Quote:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and two of her freshmen colleagues have been named to the House Oversight Committee.
"I mean, those rich people, they're better than us. Why should they have to give their money away? It's theirs. They earned it. They give us our jobs and if we tax them they will take our jobs and their money and go somewhere else."B.A. Bearacus said:
"Why would we oppose the increasing concentration of wealth in the top half of the top half of the top 1%? That's their god-given right."
The main way to control the masses is to make them believe that the other half in this Hegelian left-right dialectic is absolute evil, and the root cause of all their problems. This thread and your post above is a perfect illustration of this.blungld said:"I mean, those rich people, they're better than us. Why should they have to give their money away? It's theirs. They earned it. They give us our jobs and if we tax them they will take our jobs and their money and go somewhere else."B.A. Bearacus said:
"Why would we oppose the increasing concentration of wealth in the top half of the top half of the top 1%? That's their god-given right."
It's all such a crock. Who doesn't "earn" their money? What part did luck or inheritance or favorable policy play in loading the deck in their favor? Are they not part of a system and society? Isn't the very concept of money a socially agreed system of value and trading that connects us all. Are we not social beings? They are not magical entrepreneurs grown in a vacuum and showering us with their gifts--and if they are so great and benevolent, why are so many of them so morally bankrupt and complete sociopathic narcissists?
And no they didn't do it by themselves. And it is not giving it away or stealing if there is a system in place where after having more than enough to live an opulent life, that their over abundance of cash goes back into the system so that the system itself can keep functioning for every part of the system.
And it's not a democracy if cash corners power so that policy and propaganda creates wealth for the wealthy. And it's not trickle down when the wealth accumulated in the system buys the system and parks itself outside the system for the benefit of no one other than those controlling the system.
And if they take their money and jobs and leave, better more equitable things will rise in their place, or else you don't believe in competition and capitalism from the get go and instead believe in divine right of kings and oligarchy and the noblesse oblige.
The GOP playbook: distract the masses with artificial Faith and Patriotism, keep them angry, and then steal the masses money while accusing those who would have them pay a fair share of trying to steal THEIR money and of being anti-God, anti-Patriotism Socialists. It's brilliantly evil and amoral. Good work if you have the lack of values to do it.
Cal88 said:
Yeah, Ben Stein is an idiot, like most estblishment Boomer conservative pundits. AOC is not going to kill tens of millions in gulags like the Bolsheviks did. What she's going to do though is put a whole lot of economic hurt on the middle class with her "Green New Deal", which will essentially further crush the middle class through the regressive carbon tax and trillion dollar carbon trade schemes, basically amounting to further wealth transfer from the middle class to Wall Street and the oligarchs.
This being said, there is a bit of Stalin in the ideal world of green "visionaries" like AOC, their vison for us is a world where your travel, your gas usage and other carbon footprint will be rationed. This is already happening in countries like France which have aggressively taxed and marginalized the lower/middle class, the Gilets Jaunes movement is a direct result of this.
As if on cue:bearister said:
70% of Americans think the economic system is skewed toward the wealthy and the government should do more to fix it and they're ready to vote for a 2020 candidate who agrees, according to a new Axios/SurveyMonkey survey.
Quote:
Raising money from Wall Street for a presidential campaign might be becoming a liability, especially for Democrats.
"This whole thing is coming to a historic moment where the Democrats have to say if they're going to be the Wall Street party or the party of small-dollar donors," Waleed Shahid, a spokesperson for the activist group Justice Democrats, told me.
Quote:
In recent weeks, I spoke with multiple strategists and fundraisers mostly Democrats, but some Republicans to ask whether going to Wall Street for backing in politics was still allowed. Opinions were split about eschewing cash from Wall Street and corporate America more broadly entirely. Those in the more progressive wing of the party said any perceived alignment was a nonstarter and unwise, even immoral. But in a competitive race with as many as 30 candidates, some are reluctant to give up any edge.
