Jump to content
Stefani Tee
politics

Only One Democratic Frontrunner Has Zero Billionaire Contributors

Featured Posts

neptugne
3 minutes ago, PunkTheFunk said:

Reminds me of this

aVO9eKv_700b.jpg

lmao yes that was my inspo! I didn't know what to add

  • YAAAS 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
HybridAT
1 hour ago, Marilyn MonHoe said:

That’s not true. A majority of Americans (including Democrats AND Republicans) do not like money in politics.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

“Americans overwhelmingly support limits on political campaign spending, and most think new laws could effectively reduce the role of money in politics.

A recent Pew Research Center report finds several indications of public concern over campaign spending. There is widespread – and bipartisan – agreement that people who make large political donations should not have more political influence than others, but Americans largely don’t see that as a description of the country today.

And there is extensive support for reining in campaign spending: 77% of the public says “there should be limits on the amount of money individuals and organizations” can spend on political campaigns; just 20% say they should be able to spend as much as they want.

A somewhat smaller majority (65%) says that new campaign finance laws could be written that would be effective in reducing the role of money in politics, while 31% say any new laws would not be effective.

Democrats are more likely to support limits on campaign spending than are Republicans, and there is a similar gap in views on whether effective laws could be written. Still, 71% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say there should be limits on campaign spending and 54% say new laws that would be effective in limiting the influence of money in politics could be written. Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, even larger majorities favor spending limits (85%) and think new laws would be effective (77%).

Nearly three-quarters of the public (74%) says it is very important that major political donors not have more influence than others, while an additional 16% view this as somewhat important.

 

One of the major reasons that Trump was elected was that he wasn’t a politician and that he had the money to not be bought. Someone that would represent the people, running the country like one of his businesses. But we all know the truth :ladyhaha:

Its funny that you don’t want to encourage infighting amongst Democrats, but I’ve seen you post some anti-Bernie articles. Don’t be a hypocrite :ally:

And let’s not act like there aren’t ways to bypass the legal spending limit. We should have higher standards for who we want to elect to office. Not just any blue will do, we need a blue who will fight for the people and not the rich elites. The fact is that Obama with his neo-liberal presidency led us to Trump. Now don’t get me wrong, Obama did a lot for America but he did not go far enough. And he didn’t go far enough because he couldn’t upset the status quo and anger his donors.

@SEANGT see my response to this user.

I know as a matter of fact that my candidate has continued to release thoughtful and effective policies that are for middle class, rural Americans and labor workers alike so this doesn't bother me. People sometimes forget that while some candidates have had previous Senate races to transfer funds from and bigger personal net worths, others had to start from scratch. So every dollar that can sustain a campaign counts. As long as these contributions don't affect the policy making and my candidate can call out the big tech giants that exploit workers' rights, I couldn't be less bothered. 

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/08/09/how-2020-presidential-candidate-mayor-pete-buttigieg-made-his-money.html

From the article:

"

Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and her husband, Bruce Mann, took in $846,394. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and his wife, Jane, made $561,293.

Aside from the money Buttigieg earns as mayor and what his husband makes as a middle school teacher, the presidential hopeful has taken in extra cash from his book, "Shortest Way Home." From the start of 2018 to May 2019, he took in $45,000 in advance and royalties payments for the book, which came out in February.

In a primary race focused on middle class issues, Buttigieg's lack of wealth relative to his rivals could insulate him from some of the criticism they have faced for their millionaire status."

 

Of course, Democrats shouldn't be fighting amongst each other. Trashing Obama's presidency in the last debates was the last thing Democrats should be doing if they want to defeat the idiot in the WH. 

