Jump to content
Stefani Tee
politics

Only One Democratic Frontrunner Has Zero Billionaire Contributors

Featured Posts

RoverLoader
8 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

“But whatever, I could give less of a **** tbh as it really  doesn't affect me lol. WHoever they are, they won't be MY president” 

Allow me to elaborate. They won't be my president and it won't affect me directly as regards taxes and domestic policy. I mean it's of not much consequence to me regarding your 401k for example. However, who America chooses as President is important because they interfere so ****ing much with the rest of the world. Even in the unlikely event of a Sanders presidency this wouldn't change because "American Interests" must be protected at all costs.

Edited by RoverLoader

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marilyn MonHoe
2 hours 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

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

He may be releasing policies now but that certainly hasn't always been the case. He used to be all about discussing values and not policies but changed his tune a few months ago.

https://ijr.com/buttigieg-attempts-excuse-websites-lack-policy-pages/

 

You should be bothered about where a candidate gets their money from. Our politicians have been corrupted from the money of the rich and powerful and it shows in the policies that have been implemented for the past 40 years and continues to happen today. These are popular policies that the majority of America wants which have bipartisan support but haven't been implemented due to our corrupted political system.

https://www.dataforprogress.org/polling-the-left-agenda

 

On ‎7‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 7:51 PM, HybridAT said:

and i oop- 👀

Hypocrisy is when you criticize others for doing something that you yourself partake in. By the way, you can post all of the anti Bernie stuff that you want. Just don't go and talk down to other Dems for participating in "infighting" when they talk negatively about your favorite candidate, while you also partake in that same kind of behavior. Which is something that a lot of centrist Dems on twitter and GGD do.

Nate Silver is a known Bernie hater so excuse me for taking what he says with a grain of salt. Especially since Bernie has the most individual donors, the largest email list and the most volunteers out of all of the candidates. In the rest of the world Bernie would be considered in the center. Only in far right America where the Democrat party is center right does Bernie seem radical. This was a poll last month that showed that Bernie was the most liked of all the nominees last month.

https://www.newsweek.com/biden-sanders-gallup-favorability-democrats-2020-1450344

 

I literally posted information that shows that people don't like money in politics. Not only does it make people feel bad but we can all see the outcome that it has had on this country. Again people love to hear that you are not supported by big money or millionaires and billionaires. That is one of the main reasons why Trump won and why people also love Bernie Sanders.

In New Hampshire Bernie is at 20% and in Nevada he is at 13%. I'm happy with those numbers because as shown in the past, the more that Sanders speaks the more support he gains. It's actually the opposite with Biden which is funny to me. Regardless it's much better than Pete who is sitting at 7% in both of those states.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/elections/democratic-polls.html

  • Thanks 2

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marilyn MonHoe
46 minutes ago, RoverLoader said:

You have more in common with Trumpettes than you think. Where do you get the impression I don't care about American politics? Another lie.  It was commentary on the irony of the situation but I'm not surprised it went over your head. What you don't know could fill a warehouse.

 

On ‎7‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 9:38 AM, RoverLoader said:

You do you boo. You literally are the epitome of blinkered, myopic  thinking and are the single least self aware person on this website, so props to you for that. Maybe you get a cookie ?  You honestly haven't got a clue what you're talking about. But whatever, I could give less of a **** tbh as it really  doesn't affect me lol. WHoever they are, they won't be MY president :whitney:. I can imagine you nominee reveal day, open mouthed, catching flies..."but but Bernie?" Oh well. You will learn the hard way. Or maybe not. :huntyga:

 

:ally:

 

 

I got that impression from your own words. Your lies could fill up a stadium, but please keep going :ladyhaha:

  • YAAAS 1
  • Thanks 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoverLoader
26 minutes ago, Marilyn MonHoe said:

 

I got that impression from your own words. Your lies could fill up a stadium, but please keep going :ladyhaha:

Oh dear. You didn't understand the broader picture. Not surprising. Allow me to elaborate. They won't be my president and it won't affect me directly as regards taxes and domestic policy. I mean it's of not much consequence to me regarding your 401k for example. However, who America chooses as President is important because they interfere so ****ing much with the rest of the world. Even in the unlikely event of a Sanders presidency this wouldn't change because "American Interests" must be protected at all costs.

