Llevron Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 33 minutes ago, PeterMP said: 1. I missed that and can't find it. Can you post it? He didn’t actually say Bernie would shoot me in the streets though he implied it pretty heavily. So my bad. Quote 2. I'm also always confused by this idea of "fairness" in the corporate media. Essentially, by law, they are obligated to maximize the value to their share holders. I guess if they aren't acting in that manner, then you could argue they aren't be "fair". But I don't see any evidence of that. Im not really arguing they should be fair. Just that they actually haven’t been with him andrew him saying so isn’t a problem. He’s not calling them the enemy of the people so the comparison to Trump to me is a bit much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 10 minutes ago, bearrock said: Dumbass people in the media =/= All media Booing reporters at rallies =/= calling out dumbass people in the media. Ok but at the same time Bernie Bros =/= to ALL Bernie Sanders supporters Booing reporters =/= to Trump supporters. You are asking me to make distinctions that you yourself don’t seem to be willing to make. My entire ire point is that the media IS biased against him and they have shown as much. And there is nothing wrong with calling them about about it. Are any of you telling me that is not the case? Cause that’s literally all I am arguing. You guys act act like it’s some sort of sin to point out that you are over exaggerating greatly some of the issues his campaign has. He’s not going out there and saying the media are the enemy of the people. He’s saying they have bias. We all know this is true. Me pointing that out isn’t a “laugh emoji” type deal. It’s actually true. You can be adult enough to admit that and still admit he has problems with his bros Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 Bernie supporters who act awful online are not representative of Bernie, his campaign, and his supporters. Bernie supporters who act awful at rallies are not representative of Bernie, his campaign, and his supporters. Bernie surrogates and staff members who act awful online, on tv, and in person are not representative of Bernie, his campaign, and his supporters. Bernie Sanders when he acts awful online, on tv, and in person is not.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 14 minutes ago, PeterMP said: So I think he's probably making a distinction there between any way in which you get health care without co-pays or deductibles (Sander's plan or the more historic work-based plans that frequently didn't have much in terms of co-pays or deductibles) and the Nordic countries approaches. Sorry, but that's just not what's he wrote about. His entire premise is that Sanders has some "fantasy" about how Northern European countries operate, implying that those countries don't do anything like what Sanders envisions, using some really, really dubious stats and arguments. He suggests those countries aren't really the leftist economies that Bernie talks of, but says they use "market-friendly" (which is code for free market capitalist, or right wing, economics) which is just false. Some of the reasons this is just lidcroulsy misleading I've explained. To single out the one point about co-pays and suggest that he was really just trying on that one point to talk of the difference between Socialist healthcare with small copies and without is juts patently beside the points he's making in the whole article. I'm not going to keep re-hashing this. The context of the article is quite obvious. And it is most definitely not that he wouldn't be making his "points" if Bernie just had some deductibles in his plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 It occurs to me that Amy and Pete dropping out might hasten Barack Obama's endorsement of Joe Biden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 23 minutes ago, bearrock said: With the top tax at 52% under Sanders, billionaires need to earn 10-16% return every year to outpace the tax (when you factor in that not all assets are investments, the performance of investment assets need to be much higher). Bill Gates, with 60% of assets invested in stocks, increased his net worth by 16% last year. And that was an extremely good year for the stock market. Which wouldn't in any way, shape or form "eliminate all billionaires". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 19 minutes ago, Llevron said: Ok but at the same time Bernie Bros =/= to ALL Bernie Sanders supporters I was the one who hypothesized in this thread that Bernie Bros make up 5-10% of his supporters at max. So I certainly wasn't the one who said Bernie Bros equal all of his supporters. Quote Booing reporters =/= to Trump supporters. You are asking me to make distinctions that you yourself don’t seem to be willing to make. One's behavior doesn't have to descend to the depths of idiocy of the Trump supporters to be wrong. Terribly wrong. I didn't say what Sanders crowd did at rallies was Trumpian. In fact, the reporter's tweet specifically noted that it's nowhere near Trump. But it is objectively terrible behavior in political discourse to boo at the media covering political rallies. Doubly so if the candidate, his campaign, and his real supporters aren't calling out this bs. Instead of taking the bunker mentality of "us against the world", how about if some of these rational Sanders supporters take a look a the morons standing next to them and start calling them out? Isn't that precisely what we criticize the GOP for failing to do in the Trump era? Quote My entire ire point is that the media IS biased against him and they have shown as much. And there is nothing wrong with calling them about about it. Are any of you telling me that is not the case? Cause that’s literally all I am arguing. You guys act act like it’s some sort of sin to point out that you are over exaggerating greatly some of the issues his campaign has. He’s not going out there and saying the media are the enemy of the people. He’s saying they have bias. We all know this is true. Me pointing that out isn’t a “laugh emoji” type deal. It’s actually true. You can be adult enough to admit that and still admit he has problems with his bros Did anyone here or anywhere else defend Chris Matthews and his stupid take? See a biased media coverage? Call it out (not by doxxing or any of the stupid ways) and criticize. But not taking questions from Wapo? Booing reporters at rallies? That's a bridge too far. And it ceases to be just a problem with his bros if the reasonable people in his movement stand silently while the bros crash and burn political discourse in this country on this side of the aisle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 It's ok everyone...here comes our hero.... 😂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 8 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said: Which wouldn't in any way, shape or form "eliminate all billionaires". You lose 5-8% of your net worth every year (minus whatever you can make back) until you are no longer a billionaire. You don't think that's a policy aimed at eliminating billionaires? