right.

:rofl:

This comparison is unjust. Sanders is by all means not fixated of nationalizing everything in the market. Only some more regulation and much needed higher taxes on the ultra-rich. His policies should lead to higher GDP growth in the long term if that's the only thing that matters to Joe or Sandy. — Shawn

Yes. America’s “infrastructure” is its PEOPLE. That is primary and undeniable. Then secondarily: its roads, bridges, power grids, and other physical structures. America’s main infrastructure, the people, are on the verge of collapse, imho. The American people (tired, angry, overworked, sick, under-appreciated, under-represented, etc) are a rusted-out bridge about to fall down. Surprising to some perhaps, the young know this better than most.

Furthermore, I'm tired of having the stigma of privatized prisons in the US. This is something spawned out of some lunacy and needs to stop. — Shawn

:up: Definitely! That racist, classist money grab has gone on too damn long. It is an authoritatian capitalist nightmare. But unfortunately, it is a nightmare that is too easy to ignore if you are not specifically affected by it. That is perhaps why it has hardly been mentioned in the debates.

Look at the consequences of these policies. It's been around 40 years or so, since Reagan and the beginning of the "neoliberal" era, and had run though every administration. We're living with the results.
— Xtrix
One thing you should remember. The US has also done well. That it has avoided the ugly side of socialism has it's positive side too. Don't think that things couldn't be worse! They surely could. — ssu

You're projecting, again. Notice I didn't say the US was doing good or bad. I said we're living with the consequences.

Now when you say the "US has done well," you're not saying much at all. First you have to clarify what you mean by the US. If by the US you mean PEOPLE of the US, then no, we haven't done "well" at all by historical standards. We've declined. If by the US you mean the corporate sector, then yes things are amazing indeed -- no question. They'll probably continue getting better, too.

Saying things can get worse is fatuous. Things can always get worse.



Notice that the media isn't picking this endorsement up as much as Harris, Booker, etc.

It's a definite possibility. — fishfry

No, it isn't. You keep making statements like this and you lose a little credibility each time. I don't believe it's because you're stupid; I'd prefer to believe you do some kind of critical thinking about these topics.

Asking yourself some questions is helpful. Remember that the DNC are full of real people making real, calculated decisions. Do we think it's even remotely likely that -- out of the blue -- they nominate Hillary Clinton? Really think about it.

The only thing is that Green New Deal will create jobs and free trade has to be curbed. And that's basically it with Bernie. — ssu

What good is an economy if you're under water? Or dead? Or having to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on environmental disasters? It's true that the Green New Deal will create jobs, but even if infinite growth isn't in our future, it'll still save us money and lives and help mitigate the yearly disasters we're already seeing.

You really ought to get your priorities straight. Talk about GDP or debt or stocks or anything else is completely useless if we're heading towards disaster. If you don't believe me, take a look at how something like the coronavirus is effecting the markets. That's peanuts compared to the upcoming wildfires, floods, sea rise, mass migrations, and food and water shortages.

Well, did you know lobbyists and lawyers of corporations can write bills? What would you expect to find within those bills?
— Xtrix

Laws written by unelected officials. People who are knowingly writing pieces of legislation which err on the side of major corporations' profit margins, and in doing so against everyday Americans...

Speeches as well are written by people who are not a candidate/public official.

These sorts of things are wrong on all sorts of levels. — creativesoul

Exactly right.



Sometimes it's OK to just say "Yeah, that was silly." This is an online forum - no need to save face. Why go on defending the indefensible? Because I can't get myself to believe you actually believe what you're saying. You're smarter than that.

The articles can barely even be called opinions. It's just speculation based on comments made by a long-term Clinton adviser (who obviously benefits from having his boss be talked about in the news) written-up and published as click-bait so that these publications can sell advertising space at a competitive rate, and Fishfry actually believes it. — Maw

You're obviously correct. This is a very scary phenomenon, too. The question is: How do we deal with it when we see it, and in what way?



Why is it that someone else's being wrong brings out this childish behavior in us? Is it that it's an online forum? Because I'm often the same way, and it's never done me any good.

oh u talk too much shh

:)

Or write too much anyway.

Bernie just got the endorsement of Jesse Jackson. Will help cut into Biden's popularity among African-Americans. Will be a bitter, divided convention. Hillary to the rescue. That's my prediction. DNC will nominate Hillary. The only possible conclusion to the long American Clintonian psychodrama. — fishfry

Getting Jesse Jackson’s blessing is simply huge for Sanders. No two ways about it. Forget “beating Trump” (and the whole giant health care issue) for just a moment... let’s say the entire election is between Biden and Bernie. Bernie seems to have plans and intentions that would help the working class (“poor”) and African-Americans far better than Joe Biden. Not really even close, imo.

