US Politics Megathread

[Goodspeed]

What am I dodging

[spanky4ever]

who has the most billionaires donations?

[fightinfrenchman]

Well technically Steyer and Bloomberg are donating to themselves

[Goodspeed]

who has the most billionaires donations?

Idk, don't particularly care about this metric

[spanky4ever]

who has the most billionaires donations?

Idk, don't particularly care about this metric

makes sense, since you Butti is no 1 in billionaire donations. Gees, I told the secret

[fightinfrenchman]

who has the most billionaires donations?

Idk, don't particularly care about this metric

makes sense, since you Butti is no 1 in billionaire donations. Gees, I told the secret

Are you sure it isn't Trump?

[spanky4ever]

the pain is that Sanders will win an election, and have to handle another financial crash, worse than 2008

[Goodspeed]

who has the most billionaires donations?

Idk, don't particularly care about this metric

makes sense, since you Butti is no 1 in billionaire donations. Gees, I told the secret

You think this disqualifies him and that's understandable, but I disagree. Maybe rich people are more comfortable with him because his priority is democratic reform, not wealth redistribution. And while both are important, I tend to agree with democratic reform taking priority. After all, without that, you won't get anything else done. And no, you very probably can't do both. An important question to answer for any presidential candidate is what to spend your political capital on. Presidents don't get to do that much.

Also, knowing what to expect from a President is a big deal to people who are heavily invested in the current state of affairs. Pete has been clear about where his priorities are and isn't proposing to transform the country overnight, which is about as impossible as it would be scary to billionaires.

Timestamped:

[fightinfrenchman]

@spanky4ever I know that Bernie doesn't say "millionaires and billionaires" anymore, just "billionaires," so I have a question: how much is the max amount of money a person can have legitimately?

[spanky4ever]

this is so sad @Goodspeed You think that a candidate who sold out, will represent the pp in USA? that is pretty mind-blowing to me, how you got there, is even more mind-blowing. Fucking hell, what is going on here

[Goodspeed]

this is so sad @Goodspeed You think that a candidate who sold out, will represent the pp in USA? that is pretty mind-blowing to me, how you got there, is even more mind-blowing. Fucking hell, what is going on here

The fact that he has money doesn't make him corrupt. His #1 priority is democratic reform, which is the effort to make the government more representative. How me thinking he would represent the people is mind-blowing to you is therefore quite puzzling. But it's been a while since you really listened to anything anyone said on here that didn't consist of the words (and nothing but the words) "I love Bernie Sanders", so I guess it's not surprising.

[gibson]

There are like 500 or something billionaires in the US......who cares who got the most donations from 500 people? Caring about it gives them more power.

[spanky4ever]

this is so sad @Goodspeed You think that a candidate who sold out, will represent the pp in USA? that is pretty mind-blowing to me, how you got there, is even more mind-blowing. Fucking hell, what is going on here

The fact that he has money doesn't make him corrupt. His #1 priority is democratic reform, which is the effort to make the government more representative. How me thinking he would represent the people is mind-blowing to you is therefore quite puzzling. But it's been a while since you really listened to anything anyone said on here, so I guess it's not surprising.

go to sleep again, and do not look at how he got that money, or how he changed his positions on medicare for all. Be blind if you want it, but do not expect others to be blinded by butti or you.

[Goodspeed]

There are like 500 or something billionaires in the US......who cares who got the most donations from 500 people? Caring about it gives them more power.

The assumption is that candidates who are liked by billionaires are not going to implement policies that would be against the billionaires' interests, which tend to be opposite of the interests of the people who actually need the government to work for them. It's a reasonable assumption, to be fair, but like most assumptions it shouldn't be immediately taken for truth. The part where we get off the rails is where we choose to ignore that democratic reform designed to make the government better represent the masses is the candidate's #1 priority. We choose to do this because if we acknowledge that, we might run into some of that pesky cognitive dissonance. How could a candidate both be liked by billionaires (therefore they are a kitten-murdering representative of the billionaire class, and would never implement any policy that would help anyone except their billionaire buddies), AND propose to make the government more representative?