"Do you want to entirely disarm against a Republican Koch brothers-funded Death Star?" said Amanda Litman, the co-founder of Run for Something, an organization that supports young candidates running for office.
Quote:
Even if Wall Street isn't the villain, small-dollar donations are going to be more important.
"It's a sign of health for their campaign," Mindy Finn, a Republican strategist, said. "It also frees up a candidate to spend more of their time connecting with voters on the ground and less of their time having to cater to the wealthiest set of Americans."
If a candidate isn't succeeding in online fundraising, it's likely that he or she isn't resonating.
Quote:
Most Democratic candidates oppose the 2010 Supreme Court Citizens United decision, which opened the door to outside spending but like it or not, it's the lay of the land for now. Saying no to Super PACs, including ones fueled by Wall Street money, may mean trouble.
"It's not worth cutting off your legs to take a philosophical and moral position that will potentially cost you any shot at the nomination," Ryan Williams, a Republican strategist at Targeted Victory, said.
That's the calculation both Clinton and Obama made in their elections in 2016 and 2012.
"We're not going to fight this fight with one hand tied behind our back," Jim Messina, Obama's reelection campaign manager in 2012, told the New York Times of Obama's decision to accept backing from an outside Super PAC.
Cal88 said:The main way to control the masses is to make them believe that the other half in this Hegelian left-right dialectic is absolute evil, and the root cause of all their problems. This thread and your post above is a perfect illustration of this.blungld said:"I mean, those rich people, they're better than us. Why should they have to give their money away? It's theirs. They earned it. They give us our jobs and if we tax them they will take our jobs and their money and go somewhere else."B.A. Bearacus said:
"Why would we oppose the increasing concentration of wealth in the top half of the top half of the top 1%? That's their god-given right."
It's all such a crock. Who doesn't "earn" their money? What part did luck or inheritance or favorable policy play in loading the deck in their favor? Are they not part of a system and society? Isn't the very concept of money a socially agreed system of value and trading that connects us all. Are we not social beings? They are not magical entrepreneurs grown in a vacuum and showering us with their gifts--and if they are so great and benevolent, why are so many of them so morally bankrupt and complete sociopathic narcissists?
And no they didn't do it by themselves. And it is not giving it away or stealing if there is a system in place where after having more than enough to live an opulent life, that their over abundance of cash goes back into the system so that the system itself can keep functioning for every part of the system.
And it's not a democracy if cash corners power so that policy and propaganda creates wealth for the wealthy. And it's not trickle down when the wealth accumulated in the system buys the system and parks itself outside the system for the benefit of no one other than those controlling the system.
And if they take their money and jobs and leave, better more equitable things will rise in their place, or else you don't believe in competition and capitalism from the get go and instead believe in divine right of kings and oligarchy and the noblesse oblige.
The GOP playbook: distract the masses with artificial Faith and Patriotism, keep them angry, and then steal the masses money while accusing those who would have them pay a fair share of trying to steal THEIR money and of being anti-God, anti-Patriotism Socialists. It's brilliantly evil and amoral. Good work if you have the lack of values to do it.
You guys are also deluded to think that a career politician like Maxine who lives in a $5 million mansion is going to take on the Wall Street oligarchy.
No question that this is the way of the future for Democratic politicians.Another Bear said:
The AOC and Beto model of not taking major PAC money might have some legs. While Beto lost in Texas, he raised an unprecedented among of money and no PAC funding.
okaydo said:Cal88 said:The main way to control the masses is to make them believe that the other half in this Hegelian left-right dialectic is absolute evil, and the root cause of all their problems. This thread and your post above is a perfect illustration of this.blungld said:"I mean, those rich people, they're better than us. Why should they have to give their money away? It's theirs. They earned it. They give us our jobs and if we tax them they will take our jobs and their money and go somewhere else."B.A. Bearacus said:
"Why would we oppose the increasing concentration of wealth in the top half of the top half of the top 1%? That's their god-given right."
