And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

Started by JBS, June 26, 2019, 05:40:42 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

drogulus

Quote from: 71 dB on July 11, 2019, 02:08:37 PM
What do you want to be done?

     I want what people want and Repubs block. Health care, infrastructure, jobs, better wages, a modernized safety net with paid parental leave, protection of reproductive rights in federal law. No good purpose is served by subjecting so many people to medical bankruptcy. Oh, and the Green New Deal begun before the laggards realize we are going to have to do it.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

71 dB

#81
Quote from: drogulus on July 11, 2019, 08:50:08 PM
     I want what people want and Repubs block. Health care, infrastructure, jobs, better wages, a modernized safety net with paid parental leave, protection of reproductive rights in federal law. No good purpose is served by subjecting so many people to medical bankruptcy. Oh, and the Green New Deal begun before the laggards realize we are going to have to do it.

Well I can tell you this: Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg (of those who have a chance in this race) won't do those things. A few of them at best. Why? They have been collecting too much money from wealthy people who would suffer from these changes. The more you are in the politics for the power/status and money instead of genuine will to improve the country and lives of regular people the more you are willing to sell out your principles and in an oligarchy rich people are wready to hand over their money for political services: tax cuts, relaxing regulations, blocking progressive ideas and so forth.

So, for progressive policy what's left is Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders from the top 5 candidates (Tulsi Gabbard unfortunately doesn't have a chance this time around. maybe in the future?). Elizabeth Warren's average campaign donation during Q2 was $28 while Bernie Sander's got $18 on average. Bernie Sanders is the true progressive of the top 5 candidates. Elizabeth Warren is progressive-light. Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden are Republican-lights of various degree.


  • If you want medicare for all you vote for Bernie Sanders
  • If you want public option you vote for Elizabeth Warren
  • If you want tweaks around the corners of Obamacare you vote for Kamala Harris or Pete Buttigieg
  • If you want nothing to change (you are the CEO of an insurance company) you vote for Joe Biden

Spatial distortion is a serious problem deteriorating headphone listening.
Crossfeeders reduce spatial distortion and make the sound more natural
and less tiresome in headphone listening.

My Sound Cloud page <-- NEW Jan. 2024 "Harpeggiator"

drogulus

Quote from: 71 dB on July 12, 2019, 02:28:03 AM
Well I can tell you this: Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg (of those who have a chance in this race) won't do those things. A few of them at best. Why? They have been collecting too much money from wealthy people who would suffer from these changes. The more you are in the politics for the power/status and money instead of genuine will to improve the country and lives of regular people the more you are willing to sell out your principles and in an oligarchy rich people are wready to hand over their money for political services: tax cuts, relaxing regulations, blocking progressive ideas and so forth.

So, for progressive policy what's left is Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders from the top 5 candidates (Tulsi Gabbard unfortunately doesn't have a chance this time around. maybe in the future?). Elizabeth Warren's average campaign donation during Q2 was $28 while Bernie Sander's got $18 on average. Bernie Sanders is the true progressive of the top 5 candidates. Elizabeth Warren is progressive-light. Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden are Republican-lights of various degree.


  • If you want medicare for all you vote for Bernie Sanders
  • If you want public option you vote for Elizabeth Warren
  • If you want tweaks around the corners of Obamacare you vote for Kamala Harris or Pete Buttigieg
  • If you want nothing to change (you are the CEO of an insurance company) you vote for Joe Biden



     All of them will do some of the things I want, none of them will do all of them. The leftmost will promise the most, the centermost the least. We won't know who would accomplish the most.

     I'm not interested in electing a placard. I want the stuff by any means I can get it, more stuff, not more promises, more stuff.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

amw

No presidential candidate will be able to enact "Medicare for All" or a "public option" (or tuition free college, universal child care, or whatever else candidates' flagship policies are) without also replacing the 20-30 Senate Democrats and 80-120 House Democrats who oppose those policies, as well as the 40-50 Senate Republicans and 170-200 House Republicans who also oppose those policies. So it's kind of irrelevant what any of them promise domestically unless they solve that problem first.

greg

Quote from: amw on July 11, 2019, 07:47:49 PM
This is a deeply amoral perspective & unfortunately a common one: "oh the Romans, Greeks, Mongols, Egyptians and Huns all benefited from their genocide and slavery, so we should also get to benefit from our genocide and slavery." As though those things are simply relative evils that can be outweighed by some people now being able to own a car and an iPhone. The historical cycle does have to stop somewhere & my view is that it should stop now; nothing to do with "atoning for the past". Genocide and slavery are ongoing realities in the USA—first nations peoples despite making up only about 2% of the population of USA & Canada still have their children taken away by the state, their land seized to build oil pipelines, and experience the highest rate of police brutality. Black and Latino americans make up about 12% and 15% of the population respectively but a sizeable majority of the prison slave labour force subsisting on $1 or less per day, and an equally large proportion in the workforce but still not making a living wage. These are all things we can stop doing at any time, and make redress for (but that's impossible in the current political climate).
Well, reading this was amusing. This must be a whole different reality here.

