Do you remember how that turned out for you last time... meaning like a day ago?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT | Hickenlooper makes it to the debate
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
LOL you wouldn't know good faith if a nun flashed you.
Do you seriously think this thread needed a reminder that Bernie hasn't released tax returns yet? As if it wasn't discussed yesterday or hell, probably even earlier today?
And comparing the sanders institute, an organization that raised less than a million dollars total, to the clinton foundation is insane. Talk about bad faith.
See, good point. But then you're basically saying you'll need growth for a long long time to come with other countries still bringing people in anyway.
It doesn't require rich people for hoarding behavior to cause recession/depression.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: we were well on our way to handle climate change decades ago, democracy through nimbyism fucked it up. And eco-socialism would likely still rule out nuclear and thus be insufficient (It's why I'm not a fan of GND).
Like, watch this when you have a chance.
Basically makes all the points I would from the perspective of someone who used to be anti-nuclear pro-renewable.
As for white nationalism, well I don't think that's really going to go away in a different form of government.
Reminder that that's not a plus for him and he announced 1.5 days ago and hasn't been saying soon since 2015. Like, this is the LIMPEST whataboutism you could possibly take up.
Yeah, one's an A-rated charity and the other paid a loser step-son 100K even though he had no experience in the field and seemingly didn't do much of anything.
Comparing them would be bad faith.
User Warned: Off-Topic Thread Derail
"What if it was Chelsea Clinton" is an interesting question given rose twitter folks just confronted her at a vigil to blame her for the murder of 49 Muslims...
https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1106709262472900609
https://twitter.com/wajahatali/status/1106729935840919553
https://twitter.com/notcapnamerica/status/1106715050222538753
Waiting for Bernie to condemn...
She's been saying that same line since the onset, not that I don't think she'd be better off actually identifying said groups properly.
Bernie winning is not a guarantee that will happen, though. There's nothing stopping Bernie's followers turning on him for being a lame duck, ideology or not. This is the risk of having a base who don't like to compromise.
His base. C'mon, there is no proof more will come - it's possible, but it's not written in stone.
Yeah probably, but I already know socialist utopia isn't happening in my lifetime now. When I die I'll be lucky to see a Democratic Socialist (in the strict sense of the term) America.
Let me correct myself, when I say "growth" I mean in the purely financial, shareholder, asset value sense. I don't think generic "growth" is impossible under socialism, and a form of economy that prioritizes human wellbeing over capital value and accumulation will naturally grow to meet the needs of its people, especially with ROBOT MAGIC.
I think this is a trigger for it. Orthodox economics view them as "shocks" that just come and go, but Marxist economists say it's due to lack of investment by capital.
Nimbyism is a product of capitalism. Every obstacle we have towards switching to nuclear extends from capitalism (preserving the stability of the energy sector, oil lobby, etc).
I understand a lot of lefties are anti-nuclear but this is not me. I'm pro-nuclear power. I'll watch it when I can though, I already went through the first few minutes a while back.
Nothing is written in stone, these are all gambles and bets that I'm willing to take because I believe the payoff is worth the risk.
Fortunately the black church in a 47% black city was like 98% white for Bernie's event so not many non-white folks were around to be personally offended by her comments…
I get this deserves criticism, but can y'all find a better source for your tweets this guy's takes are consistently garbage and he's always posted in these threads.
Long-form interview with Buttigieg:
He had great answers to just about everything, and the questions were pretty good, too.
He had great answers to just about everything, and the questions were pretty good, too.
The point is to mock Bernie critics with unhealthy obsessions with the man. He's definitely the best example of "unhealthy Bernie-obsessed critic".
Eh. We'll see where things go. I'm more concerned about the next step and the only choices we have are better than the other side next steps. I'm not really ideologically centered, persay. Though, you might have guessed that by now.
Financial growth is a representation of generic growth (Whether future or present). In either case, the irony is our visions of the super long term future are probably not THAT different with ROBOT MAGIC.
I mean, this is a huge oversimplification of economics. Like, it's not JUST people saving too much that causes recessions. You got droughts, dust bowls, inability to pay back debt, too little regulation allowing unsustainable actions, bad regulation killing industries, war, external factors etc.
But on the saving front, a good example of it not being just a rich people problem is Japan, where everyone saves and it's a massive anchor on their economy.
The nuclear turn around was more about a couple scares that had outsized influence on people's perception. It was a matter of fear of scary radiation not sector security. The push for nuclear was more of a jingoist/federalist combination (Gotta get energy security, beat the commies to more nuclear energy, gotta have a stable energy infrastructure, etc.), but things only really started slowing on that front when chernobyl and three mile island happened. It wasn't capitalism that stopped it.