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted March 2, 2020 Share Posted March 2, 2020 35 minutes ago, Llevron said: He didn’t actually say Bernie would shoot me in the streets though he implied it pretty heavily. So my bad. Im not really arguing they should be fair. Just that they actually haven’t been with him andrew him saying so isn’t a problem. He’s not calling them the enemy of the people so the comparison to Trump to me is a bit much. He also didn't say if the Bernie socialist win. He's talking about pro-Soviet Socialist from the 1950s. I think his concerns are somewhat ludicrous in that there was like no chance of it happening, but given what happened in Cuba and the Soviet Union the idea that IF (where that's a big if) the US had fallen under Soviet sponsored socialist in the 1950s, the idea that some people would have been shot doesn't seem that outrageous If they are treating all of the politicians in a way that maximizes value to their share holders, isn't that fair? I'd agree. He's not as bad as Trump, right now. But Trump didn't start by calling the media the enemy of the people. Trump didn't wake up one day and say let me just go crazy on the media. He's ramped it up over time as his supporters have either excused it embraced it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 The idea that the media has been "anti-Bernie is actually pretty damned comical. 90% of the candidates that ran this year wish they had gotten half the coverage Bernie did. Warren's campaign wishes Bernie had gotten a fraction of the "how are you going to pay for it" pushback she did. Biden's campaign wishes all Sanders' early career comments on Communism had gotten the play Biden's Crime and Bankruptcy bills had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 22 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said: To single out the one point about co-pays and suggest that he was really just trying on that one point to talk of the difference between Socialist healthcare with small copies and without is juts patently beside the points he's making in the whole article. I'm not going to keep re-hashing this. The context of the article is quite obvious. And it is most definitely not that he wouldn't be making his "points" if Bernie just had some deductibles in his plan. His point is that Bernie's plan is a far left plan even compared to more left leaning capitalist countries, like the Nordic countries. While I think he misrepresents some points, he's generally correct. The health care thing is part of it. You make an argument by building pieces together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 First Public Enemy, now Hardball...what's next? 😉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 1 minute ago, PeterMP said: He also didn't say if the Bernie socialist win. He's talking about pro-Soviet Socialist from the 1950s. I get he didn’t directly say that Bernie was going to kill him. But he wasn’t that far off. I feel like it was pretty clear what he was saying. It’s not much different than the Limbaugh “just asking the question” deal where he says would Bernie do that?? I could be reading way into it I guess. He definitely didn’t flat out say Bernie would shoot him so obviously I’m reading something into it. I don’t think it’s fair though. And if I was the person he was talking about, I sure wouldnt. 1 minute ago, PeterMP said: If they are treating all of the politicians in a way that maximizes value to their share holders, isn't that fair? Not if one politician is good for their share holders while the next isn’t. Ultimately what you are saying is they prioritize what makes them the most money and their coverage is slanted in that way. This is Bernie’s argument. Im not saying it’s wrong. I’m saying it’s true and there is nothing wrong with saying it out loud if it’s true. I don’t feel like we disagree here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 1 minute ago, visionary said: First Public Enemy, now Hardball...what's next? 😉 I just saw that...Kornacki is blown away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 10 minutes ago, Rufus T Firefly said: The idea that the media has been "anti-Bernie is actually pretty damned comical. Ok they are “pro share holder interest” is Bernie the best candidate for their share holders? Or is he the one actively talking about taxing them as high as he can get away with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 12 minutes ago, bearrock said: You lose 5-8% of your net worth every year (minus whatever you can make back) until you are no longer a billionaire. You don't think that's a policy aimed at eliminating billionaires? Nope. Because that's not how reality works. https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/billionaires-bezos-buffett-gates-zuckerberg-fortunes-warren-sanders-wealth-taxes-2019-11-1028685421#bloomberg-lp-founder-michael-bloomberg-actual-2018-net-worth-51-8-billion3 Quote Walmart heir Jim Walton — actual 2018 net worth: $45.2 billion Net worth under Sanders' wealth tax: $5 billion That's 40 years of the highest assumed wealth tax and assuming zero avoidance rate (which in practice is a laughable assumption) and he's still very comfortably a billionaire. No, it would not eliminate all billionaires. Here's, btw, Sanders own comments on the wealth tax: Quote “It eliminates a lot of the wealth that billionaires have, and I think that’s exactly what we should be doing.” Which, back to the original point, not anything about a plan to "eliminate all billionaires". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 I don’t want you guys to think I don’t think they should boo the media. I’m just saying the media isn’t helping at all when they say crazy **** about this guy people are so emotionally invested in. You know how these dudes act when they feel like the world is against them. If we could all act more civilized that would be great. People with loud voices like Bernie and the media could sure do more to help accomplish that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CousinsCowgirl84 Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 Poor chris... finally getting ****canned, Maybe he will join fox. Also, i didn’t know gabbard was still running, but i just got a text message from her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rufus T Firefly Posted March 3, 2020 Share Posted March 3, 2020 8 minutes ago, PeterMP said: His point is that Bernie's plan is a far left plan even compared to more left leaning capitalist countries, like the Nordic countries. No it isn't. From his own thesis paragraph: Quote The image he conjures up is of a warm and fuzzy social democracy in which market economics are kept on a tight leash through regulation, the rich are heavily taxed and the social safety net is generous. That is, however, an inaccurate and highly misleading description of those Northern European countries today. I'm done re-litigating this. The author's (false) premise is obvious and it's nothing to do with 'Bernie's health care plan is slightly left of Sweden's.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.