 

I mean where is the lie?  All of this is true. Like I say, awareness isn't your bag. I guess that previous quote  got underneath your skin? :huntyga: Too bad.

 

 

 

Edited by RoverLoader

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoverLoader
7 minutes ago, Arturo said:

Still voting for Kamala

Imagine someone actually clicked the sad emoji because you're choosing Kamala over the patriarchy.

  • LMAO 1

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whispering

Good for him, I guess, but it doesn’t matter to me as far as who I will vote for.

He will need them, however, if he were to win the nomination. 

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
HorusRa2
7 hours ago, RoverLoader said:

Oh that is HILARIOUS. If the republicans put up an 80 year old white guy as a successor to Trump, you'd be the first to cry about them not representing real America. Do you know what also isn't woke? Throwing in "but he's Jewish!!!" as a defense to your support of the old white male patriarchal system. It's like Trump saying he can't be racist because Diamond and SIlk support him lol!

 

The bottom line is this: there are better, more diverse, more demographically relevant candidates with broadly similar policies than Sanders to choose from. They also don't want to give child molesters and white supremacist mass murderers the right to vote like Sanders does. Your hypocrisy is palpable.:reductive:

 

What a disgusting thing to say. In a democracy, your behavior does not dictate your inherent right to vote. When you start making qualifications like, “this person was incarcerated, they cannot be allowed to vote,” how long do you think it’ll take before the line is crossed and we start saying Mexicans can’t vote? Or gays? Muslims? Russian immigrants? Etc. I totally understand disdain for the types of people you mention; however, their inherent right to participate in a democracy is not exclusive to their behavior. 

 

Diversity for the sake of diversity is wrong. There is not a diverse non-white male candidate with a platform similar to Bernie other than Tulsi Gabbard. Also, your use of “similar” seems to indicate that you’re only listening to the campaign rhetoric and not reading up on the policies. If you’ve read the details, you would not make this statement and I urge you to actually read the proposals before shouting OLD WHITE MAN bad. 

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
SEANGT
12 hours 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 don't disagree with you I just don't think it would really matter so much in a general election if someone had a few billionaires donate some money to them. If Buttigiege wins the nom it'll probably be a big issue but like....yeah. 

I also still just don't like Bernie because he doesn't make some issues a focus when he should. 

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoverLoader
1 hour ago, HorusRa2 said:

What a disgusting thing to say. In a democracy, your behavior does not dictate your inherent right to vote. When you start making qualifications like, “this person was incarcerated, they cannot be allowed to vote,” how long do you think it’ll take before the line is crossed and we start saying Mexicans can’t vote? Or gays? Muslims? Russian immigrants? Etc. I totally understand disdain for the types of people you mention; however, their inherent right to participate in a democracy is not exclusive to their behavior. 

 

Diversity for the sake of diversity is wrong. There is not a diverse non-white male candidate with a platform similar to Bernie other than Tulsi Gabbard. Also, your use of “similar” seems to indicate that you’re only listening to the campaign rhetoric and not reading up on the policies. If you’ve read the details, you would not make this statement and I urge you to actually read the proposals before shouting OLD WHITE MAN bad. 

In a democracy your behaviour DOES dictate your right to vote. Most civilised countries do not let serial rapists vote in a general election. Are you insane?

No. What's disgusting is that you're trying to frame a narrative that not giving the likes of child molesters and white supremacists the right to vote is somehow going to lead to not giving marginalised people the right to vote. It doesn't work like that that. If you abuse a child, if you are a rapist, if you think your race is superior to others and you hurt people based on that then NO: you do NOT have the right to vote and partake in a democracy. You forfeit that right when you participated in those deplorable crimes. It's called losing your freedom and being punished for reprehensible crimes. It's tragically sad that I even have to explain this to you.

Secondly, I support a LOT of Bernie Sanders policies EXCEPT the one mentioned. The bottom line is, it's going to be almost impossible to find a candidate who you agree with everything on 100%. However, this particular issue , I find very troubling. It will also be used as a weapon against him, should he be the nominee. You're talking to someone who has researched nearly every viable candidate. Try some critical thinking. I've lived and worked around the ****ing world. Have YOU even left your own town?