I've never posted any "anti-Bernie" articles. I'm not at all interested in  attracting the wrath of his supporters, and I don't believe in tearing other candidates down, since it does no good. I've surely seen people from your side post candidates against my candidate of choice which is Pete. And yes I'll go to lengths to defend and support my candidate to shoot down articles of misinformation and smear pieces just because he's not "gay enough, or progressive enough, or electable enough" for some people. Hypocrisy is when Bernie's supporters criticize everyone else all the time but the moment someone criticizes him, resort to their radical ways to argue and hooter and holler and what not. I see it every single day on Twitter, and I see it here as well. Not surprising why only 31% of his supporters that supported him in 2016 support him now. Most have jumped the ship and continue to, either because they felt uninspired or because they were tired of his supporters' radical behavior.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/forget-lanes-the-democratic-primary-is-a-whole-freaking-transit-system/

As much as I respect Bernie for his positions and the work he's done over the years, I equally hate the condescension with which his supporters treat others with.

Also, like I said before, purity tests do not influence the voters in the long run at all. You go door to door telling people how he got zero billionaire donations and nobody's going to bat an eye. Everyone looks at policies and how the candidates make them feel. Looking at Iowa, which is the first primary caucus state, things are not looking good so far for some candidates favorability ratings.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by HybridAT
  • YAAAS 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ziggy

I mean...that’s great, but let’s remember that Sanders has leftover money and enormous name recognition from the last time around. So let’s not lampoon the others who don’t have the exposure privilege to be able to do that. Just keep perspective :) 

  • Sad 1
  • Thanks 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
HorusRa2
28 minutes ago, HybridAT said:

I know as a matter of fact that my candidate has continued to release thoughtful and effective policies that are for middle class, rural Americans and labor workers alike so this doesn't bother me. People sometimes forget that while some candidates have had previous Senate races to transfer funds from and bigger personal net worths, others had to start from scratch. So every dollar that can sustain a campaign counts. As long as these contributions don't affect the policy making and my candidate can call out the big tech giants that exploit workers'rights, I couldn't be less bothered. 

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/08/09/how-2020-presidential-candidate-mayor-pete-buttigieg-made-his-money.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/07/26/politics/buttigieg-tech-companies-economic-proposal/index.html

Of course, Democrats shouldn't be fighting amongst each other. Trashing Obama's presidency in the last debates was the last thing Democrats should be doing if they want to defeat the idiot in the WH. 

I've never posted any "anti-Bernie" articles. I'm not at all interested in  attracting the wrath of his supporters, and I don't believe in tearing other candidates down, since it does no good. I've surely seen people from your side post candidates against my candidate of choice which is Pete. And yes I'll go to lengths to defend and support my candidate to shoot down articles of misinformation and smear pieces just because he's not "gay enough, or progressive enough, or electable enough" for some people. Hypocrisy is when Bernie's supporters criticize everyone else all the time but the moment someone criticizes him, resort to their radical ways to argue and hooter and holler and what not. I see it every single day on Twitter, and I see it here as well. Not surprising why only 31% of his supporters that supported him in 2016 support him now. Most have jumped the ship and continue to, either because they felt uninspired or because they were tired of his supporters' radical behavior.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/forget-lanes-the-democratic-primary-is-a-whole-freaking-transit-system/

As much as I respect Bernie for his positions and the work he's done over the years, I equally hate the condescension with which his supporters treat others with.

Also, like I said before, purity tests do not influence the voters in the long run at all. You go door to door telling people how he got zero billionaire donations and nobody's going to bat an eye. Everyone looks at policies and how the candidates make them feel. Looking at Iowa, which is the first primary caucus state, things are not looking good so far for some candidates favorability ratings.

 

 

 

 

 

You and I have had issues before so I’m not going to attack you with my disdain for Pete, but I would suggest you to take the polling in the following way: 

 

1. With a grain of salt because it’s early and there’s been a lot of fluctuation lately

 

2. Don’t just cherrypick and use the ONE poll out of all polling since the previous debate to make Bernie look so bad 

 

3. At this point in the race, it’s better to look at the aggregate polling data, and when you do that, you will find that the Monmouth poll appears to be an outlier just as Emerson & Yougov appears to be consistent outliers (Emerson usually to Bernie’s benefit and Emerson to Warren’s) 

What we can see from recent polling in the aggregate is that Biden, Kamala & Pete have seen relative down ticks (1-3%) since last debate and relative up ticks for Bernie & Warren (1-2%). Which has left Biden weaker than ever, Bernie and Warren competitive, Kamala a step back and Pete at the fringe of viable. 

