10th Democratic Primary Debate

[Franz Ferdinand 2,359]

1 minute ago, Woolfsmck said:

yes .. but using the arguments that it works for … we did it back when have no weight as to current issues .. you can't solve todays problems with old remedies or foreign counties methods … 

seriously these argument only delude the  issue ,,,,

USA spends x dollars for social services … 

USA collects x dollars from tax revenue ...

there is a big difference in Bernie's  proposal and the real situation … he's politician telling people great things will happen with his plan,  

I'm betting reality will be much much much different...

You're not really explaining why it wouldn't work, though. It kind of sounds like you're blindly convinced, but if you do have a real argument, I'll be waiting. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

Some establishment outlets like CNN are calling Bernie a winner... capitalism is a double edged sword folks  

[Economy 52,928]

8 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Some establishment outlets like CNN are calling Bernie a winner... capitalism is a double edged sword folks  

Honestly every economic system is a doubled edged sword I think. They all have significant pros and cons

 

None is perfect none has only down sides

[Franch Toast 27,745]

55 minutes ago, dit said:

anyone got a link to the full debate? I want to watch it all since i missed it. 

I don't have a link, but I'd like to warn you to turn down the volume on your speakers. These people love to shout. 

[StarstruckIllusion 53,580]

Sksks this Pete stan changed the subject when I asked why she’s a stan. Just say you hate poor people hello

[StarstruckIllusion 53,580]

17 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

Some establishment outlets like CNN are calling Bernie a winner... capitalism is a double edged sword folks  

What does this have to do with capitalism? Bernie supports capitalism. When you have such a clearly trash debate, nobody wins. And if no one moves, the frontrunner benefits. That’s how he clearly won. A small win tho  

[Brainiac 11,171]

Looks like the American public thinks Bernie was the winner!

 

 

[Woolfsmck 2,763]

1 hour ago, Franz Ferdinand said:

You're not really explaining why it wouldn't work, though. It kind of sounds like you're blindly convinced, but if you do have a real argument, I'll be waiting. 

Black and white … spend more than you make.. and you have to borrow or increase revenue *taxes* 

Clear as tonite sunset in SanDiego ...

Your the one who's blindly following propaganda ...

[ode 1,534]

Bloomberg literally filled the audience with people he'd paid to cheer what he said and boo/heckle what progressives said:

 

https://newrepublic.com/article/156676/selling-democratic-primary

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/michael-bloomberg-had-very-enthusiastic-audience-support-at-the-debate-for-some-reason.html

[Leoj305 3,774]

Some people are just blind to the issues..... you need to understand the healthcare system in the US is a laughing stock joke. And the arguments republicans make against that fact are disgusting. It won’t work because xyz, why won’t it work? Because the billionaires are winning. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

1 hour ago, Economy said:

Honestly every economic system is a doubled edged sword I think. They all have significant pros and cons

 

None is perfect none has only down sides

 

1 hour ago, StarstruckIllusion said:

What does this have to do with capitalism? Bernie supports capitalism. When you have such a clearly trash debate, nobody wins. And if no one moves, the frontrunner benefits. That’s how he clearly won. A small win tho  

Nnn y'all I was being facetious, but there is a much more layered critique of the profit motive there as well I guess  

Just this week we have seen major  outlets and reporters showing that Bernie's team has been criticizing MSNBC's coverage of his campaign and praising CNNs in comparison. Then, we see that MSNBC is considering hiring more pro-Sanders voices in the future. They have completely alienated themselves from engaging with the reality of the electorate, which is becoming more and more angry and anti-establishment (which includes them). The establishment is starting to realize that being anti-bernie at all odds is increasingly a less profitable position for them,  and the freakout post Bernie sweeping Nevada has unsurprisingly made many big actors think long term about what their potential role could be going into a general election with him as the nominee and even further if he does win. I just used CNN as an example, but we are already seeing Op-Eds by former aggressive anti-Bernie people saying "Look, Bernie's not that bad" and "Actually, polling shows Bernie can win" "Even if he wins, rich people's money will be fine because he wont be able to get most of anything done" etc etc.

I think its just writing on the wall. I truly believe that Sanders presidency is an existential threat to the Democratic party and establishment figures in general  and to their money in the long term (check the freakout over stocks since Nevada ) but at some point, everyone does bend the knee to the power of a candidate who is not a media creation, but is accountable to millions of people. It's why Trump has the power he has over the Republican party. Not just for his authoritarian urges, but building your base of support off of wealth is benefiting off of a small minority of people, and Bernie has people power. Can CNN really ignore that their own viewers like Bernie forever? Can MSNBC? No, its bad for business and drops ratings over time  So in this case, I think its reasonable to say that becoming profitable is a counter to a profit motive's general ignorance of social concerns.

Now before you all call me a conspiracy theorist, this is just my opinion based on what I see happening all around me. I feel comfortable just airing my thoughts because it literally has happened several times in our history and people called it out then to the same "but how do you know?!?!" response. I don't care if I'm wrong, but there are certain patterns of human behavior that are really historically apparent, even in recent history (2016 rings a bell) There is always a "turnover" of the establishment when things shift dynamics.  I'm really just taking a social-sciencey lens on this whole thing. 