[spanky4ever]

it's like being in a strange world, reading these words, saying I want this - and I want that, and not being able to see the obstacles between the former and the latter. Kind of mind-boggling, for a smart guy like @Goodspeed, not so c it?

[n0el]

The question is, whether said candidate will back down when faced with a chance to make a substantive reform? And with Pete, my concerns are less when it comes to democratic reforms, and more towards individual policy (tech, oil and gas, etc...). WE all know that most policy that affects the billionaire class (other than taxes), comes from the regulating bodies, which the executive appoints to lead. I have serious doubts of reformers being nominated to those bodies, from most candidates, especially those reliant on large money.

[spanky4ever]

@spanky4ever I know that Bernie doesn't say "millionaires and billionaires" anymore, just "billionaires," so I have a question: how much is the max amount of money a person can have legitimately?

you should ask him, I am sure he will respond to you, frenshy

[gibson]

There are like 500 or something billionaires in the US......who cares who got the most donations from 500 people? Caring about it gives them more power.

The assumption is that candidates who are liked by billionaires are not going to implement policies that would be against the billionaires' interests, which tend to be opposite of the interests of the people who actually need the government to work for them. It's a reasonable assumption, to be fair, but like most assumptions it shouldn't be immediately taken for truth. The part where we get off the rails is where we choose to ignore that democratic reform designed to make the government better represent the masses is the candidate's #1 priority. We choose to do this because if we acknowledge that, we might run into some of that pesky cognitive dissonance. How could a candidate both be liked by billionaires (therefore they are a kitten-murdering representative of the billionaire class, and would never implement any policy that would help anyone except their billionaire buddies), AND propose to make the government more representative?

The issue is that assumption starts in the wrong place. Instead of looking at who supports a candidate in order to try to figure out what policy the candidate is going to implement, why not just look at the candidates policy? It's just a weak argument. It also assumes that all billionaires are going to support the candidate which is going to save them the most money, which to be fair is likely to be true for many, but certainly not all.

[Goodspeed]

The question is, whether said candidate will back down when faced with a chance to make a substantive reform? And with Pete, my concerns are less when it comes to democratic reforms, and more towards individual policy (tech, oil and gas, etc...). WE all know that most policy that affects the billionaire class (other than taxes), comes from the regulating bodies, which the executive appoints to lead. I have serious doubts of reformers being nominated to those bodies, from most candidates, especially those reliant on large money.

It's a reasonable concern but if his priority is democratic reform, any reforms that the people support will be implemented eventually. I don't really know of a stronger signal that shows a candidate will represent the interests of the people than them prioritizing democratic reform. We shouldn't forget that it takes money to win a campaign, especially for someone who starts out with basically zero name recognition. Pete isn't running a grassroots campaign, so it's unreasonable to hold him to the same standards as someone who is. And his campaign has other advantages, like better appeal to swing voters and a focus on unity.

In other words sure, concerns are reasonable though imo misplaced in this case, but to straight up disqualify him over some big donations is rather closed minded.

[spanky4ever]

hrrrrm, brainwahs

[Goodspeed]

saying I want this - and I want that, and not being able to see the obstacles between the former and the latter.

I would make a point about the many and high obstacles between now and M4A, but ... nevermind.
Let me know when you plan to actually register these "strange words" you're reading and reply with some substance.

[fightinfrenchman]

I think some people overstate the influence of money on campaigns. If billionaires could buy elections, why wouldn't you want to support the Democratic who has their support?

[spanky4ever]

I think some people overstate the influence of money on campaigns. If billionaires could buy elections, why wouldn't you want to support the Democratic who has their support?

fuck off frenshy

[spanky4ever]

saying I want this - and I want that, and not being able to see the obstacles between the former and the latter.

I would make a point about the many and high obstacles between now and M4A, but ... nevermind.
Let me know when you plan to actually register these "strange words" you're reading and reply with some substance.

Let me tell you ppl. that this is a very good example of a person, who is losing an argument, and try to go for your not spelling it right, or something else, maybe more personal, as he is losing even bigger

[Goodspeed]

Or maybe I'm getting tired of responding to someone whose only coherent contribution is "billionaires bad".