It's all such a crock. Who doesn't "earn" their money? What part did luck or inheritance or favorable policy play in loading the deck in their favor? Are they not part of a system and society? Isn't the very concept of money a socially agreed system of value and trading that connects us all. Are we not social beings? They are not magical entrepreneurs grown in a vacuum and showering us with their gifts--and if they are so great and benevolent, why are so many of them so morally bankrupt and complete sociopathic narcissists?
And no they didn't do it by themselves. And it is not giving it away or stealing if there is a system in place where after having more than enough to live an opulent life, that their over abundance of cash goes back into the system so that the system itself can keep functioning for every part of the system.
And it's not a democracy if cash corners power so that policy and propaganda creates wealth for the wealthy. And it's not trickle down when the wealth accumulated in the system buys the system and parks itself outside the system for the benefit of no one other than those controlling the system.
And if they take their money and jobs and leave, better more equitable things will rise in their place, or else you don't believe in competition and capitalism from the get go and instead believe in divine right of kings and oligarchy and the noblesse oblige.
The GOP playbook: distract the masses with artificial Faith and Patriotism, keep them angry, and then steal the masses money while accusing those who would have them pay a fair share of trying to steal THEIR money and of being anti-God, anti-Patriotism Socialists. It's brilliantly evil and amoral. Good work if you have the lack of values to do it.
You guys are also deluded to think that a career politician like Maxine who lives in a $5 million mansion is going to take on the Wall Street oligarchy.
I have no idea if Maxine lives in a $5 manion or not.
But here's the thing: When you're a high-profile politician, like Maxine, it's hard to live "like the masses."
You can't live in a rinky dink tiny easily targeted four-bedroom, two-bathroom house, which costs like $1.5 to $2 million in L.A.
You have to protect yourself.
Many people would love to harm Maxine.. And I'd bet many people would love to harm AOC because she's been set up as this extremely scary bogeyman.
So these high-profile politicians can't live normally. Not in this age.
mmm kay does this make you feel better?Cal88 said:blungld said:"I mean, those rich people, they're better than us. Why should they have to give their money away? It's theirs. They earned it. They give us our jobs and if we tax them they will take our jobs and their money and go somewhere else."B.A. Bearacus said:
"Why would we oppose the increasing concentration of wealth in the top half of the top half of the top 1%? That's their god-given right."
It's all such a crock. Who doesn't "earn" their money? What part did luck or inheritance or favorable policy play in loading the deck in their favor? Are they not part of a system and society? Isn't the very concept of money a socially agreed system of value and trading that connects us all. Are we not social beings? They are not magical entrepreneurs grown in a vacuum and showering us with their gifts--and if they are so great and benevolent, why are so many of them so morally bankrupt and complete sociopathic narcissists?
And no they didn't do it by themselves. And it is not giving it away or stealing if there is a system in place where after having more than enough to live an opulent life, that their over abundance of cash goes back into the system so that the system itself can keep functioning for every part of the system.
And it's not a democracy if cash corners power so that policy and propaganda creates wealth for the wealthy. And it's not trickle down when the wealth accumulated in the system buys the system and parks itself outside the system for the benefit of no one other than those controlling the system.
And if they take their money and jobs and leave, better more equitable things will rise in their place, or else you don't believe in competition and capitalism from the get go and instead believe in divine right of kings and oligarchy and the noblesse oblige.
The GOP playbook: distract the masses with artificial Faith and Patriotism, keep them angry, and then steal the masses money while accusing those who would have them pay a fair share of trying to steal THEIR money and of being anti-God, anti-Patriotism Socialists. It's brilliantly evil and amoral. Good work if you have the lack of values to do it.