We also need to consider the primary is won from a state by state basis and national polling is insignificant until after Iowa and NH. 

  • Like 2

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Born To Slay
1 hour ago, RoverLoader said:

This. I mean  3 homes Bernie is a millionaire himself. I find it very ironic that the so called most "woke" of people want to vote in an 80 year old white man as president. :neyde::coffee:

He’s jewish tho. I’d hope any woke individual would support a Jewish candidate for president. I’d hate to think people are anti-Semitic. 

  • Thanks 2

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
HybridAT
39 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

You and I have had issues before so I’m not going to attack you with my disdain for Pete, but I would suggest you to take the polling in the following way: 

 

1. With a grain of salt because it’s early and there’s been a lot of fluctuation lately

 

2. Don’t just cherrypick and use the ONE poll out of all polling since the previous debate to make Bernie look so bad 

 

3. At this point in the race, it’s better to look at the aggregate polling data, and when you do that, you will find that the Monmouth poll appears to be an outlier just as Emerson & Yougov appears to be consistent outliers (Emerson usually to Bernie’s benefit and Emerson to Warren’s) 

What we can see from recent polling in the aggregate is that Biden, Kamala & Pete have seen relative down ticks (1-3%) since last debate and relative up ticks for Bernie & Warren (1-2%). Which has left Biden weaker than ever, Bernie and Warren competitive, Kamala a step back and Pete at the fringe of viable. 

We also need to consider the primary is won from a state by state basis and national polling is insignificant until after Iowa and NH. 

I know and understand that there's a lot of time until the primaries and things will fluctuate, but an A+ rated pollster has a certain amount of credibility and is certainly not an outlier. 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

Chief editor of 538 has already debunked this.

I could give you another example of a poll that's happening right now as we speak, and while this is completely unscientific and not to be taken seriously, 17,000 voters who attended a State Fair just to show their choices are no joke. It's the same as calling people and asking who's their preferred choice.

More updated one, as of 5 PM today. And note, this is after Sanders spoke at the political soapbox event. Now 20k votes.

You can not believe in polls all you want but one thing remains unchanged. Iowans take their politics and caucuses very seriously, starting from now itself all through the Fall. And Iowa is a huge precursor to the rest of the race. 

Edited by HybridAT

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
PoshLife
1 hour ago, Morphine Prince said:

They hate to hear it. Feelin’ the Bern baby. 

you and 15% of Dem primary voters lol

I have to be less of a Ruby and more of a Marie
  • Sad 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
HorusRa2
3 minutes ago, HybridAT said:

I know and understand that there's a lot of time until the primaries and things will fluctuate, but an A+ rated pollster has a certain amount of credibility and is certainly not an outlier. 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

Chief editor of 538 has already debunked this.

I could give you another example of a poll that's happening right now as we speak, and while this is completely unscientific and not to be taken seriously, 17,000 voters who attended a State Fair just to show their choices are no joke. It's the same as calling people and asking who's their preferred choice.

 

I caution you not to believe Nate lol. He has a certain disdain for Bernie that bleeds into his “objective” data. Also, the fact is that one poll regardless of its “A ranking” doesn’t mean the poll doesn’t have issues. I encourage you to read the entire methodology that comes from the pollster and make your own opinion. 

 

Also same with corn kernnel poll. From what I’ve seen (anecdotally) there were a lot of non-Iowans there so idk how much I’d put into that. Also, Bernie’s dominance with the under 30 crowd has always had him over performing in caucus states in 2016 so I would argue his polling in Iowa and Nevada and other caucus states will understate his actual support. The evidence we gave for that is the 2016 election and there’s little evidence to suggest his dominance with that age group has changed significantly. 

 

Either way, let’s check back w/ each other after next debate where there will surely be less candidates on stage and it’ll make a larger impact on polling. 