Well, that's good to hear. Still, a good bit to watch.
Financial growth without adequate redistribution is not an accurate marker of generic growth. This is why GDP is deceptive and socially conscious economists are pushing for welfare indexes. It's the root of the Bill Gates enters a Bar Stats 101 example. (Links are for the benefit of viewers, not necessarily for you since you probably don't need them.)
Capitalism doesn't have redistribution at its core. Redistribution is not incompatible with capitalism per se, but capitalism creates the kind of people who're anti-redistribution, and empowers these people via the institution of money to push back against redistribution.
Redistribution of wealth is fundamental to socialism, at least all forms of it I'm familiar and truck with.
Probably.
Right, it's a saving problem in general, but when half your country's wealth is owned by a couple of thousand people, when they decide to save it's as if half the country decided to save, leading to Japan, which is still in a long recession by some measurements.
The fear of scary radiation being near your apartment driving the value down is capitalism. The sustained perception of nuclear being scary and organizations fearmongering about it to suppress nuclear energy or just for business is capitalism. Politicians not being able to run on nuclear because they won't get financial support for it and might even get financial opposition for it is capitalism.
And even if Chernobyl didn't happen, do you think the oil industry would just roll over and die? They'd fight it tooth and nail like they're doing with green energy, and green energy industries will also fight against nuclear to preserve their forthcoming market dominance over oil and gas. Competing capital interests slows you down. It's democracy that's "flexible", but I wouldn't confuse capitalism under democracy for capitalism in and of itself. I think "democratic socialism" would be just as flexible, but also that it'd bend society towards maximizing human welfare and not shareholder profits.
Why does bernie need to condemn random lunatics again when he already put out a statement
Your schtick is getting old
Don't know what this rose Twitter beef is about, but her jumping on Ilhan reeked of whitesplaining hate speech to some one whose grew up experiencing it her whole life and like many others the subconscious racism of being as uncharitable as possible to pocs showed itself. I have zero love for her.
Why wouldn't he? Does Bernie want to be associated with them, because by not doing that is accepting their behaviour into his group.
He is? I think its pretty fucking clear he's against that behavior. And again "rose twitter" is not "bernie Sanders staffers"
So harassing her is justified I guess? Just say it lol, you want to.
Said a blue checkmark, without irony.
Needn't have to be staffer for Bernie to have to disassociate from them. Bernie's history with being clear about separating himself from bad actors is rocky to start with. The dude does the absolute minimum too often then expects everyone to move on, which may be fine with his followers but when you're trying to run for POTUS it's bad optics.
The discourse in this thread is embarrassingly childish to an alarming degree. I wouldn't be surprised if this thread ends up getting locked if things keep going how they have been since its inception.
Really? You don't think Rose Twitter are fans of Bernie?
I'll go the distance and establish this link between Chelsea Clinton's harasser and Bernie.
cached tweets
cached tweets
You're saying rose twitter as if it's actually a sizeable amount of people blaming clinton. Also more than most of the party sure but Bernie still isnt a socialist.
Not online. This is a lunatic publicly blaming Chelsea Clinton for a terrorist attack at a vigil, wearing a Bernie shirt. Distancing you from people like that is not a bad idea and would send a clear message.
I read all the replies assuming it was a joint effort and its literally one dude and hes not even in the top few replies
This is embarassing.
This is embarassing.
How many people there were isn't the issue, what matters is whether this gets noticed by enough of the electorate which is possible since Chelsea Clinton isn't a random person and how this reflects on Bernie. Simply put, there is downside for Bernie to condemn them. Bernie's an admitted Social Democrat.
If it gets picked up then sure yeah of course. Right now its a single twitter reply that has 0 replies and is down the page.
Unless Im missing something
I'm going to role switch for a moment because this is ludicrous.
If you're going to hit Bernie on something, do it on something substantial like him not using the "T" word in his Christchurch, and not something petty like what one of his supporters said to Chelsea Clinton at NYU today.
If you're going to hit Bernie on something, do it on something substantial like him not using the "T" word in his Christchurch, and not something petty like what one of his supporters said to Chelsea Clinton at NYU today.
Do you really want to do that after all the bullshit the Bernie Bros did in '16? Bernie's rep can't afford a repeat, or looking like he doesn't care about his followers attacking people. This is politics, everything is possible to affect the campaign. Accountability isn't just for liberals and centrists.
He wins it above board, rather than the bullshit he pulled in '16, it'll be fine.
He pulled bullshit in '16? Both him and Clinton played it pretty safe.
Its bullshit that beto and booker and gillibrand thought being wishywashy is a good idea
- Status