I don’t see HRC anywhere near the election. She might scare voters away. Where I see her showing up possibly is on Biden’s cabinet. She serves a few years as Secretary of Something or other. Then retires and writes of her triumphant return in her memoirs. Can’t wait! :yawn:

Can you actually support this with some evidence? — Shawn

You should start with his campaign pages and really read through all of his agenda thoroughly at:

Bernie Sanders on the issues

There's just 34 issues (if I counted them right). And everyone of them has a lot than just one issue.

You can start from counting how many new issues has a medium size corporation have to deal in Bernie-land if everything Bernie wants would go through. Start from the Green New Deal, go through workplace democracy, check Real Wall Street reform and it's effects, then plunge into Jobs for all and Fair trade agenda a see what they will force your company to do. Finally, your ready to face "Corporate Accountability and Democracy" and look how you will have to share profits, boardroom decisions with workers / labor unions and diversify your corporate board. After all, Bernie wants that "Every employee should be guaranteed the right to vote at work, and have a voice in setting their pay, regardless of the kind or size of company or firm they work for."

So uh... that's social democracy in the purest form for you.

You really ought to get your priorities straight. Talk about GPD or debt or stocks or anything else is completely useless if we're heading towards disaster. If you don't believe me, take a look at how something like the coronavirus is effecting the markets. That's peanuts compared to the upcoming wildfires, floods, sea rise, mass migrations, and food and water shortages. — Xtrix

What effects? You think that market going down is a source of trouble? Perhaps you should read what you write yourself.

Climate change? How wouldn't the climate change discussion be something else than talking about the economy, if it's fossil fuel you want to replace? It is especially about how to organize the economy, how to make the change happen.

Let's take just an example. In the Green New Deal Bernie says:

Reaching 100 percent renewable energy for electricity and transportation by no later than 2030 and complete decarbonization of the economy by 2050 at latest – consistent with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change goals – by expanding the existing federal Power Marketing Administrations to build new solar, wind, and geothermal energy sources.

Fine. But how? Those are...deadlines.

Deadlines like Sweden decided in the 1980's with great fanfare to abolish nuclear energy use in the middle of the 1990's (a decade or so) and then when that time limit was achieved, was producing more with nuclear energy than when the decision was first done. So the real issue would be how to get there. That's where you have to do something with the economy.

Much less red tape is being created than is definitely being stripped away...

So...

If red tape is bad... Bernie's policies are more good than current convention.

You'll have to do better than that. — creativesoul

Uh..do what?

I'm just telling that Bernie is a Social Democrat in all his heart. That all above is social democracy.

Because Americans have never actually experienced what is Western social democracy like, it's really like this (the above). High minded ambitious agenda's that in truth create a lot of red tape, because the agenda is promoted and executed by government boards manned by administration officials (picked by social democrats) and stakeholders (close to social democrats) and the few unfortunate industry representative to write down lofty goals that will be forgotten when the next administration changes...

Change comes through THE COMMITTEE!!!

You can't be serious, can you?

The idea is self governing, not central management imposed and kept in check by apparatchiks within the workforce...

Please read the agenda. Who else will look that the goals are met than the central government?

Who else would it be than apparatchniks of the workforce sitting in boardroom with the owners? And if you think about it, actually, it has to be people that do understand a lot more than the specific work at counter or the factory line.

This part we do know in the Nordic countries where the system has been built up for a hundred years or so.

Please read the agenda. Who else will look that the goals are met than the central government? — ssu

So, the alternative is to stick with the fascist structure of central management imposed by the chiefs, CEO, COO, etc.?

So, the alternative is to stick with the fascist structure of central management imposed by the chiefs, CEO, COO, etc.? — Shawn

Now you've lost me. Central management is a way to coordinate a large network where people simply cannot all come to sit down on a table and have a coffee and decide what everybody is going to do. Large cooperatives also have central management, so what is your point?

In western social democracy companies and corporations are left alone. The exceptions are what is in the administration's agenda + existing regulation, taxation and supervision. They simply have to comply with the regulation imposed on them. Otherwise, they can make all the money they want, assuming they do pay their taxes. Modern social democracy doesn't even want to nationalize corporations. Only some strategic companies might fall into the category of where nationalization is looked positively.