If you think that giving kiddie fiddlers the right to vote is an election winning policy , then I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you. YOU are what is disgusting. Catch yourself on.

 

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
HorusRa2
26 minutes ago, RoverLoader said:

In a democracy your behaviour DOES dictate your right to vote. Most civilised countries do not let serial rapists vote in a general election. Are you insane?

No. What's disgusting is that you're trying to frame a narrative that not giving the likes of child molesters and white supremacists the right to vote is somehow going to lead to not giving marginalised people the right to vote. It doesn't work like that that. If you abuse a child, if you are a rapist, if you think your race is superior to others and you hurt people based on that then NO: you do NOT have the right to vote and partake in a democracy. You forfeit that right when you participated in those deplorable crimes. It's called losing your freedom and being punished for reprehensible crimes. It's tragically sad that I even have to explain this to you.

Secondly, I support a LOT of Bernie Sanders policies EXCEPT the one mentioned. The bottom line is, it's going to be almost impossible to find a candidate who you agree with everything on 100%. However, this particular issue , I find very troubling. It will also be used as a weapon against him, should he be the nominee. You're talking to someone who has researched nearly every viable candidate. Try some critical thinking. I've lived and worked around the ****ing world. Have YOU even left your own town?

If you think that giving kiddie fiddlers the right to vote is an election winning policy , then I have a bridge to nowhere to sell you. YOU are what is disgusting. Catch yourself on.

 

I’m sorry but I’m not going to entertain the notion that the right to vote can be taken away. Full stop. Also, I never said it was an election winning policy but it’s what I believe. Furthermore, just because someone has the right to vote does not mean anyone condones their behavior. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive. I think everybody has the right to vote & when we make it possible for that to occur, that’s the only way I can see preventing the Republicans from supressing POC votes in the South and other deep red states.

Also I grew up in NC, moved to WA & now live in FL so I’ve left the town I grew up in not that it matters very much. I do research on all candidates & this policy stance is what I believe in regardless of how disdainful people like that may be. 

Share


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

I’m sorry but I’m not going to entertain the notion that the right to vote can be taken away. Full stop. Also, I never said it was an election winning policy but it’s what I believe. Furthermore, just because someone has the right to vote does not mean anyone condones their behavior. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive. I think everybody has the right to vote & when we make it possible for that to occur, that’s the only way I can see preventing the Republicans from supressing POC votes in the South and other deep red states.

Also I grew up in NC, moved to WA & now live in FL so I’ve left the town I grew up in not that it matters very much. I do research on all candidates & this policy stance is what I believe in regardless of how disdainful people like that may be. 

Please don't use supressing POC as an excuse for your beliefs. I will safely say that 99.5% of POC are against letting pedophiles vote. Not that I speak for all POC, but yeh I am a POC. Here's a clue for you; that **** doesn't fly in our communities. 

What we want is people who are incarcerated for trivial crimes like weed set free. Pedo's can burn in hell. I hope I've made myself clear.

Share


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

I don't disagree with you I just don't think it would really matter so much in a general election if someone had a few billionaires donate some money to them. If Buttigiege wins the nom it'll probably be a big issue but like....yeah. 

I also still just don't like Bernie because he doesn't make some issues a focus when he should. 

No it’s not a huge issue but it’s definitely a positive to not have the backing of billionaires, especially seeing as how both Democrats and Republicans both don’t like big money in politics.

If you like Warren then I don’t see how you couldn’t like Bernie. He has a stronger record, has been more consistent, single handedly pushed the Democrat party to the left where they have been center right for decades and has brought issues like Medicare for All and raising the minimum wage to the forefront. Plus he has been releasing plans longer than Warren has. She didn’t have a lot of these plans a few years ago.

Share


Link to post
Share on other sites
dit

This is only a good thing. Says a lot. It basically tells me he is for the people and not for billionaire. A breath of fresh air. Sadly the Democrats are going to choose Biden over Bernie :(

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...