  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
OG Gaga Stan
1 hour ago, RoverLoader said:

This. I mean  3 homes Bernie is a millionaire himself. I find it very ironic that the so called most "woke" of people want to vote in an 80 year old white man as president. :neyde::coffee:

It's almost as if there are people that vote based on policy and ideological consistency rather than identity? :saladga:

And erasing Sanders' Jewish identity isn't woke. :selena: You really thought you got in a good drag there, huh? :selena:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
OG Gaga Stan

The responses here are why I avoid these threads as much as possible now. Y'all really hate this man for no goddamn reason and will invent any nonsense reason to try to take a swipe at him. :air:

Edited by OG Gaga Stan
  • Like 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
HybridAT
8 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

I caution you not to believe Nate lol. He has a certain disdain for Bernie that bleeds into his “objective” data. Also, the fact is that one poll regardless of its “A ranking” doesn’t mean the poll doesn’t have issues. I encourage you to read the entire methodology that comes from the pollster and make your own opinion. 

 

Also same with corn kernnel poll. From what I’ve seen (anecdotally) there were a lot of non-Iowans there so idk how much I’d put into that. Also, Bernie’s dominance with the under 30 crowd has always had him over performing in caucus states in 2016 so I would argue his polling in Iowa and Nevada and other caucus states will understate his actual support. The evidence we gave for that is the 2016 election and there’s little evidence to suggest his dominance with that age group has changed significantly. 

 

Either way, let’s check back w/ each other after next debate where there will surely be less candidates on stage and it’ll make a larger impact on polling. 

I'm not entirely sure why would you discredit the highest ranking pollster and the poll aggregator but I'll check the methodology if you insist.

Yeah let's wait and see. Winnowing the field will have a huge impact.

I'll not understand any particular disdain you and others here have for Pete, but I appreciate you having a civil discourse about this and not showing condescension from your side of the aisle that I'm now used to here.

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
HybridAT
1 hour ago, Ziggy said:

I mean...that’s great, but let’s remember that Sanders has leftover money and enormous name recognition from the last time around. So let’s not lampoon the others who don’t have the exposure privilege to be able to do that. Just keep perspective :) 

Thank you for bringing that up. This is often overlooked, or people just choose to overlook it just because it puts another candidate down a rung on the ladder unfairly. I feel pity for anyone who sad reacts to your post because this is in fact, the truth.

People choosing not to see the full picture and not debate on facts are just blinded by detrimental fanaticism. It's time everyone realizes how important it is to not put candidate over country eventually.

Edited by HybridAT

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
HorusRa2
12 minutes ago, HybridAT said:

I'm not entirely sure why would you discredit the highest ranking pollster and the poll aggregator but I'll check the methodology if you insist.

Yeah let's wait and see. Winnowing the field will have a huge impact.

I'll not understand any particular disdain you and others here have for Pete, but I appreciate you having a civil discourse about this and not showing condescension from your side of the aisle that I'm now used to here.

The fighting gets old and causes both sides to dig our heels deeper into our camps. At the end of the primary, assuming Bernie is the nominee, I want you to be enthusiastic to vote for a Bernie and not stay at home. I don’t have any issues with any candidate on a personal level; however, I want our nominee to be as genuinely progressive as possible because I believe only a unified party under a populist left agenda is capable of winning back the senate and beating Trump. 

 

Also saw the other posts about Bernie’s fund transfers and wanted to add that other candidates did the same (Warren, Gillibrand & Klobuchar for sure, maybe others). 

Edited by HorusRa2
  • Thanks 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marilyn MonHoe
2 hours ago, RoverLoader said:

This. I mean  3 homes Bernie is a millionaire himself. I find it very ironic that the so called most "woke" of people want to vote in an 80 year old white man as president. :neyde::coffee:

Unlike you I don’t care about how old someone is or the color of their skin. I care about their policies and their record, and Bernie has one of the best records of any politician.

Funny how you don’t care about American politics yet you always end up on these threads :coffee:

  • Thanks 3

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Morphine Prince
35 minutes ago, PoshLife said:

you and 15% of Dem primary voters lol

And we love that! At least we aren’t polling at 0% like many others! 

The friends I've had to bury, they keep me up at night
  • Thanks 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...