[Economy 52,928]

3 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

 

Nnn y'all I was being facetious, but there is a much more layered critique of the profit motive there as well I guess  

Just this week we have seen major  outlets and reporters showing that Bernie's team has been criticizing MSNBC's coverage of his campaign and praising CNNs in comparison. Then, we see that MSNBC is considering hiring more pro-Sanders voices in the future. They have completely alienated themselves from engaging with the reality of the electorate, which is becoming more and more angry and anti-establishment (which includes them). The establishment is starting to realize that being anti-bernie at all odds is increasingly a less profitable position for them,  and the freakout post Bernie sweeping Nevada has unsurprisingly made many big actors think long term about what their potential role could be going into a general election with him as the nominee and even further if he does win. I just used CNN as an example, but we are already seeing Op-Eds by former aggressive anti-Bernie people saying "Look, Bernie's not that bad" and "Actually, polling shows Bernie can win" "Even if he wins, rich people's money will be fine because he wont be able to get most of anything done" etc etc.

I think its just writing on the wall. I truly believe that Sanders presidency is an existential threat to the Democratic party and establishment figures in general  and to their money in the long term (check the freakout over stocks since Nevada ) but at some point, everyone does bend the knee to the power of a candidate who is not a media creation, but is accountable to millions of people. It's why Trump has the power he has over the Republican party. Not juts for his authoritarian urges, but building your base of support off of wealth is benefiting off of a small minority of people, and Bernie has people power. Can CNN really ignore that their own viewers like Bernie forever? Can MSNBC? No, its bad for business and drops ratings over time  So in this case, I think its reasonable to say that becoming profitable is a counter to a profit motive's general ignorance of social concerns.

Now before you all call me a conspiracy theorist, this is just my opinion based on what I see happening all around me. I feel comfortable just airing my thoughts because it literally has happened several times in our history and people called it out then to the same "but how do you know?!?!" response. I don't care if I'm wrong, but there are certain patterns of human behavior that are really historically apparent, even in recent history (2016 rings a bell)

Did u mean to quote something for me too?

 

Cuz the entire response seemed to be responding to starstruckillusion not me

[Franz Ferdinand 2,359]

13 minutes ago, Woolfsmck said:

Black and white … spend more than you make.. and you have to borrow or increase revenue *taxes* 

Clear as tonite sunset in SanDiego ...

Your the one who's blindly following propaganda ...

Of course you'll have to increase taxes. But that is the whole point of taxes: you give money to the State, which it uses to pay for state-given benefits (aka healthcare, education, social security, unemployment aid, etc.). Would the amount of taxes people need to pay increase? Yes, of course. Not that of the lower bracket, but for intermediate and higher brackets then, it MUST increase in order to bring in an extra 30 trillion through the next decade. But the overall benefits of these social programs contribute to 1) a stronger job market (less people sick, more people with access to education, overall a strengthened workforce), 2) a long-term narrowing of the wealth gap. How do we know these things? Because quite literally every other MEDC that has switched to a universal healthcare system has seen these overall benefits. There's a precedent. So why the US would be any different? Y'all ain't special.

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

8 minutes ago, Economy said:

Did u mean to quote something for me too?

 

Cuz the entire response seemed to be responding to starstruckillusion not me

I thought I deleted your comment in my response, but I'll respond now: All economic systems have flaws ofc. I do think that the flaws of capitalism are more blatant and egregious and that we don't have enough evidence of actual "socialism" (which is a bit more complicated a term than capitalism as well tbh) to make the same conclusion. We have plenty of examples of authoritarianism running amuck in capitalistic and socialistic societies, but America and other western countries in the last 100+ years have certainly made it their life's mission to oppose any semblance of successful socialism via military coups, regime change, etc. so its not exactly an equal pool of data to draw from.

I'm not denying that socialism has potential problems, but it seems to me that we don't fully know what they might be and more importantly how they stack against the fundamental flaws of capitalism  

[Musicisfreedom 5,837]

8 minutes ago, Franz Ferdinand said:

Of course you'll have to increase taxes. But that is the whole point of taxes: you give money to the State, which it uses to pay for state-given benefits (aka healthcare, education, social security, unemployment aid, etc.). Would the amount of taxes people need to pay increase? Yes, of course. Not that of the lower bracket, but for intermediate and higher brackets then, it MUST increase in order to bring in an extra 30 trillion through the next decade. But the overall benefits of these social programs contribute to 1) a stronger job market (less people sick, more people with access to education, overall a strengthened workforce), 2) a long-term narrowing of the wealth gap. How do we know these things? Because quite literally every other MEDC that has switched to a universal healthcare system has seen these overall benefits. There's a precedent. So why the US would be any different? Y'all ain't special.

I actually have a question about this. And it may sound stupid, bare with me.

How much of an increase on taxes would that be? And also, how much money do you have to make to even be affected by that? A lot of people group me and my family into the middle class even tho with three incomes we still live check to check and hardly have any free money. I'm leaning towards Bernie, but I want to fully understand everything. Sorry if I sound stupid.