You guys are also deluded to think that a career politician like Maxine who lives in a $5 million mansion is going to take on the Wall Street oligarchy.
oski003 said:okaydo said:Cal88 said:The main way to control the masses is to make them believe that the other half in this Hegelian left-right dialectic is absolute evil, and the root cause of all their problems. This thread and your post above is a perfect illustration of this.blungld said:"I mean, those rich people, they're better than us. Why should they have to give their money away? It's theirs. They earned it. They give us our jobs and if we tax them they will take our jobs and their money and go somewhere else."B.A. Bearacus said:
"Why would we oppose the increasing concentration of wealth in the top half of the top half of the top 1%? That's their god-given right."
It's all such a crock. Who doesn't "earn" their money? What part did luck or inheritance or favorable policy play in loading the deck in their favor? Are they not part of a system and society? Isn't the very concept of money a socially agreed system of value and trading that connects us all. Are we not social beings? They are not magical entrepreneurs grown in a vacuum and showering us with their gifts--and if they are so great and benevolent, why are so many of them so morally bankrupt and complete sociopathic narcissists?
And no they didn't do it by themselves. And it is not giving it away or stealing if there is a system in place where after having more than enough to live an opulent life, that their over abundance of cash goes back into the system so that the system itself can keep functioning for every part of the system.
And it's not a democracy if cash corners power so that policy and propaganda creates wealth for the wealthy. And it's not trickle down when the wealth accumulated in the system buys the system and parks itself outside the system for the benefit of no one other than those controlling the system.
And if they take their money and jobs and leave, better more equitable things will rise in their place, or else you don't believe in competition and capitalism from the get go and instead believe in divine right of kings and oligarchy and the noblesse oblige.
The GOP playbook: distract the masses with artificial Faith and Patriotism, keep them angry, and then steal the masses money while accusing those who would have them pay a fair share of trying to steal THEIR money and of being anti-God, anti-Patriotism Socialists. It's brilliantly evil and amoral. Good work if you have the lack of values to do it.
You guys are also deluded to think that a career politician like Maxine who lives in a $5 million mansion is going to take on the Wall Street oligarchy.
I have no idea if Maxine lives in a $5 manion or not.
But here's the thing: When you're a high-profile politician, like Maxine, it's hard to live "like the masses."
You can't live in a rinky dink tiny easily targeted four-bedroom, two-bathroom house, which costs like $1.5 to $2 million in L.A.
You have to protect yourself.
Many people would love to harm Maxine.. And I'd bet many people would love to harm AOC because she's been set up as this extremely scary bogeyman.
So these high-profile politicians can't live normally. Not in this age.
There are more 4 bed 2 bath homes for sale for under 1.5 than over 1.5, even if only considering the nicer parts of her district. ... Such as 3862 Tiffany Ln 90505 for 1.249. When you get close to 2 million, you get very fancy.
Well, on the one hand there are people like Maxine Waters who were born poor and worked their way up though a long career of public service to the point where they are now very successful. On the other hand, we have Donald Trump, a man who was born into wealth and has no idea what it's like to really struggle for success.going4roses said:mmm kay does this make you feel better?Cal88 said:blungld said:"I mean, those rich people, they're better than us. Why should they have to give their money away? It's theirs. They earned it. They give us our jobs and if we tax them they will take our jobs and their money and go somewhere else."B.A. Bearacus said:
"Why would we oppose the increasing concentration of wealth in the top half of the top half of the top 1%? That's their god-given right."
It's all such a crock. Who doesn't "earn" their money? What part did luck or inheritance or favorable policy play in loading the deck in their favor? Are they not part of a system and society? Isn't the very concept of money a socially agreed system of value and trading that connects us all. Are we not social beings? They are not magical entrepreneurs grown in a vacuum and showering us with their gifts--and if they are so great and benevolent, why are so many of them so morally bankrupt and complete sociopathic narcissists?
And no they didn't do it by themselves. And it is not giving it away or stealing if there is a system in place where after having more than enough to live an opulent life, that their over abundance of cash goes back into the system so that the system itself can keep functioning for every part of the system.
And it's not a democracy if cash corners power so that policy and propaganda creates wealth for the wealthy. And it's not trickle down when the wealth accumulated in the system buys the system and parks itself outside the system for the benefit of no one other than those controlling the system.
