***Official Political Discussion Thread***

Money alone isn't propelling Bloomberg, Steyer is a billionaire as well......

Bloomberg is running an effective targeted campaign that speaks to voters.
True that his campaign is effective, but is he speaking to what voters want, or is he bending the truth?

One one side, we have his past actions as mayor and his lambasting of Obama's policies, and on the other, we have his campaign ads where he is trying to fool the electorate by making himself appear as someone who will push the Democratic agenda.

Of course he will be accountable to the electorate, voters provide votes and without those anyone regardless of how wealthy won't go anywhere.
The problem is that money has been proven to be the determining factor in who gets elected in the US. Whoever can make himself omnipresent on all forms of media will be the most likely winner. What's a mere billion spent on ads for Bloomberg, when the trade-off is the power that comes with the presidency? And if tolerate Bloomberg today, on what basis will you oppose Zuckerberg tomorrow, who can control what billions see and hear 24/7?
 
Imagine having 200+ Million to casually waste



$409M to get teabagged on live television?

giphy.gif


giphy (1).gif
 
You want to live in a society where self-made becomes a bad thing?

The question is not only dumb (should you exist) It's a non starter for a lot of middle class people.
Dude, with all dude respect you are full of it. Your argument lacks the same nuance you complain about Bernie lacking.

Bernie and especially Warren's point is that it is immortal for Billionaires to exist while we have so much poverty , and our middle class is progressively being squeeze; and they are absolutely ******* right. It is disgusting. Part of the reason that this current state of affairs exist is because billionaires like Bloomberg use his wealth to push candidates, the put in place policies that prevent democratic majorities to solve these economic issues by taxing the rich more. Secondly we have a massive welfare state for millionaires and billionaires through our tax code. There is a greater context you want to conveniently ignore.

I will admit that of all the billionaires that exist that Bloomberg relatively made his fairer than most (from what I know about him). Secondly if were in socially Democratic state, he would probably still be a billionaire. And he does spend his money on some good causes. He should go back to doing that.

However, Bernie's point was mainly about how they use their money to finesse the system. Instead of focusing on that, you are crying about "the should you exist" question when it was a damn joking way to frame a follow up question.

So if I had to choose getting rid of poverty over getting rid of Billionaires, then the choice is clear, billionaires should go, but no one is really proposing that binary choice. I don't want to live in a world where so much economic violence exist just to protect the wealth of a billionaires. It is not as simple as just eliminating billionaires, but we as a society need to reevaluate our priorities on which class of people needs the most help. Furthermore, we need to eliminate the means for Billionaires to distort our Democratic system, and make our tax code more regressive.

Anyone with sense, knowledge of basic macro, and is not reactionary can see Bernie's or Warren's agenda will not ban billionaires. Their economic policies come no where close to being that confiscatory. So you need to drop this act like they are a some sort of marginalized class.

So please let go of your centrist pearls, and do yourself a favor and jump of that morally bankrupt hill you climbed up on to defend that ******* low life white supremacists piece of **** Mike Bloomberg.

I have no problem with Bloomberg staying a billionaire, but no ******* way should he be the President. His actions last time he held an elected office disqualifies him.
 
What about what about what about.
Pete ain’t getting my vote. Amy ain’t getting my vote.

And I encourage you to actually read more about the Warren stuff. She didn’t benefit at all from it. Her places of employment were considering her application as a white woman.

As a black man who has been stopped and frisked by Bloomberg’s police force, I can tell you personally how he has terrorized innocent men like who were just living their lives in New York City. If your response to him terrorizing black and brown communities, illegally surveilling Muslim communities, and harassing woman in the workplace is whataboutism, then I encourage you to look at yourself. Why the need to defend him for this when he didn’t even see an error in stop and frisk until he mounted his presidential campaign, and even up to last night referred to his harassment of women in the workplace as “telling a bad joke”.
Famb I nearly got executed by the damn NYPD because of Stop-n-frisk, hundreds of thousands of other black men had to endure the same terrorism. Bloomberg defend that **** after it was ruled unconstitutional, and it was shown to be ineffective. He defend that **** up until, what, last year. But dude throwing out some whataboutisms to handwave. :smh:

I am fine with everyone's problematic behavior being called out, but there are clearly levels to his ****.

It really be your own "people" sometimes.
 
Last edited:
THERE:emoji_clap:IS:emoji_clap:NO:emoji_clap:SUCH:emoji_clap:THING:emoji_clap:AS:emoji_clap:A:emoji_clap:SELF:emoji_clap:MADE:emoji_clap:BILLIONAIRE:emoji_clap:
I think given America's large consumer base, and technological advancements, I think it is possible that some billionaires would exist even in a much more equitable economic system. Not most, but a few.

But when you take into account the amount of public investment it takes to support the infrastructure and consumer base it takes for these billionaires to exist, the "self-made" argument becomes even weaker. Like Obama said in 2012, you didn't build this.

Then when you take into account so much wealth in this country is built not inventions or ingenuity, but by firms rent seeking, gaining unchecked monopolistic power, suppressing wages, low taxes on capital, other welfare through the tax code, and bought off politicans, then it ******* disappears for damn near all of them.

If Mike Bloomberg (and other billionaires) just took his damn money from the terminals, paid a fair share in taxes, and donated his money to good causes, all under a socially Democratic system, then no one would have a serious issue with him. Most would probably defend him.

But he has not done anything close to that.
 
Last edited:

Putin literally said he wanted Trump to win in 2016. He said it while standing next to Trump in fact.
Putin surely has a few major complaints but overall I think he can largely be satisfied with Trump's performance.
 
Back
Top Bottom