And if they take their money and jobs and leave, better more equitable things will rise in their place, or else you don't believe in competition and capitalism from the get go and instead believe in divine right of kings and oligarchy and the noblesse oblige.
The GOP playbook: distract the masses with artificial Faith and Patriotism, keep them angry, and then steal the masses money while accusing those who would have them pay a fair share of trying to steal THEIR money and of being anti-God, anti-Patriotism Socialists. It's brilliantly evil and amoral. Good work if you have the lack of values to do it.
You guys are also deluded to think that a career politician like Maxine who lives in a $5 million mansion is going to take on the Wall Street oligarchy.
does she speak on your behalf or about your desires/concerns? Do you live in her district ?
I may regret asking this, but . . .Cal88 said:The main way to control the masses is to make them believe that the other half in this Hegelian left-right dialectic is absolute evil, and the root cause of all their problems. This thread and your post above is a perfect illustration of this.blungld said:"I mean, those rich people, they're better than us. Why should they have to give their money away? It's theirs. They earned it. They give us our jobs and if we tax them they will take our jobs and their money and go somewhere else."B.A. Bearacus said:
"Why would we oppose the increasing concentration of wealth in the top half of the top half of the top 1%? That's their god-given right."
It's all such a crock. Who doesn't "earn" their money? What part did luck or inheritance or favorable policy play in loading the deck in their favor? Are they not part of a system and society? Isn't the very concept of money a socially agreed system of value and trading that connects us all. Are we not social beings? They are not magical entrepreneurs grown in a vacuum and showering us with their gifts--and if they are so great and benevolent, why are so many of them so morally bankrupt and complete sociopathic narcissists?
And no they didn't do it by themselves. And it is not giving it away or stealing if there is a system in place where after having more than enough to live an opulent life, that their over abundance of cash goes back into the system so that the system itself can keep functioning for every part of the system.
And it's not a democracy if cash corners power so that policy and propaganda creates wealth for the wealthy. And it's not trickle down when the wealth accumulated in the system buys the system and parks itself outside the system for the benefit of no one other than those controlling the system.
And if they take their money and jobs and leave, better more equitable things will rise in their place, or else you don't believe in competition and capitalism from the get go and instead believe in divine right of kings and oligarchy and the noblesse oblige.
The GOP playbook: distract the masses with artificial Faith and Patriotism, keep them angry, and then steal the masses money while accusing those who would have them pay a fair share of trying to steal THEIR money and of being anti-God, anti-Patriotism Socialists. It's brilliantly evil and amoral. Good work if you have the lack of values to do it.
You guys are also deluded to think that a career politician like Maxine who lives in a $5 million mansion is going to take on the Wall Street oligarchy.
So let me understand your point, the policies she wants to put in place are less important than any perceived hypocrisy? And if someone has benefitted from a system they are not allowed to be critical or want to change it or to have empathy for those who have not benefitted from it? And if she has a nice house, then every critical analysis of the current economic conditions in America are wrong, and there is nothing to consider in looking at changing tax policy, election reform, national health care, education, etc...we shouldn't even discuss it and you shouldn't even consider if the left have some valid concerns because she has a nice house.Cal88 said:
The main way to control the masses is to make them believe that the other half in this Hegelian left-right dialectic is absolute evil, and the root cause of all their problems. This thread and your post above is a perfect illustration of this.
You guys are also deluded to think that a career politician like Maxine who lives in a $5 million mansion is going to take on the Wall Street oligarchy.
So, no response Cal88?blungld said:So let me understand your point, the policies she wants to put in place are less important than any perceived hypocrisy? And if someone has benefitted from a system they are not allowed to be critical or want to change it or to have empathy for those who have not benefitted from it? And if she has a nice house, then every critical analysis of the current economic conditions in America are wrong, and there is nothing to consider in looking at changing tax policy, election reform, national health care, education, etc...we shouldn't even discuss it and you shouldn't even consider if the left have some valid concerns because she has a nice house.Cal88 said:
The main way to control the masses is to make them believe that the other half in this Hegelian left-right dialectic is absolute evil, and the root cause of all their problems. This thread and your post above is a perfect illustration of this.
You guys are also deluded to think that a career politician like Maxine who lives in a $5 million mansion is going to take on the Wall Street oligarchy.
I have led a very successful life and have all the fruits of the capitalist system, and yet I think it is a sham and completely unjust and agree in taxing income and wealth at much higher rates, and I don't believe for a second the propaganda the rich declare to sound smart, generous, and as if they hold mysterious wisdom the poor do not understand (If I am rich, you will do a little better too, get it?).
The simple truth is that most rich people lack empathy and their greed has no limit and that's often exactly why they are rich. And so unfortunately they have to be controlled by government because they won't control themselves. But of course, I'm not Pro-Life, I just actually give a sh&t about other people actually having a life worth living and see every person as just as worthy of that life as me.
dajo9 said:
Cal88 is part if the con. If you are successful then you can't really be for change. If you aren't successful then you aren't successful and can't make change. He's the same guy who posted a YouTube video a few weeks ago about Waters that was a lie.
His whole agenda is to support oligarchs like Trump and Putin.
sycasey said:
Oh by the way, this claim about Maxine Waters living in a $5 million mansion is probably false, almost certainly exaggerated.
https://www.truthorfiction.com/poor-maxine-waters-mansion/
That was the first link that came up when I Googled "Maxine Waters mansion," so this wasn't hard to research. Cal88, are we making these arguments to actually reach a greater understanding about an issue or is it just to "win" the argument, no matter what?
oski003 said:sycasey said:
Oh by the way, this claim about Maxine Waters living in a $5 million mansion is probably false, almost certainly exaggerated.
https://www.truthorfiction.com/poor-maxine-waters-mansion/
That was the first link that came up when I Googled "Maxine Waters mansion," so this wasn't hard to research. Cal88, are we making these arguments to actually reach a greater understanding about an issue or is it just to "win" the argument, no matter what?
How come the link in your link lists the home as being worth 4.95 million? Did someone hack it? This doesn't make sense...
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/549-S-Lucerne-Blvd_Los-Angeles_CA_90020_M18680-51471
sycasey said:oski003 said:sycasey said:
Oh by the way, this claim about Maxine Waters living in a $5 million mansion is probably false, almost certainly exaggerated.
https://www.truthorfiction.com/poor-maxine-waters-mansion/
That was the first link that came up when I Googled "Maxine Waters mansion," so this wasn't hard to research. Cal88, are we making these arguments to actually reach a greater understanding about an issue or is it just to "win" the argument, no matter what?
How come the link in your link lists the home as being worth 4.95 million? Did someone hack it? This doesn't make sense...
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/549-S-Lucerne-Blvd_Los-Angeles_CA_90020_M18680-51471
That's a fair question. I'm not sure. My guess is that they're quoting stats from the time the claim was made, which are no longer reflected there now (California real estate having a tendency to gain value rapidly, which is also one of the points raised in the article).
sycasey said:oski003 said:sycasey said:
Oh by the way, this claim about Maxine Waters living in a $5 million mansion is probably false, almost certainly exaggerated.
https://www.truthorfiction.com/poor-maxine-waters-mansion/
That was the first link that came up when I Googled "Maxine Waters mansion," so this wasn't hard to research. Cal88, are we making these arguments to actually reach a greater understanding about an issue or is it just to "win" the argument, no matter what?
How come the link in your link lists the home as being worth 4.95 million? Did someone hack it? This doesn't make sense...
https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/549-S-Lucerne-Blvd_Los-Angeles_CA_90020_M18680-51471
That's a fair question. I'm not sure. My guess is that they're quoting stats from the time the claim was made, which are no longer reflected there now (California real estate having a tendency to gain value rapidly, which is also one of the points raised in the article).