Not sure what genocide and slavery is going on the US now... (prison labor isn't the same as slavery btw- slavery is bad because it includes people that didn't deserve it. Not saying all prison inmates deserve it but still).
Wagie wagie get back in the cagie

SimonNZ

Joe Biden's Senate records could answer questions about his past actions — but they're being kept secret

"Joe Biden's effort to make his lengthy experience the central issue of his campaign has been confounded by questions about his actions during almost four decades as a U.S. senator, on issues including criminal justice, busing and the hearings into the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Those questions might be answered in the massive trove of Senate records he donated eight years ago to the University of Delaware under an agreement that they could be made public by early this year.

But the records are being kept secret, following new terms the university posted on its website just before Biden made his presidential campaign official in April.

Biden has sought to blunt criticism of his past actions by putting the most positive spin on them, but the limited availability of documents from his 36-year Senate career complicates a full evaluation of his record.

The collection of documents that Biden donated to his alma mater fills 1,875 boxes and also includes 415 gigabytes of electronic records. It includes committee reports, drafts of legislation and correspondence.

At the time of the donation, the university's then-president, Patrick Harker, thanked Biden for providing "an abundance of materials that will illuminate decades of U.S. policy and diplomacy and the vice president's critical role in its development."

Starting in 2011 and for years after, the university had described the terms of the agreement as keeping the papers sealed "for two years after Biden retires from public office." But this year, on the day before Biden announced his presidential campaign, the university changed the way that it described those terms.

Instead of citing his departure from "public office," the university said the documents would not be made public until two years after Biden "retires from public life" or after Dec. 31, 2019, whichever is later. It did not define what is considered "public life."

"The entire collection is unavailable," said Andrea Boyle Tippett, a spokeswoman for the University of Delaware. "Its contents will become available, as the website indicates, when Mr. Biden retires from public life."

"As he is currently running for office, he is in public life," she said. "Since retirement for anyone, not just public figures, takes different forms, I can't speculate beyond that."
[...]

The Biden archive — whose closure was also reported in April by HuffPost — could shed light on some of the most consequential moments of his career. Among the areas of interest would be the 1994 crime bill, his work in 1982 and 2006 on reauthorizations of the Voting Rights Act, as well as his stance against busing as a means of integrating the schools and his actions in limiting witnesses in the Thomas hearings.

The documents also could showcase his foreign policy views, including the internal deliberations that led to his support for the Iraq War as well as letters and meetings he had with world leaders over decades. He has argued that he was a pioneer in efforts to blunt climate change — speaking out and filing legislation in 1986 — and his papers could provide more detail.

Biden has at times played down or misrepresented his record — saying last weekend, for example, that he did not support more funding for state prisons, even though in 1994 he argued for $6 billion in such funding.

On busing, his current campaign aides have argued that Biden never opposed the right of local communities to implement voluntary busing plans, a distinction that Biden often did not make in interviews and news articles in which he called busing "an asinine concept, the utility of which has never been proven to me."

Biden also has argued recently that he fought against everything that a group of segregationist senators stood for — even though letters found in the archives of Sen. James O. Eastland, a longtime Democratic senator from Mississippi, illustrate how Biden solicited his help on antibusing legislation. Biden's own papers could include additional correspondence with Eastland, as well as other segregationist senators whom he served with at the start of his career.

During his Senate years, the future vice president served in multiple key roles, including as chairman of the Judiciary and Foreign Relations committees.
"The Biden papers will be a great boon for scholars of American political history in the 20th and 21st century," Brinkley said. "There will be notes on Anita Hill, segregation, busing and on and on. . . . Just seeing what the incoming was into his office, and seeing copies of letters Biden wrote in response — it'll be a rich trove."

SimonNZ


schnittkease

Quote from: 71 dB on July 12, 2019, 02:28:03 AM
Well I can tell you this: Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg (of those who have a chance in this race) won't do those things. A few of them at best. Why? They have been collecting too much money from wealthy people who would suffer from these changes. The more you are in the politics for the power/status and money instead of genuine will to improve the country and lives of regular people the more you are willing to sell out your principles and in an oligarchy rich people are wready to hand over their money for political services: tax cuts, relaxing regulations, blocking progressive ideas and so forth.

So, for progressive policy what's left is Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders from the top 5 candidates (Tulsi Gabbard unfortunately doesn't have a chance this time around. maybe in the future?). Elizabeth Warren's average campaign donation during Q2 was $28 while Bernie Sander's got $18 on average. Bernie Sanders is the true progressive of the top 5 candidates. Elizabeth Warren is progressive-light. Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden are Republican-lights of various degree.


  • If you want medicare for all you vote for Bernie Sanders
  • If you want public option you vote for Elizabeth Warren
  • If you want tweaks around the corners of Obamacare you vote for Kamala Harris or Pete Buttigieg
  • If you want nothing to change (you are the CEO of an insurance company) you vote for Joe Biden

Thanks for expressing this better than I could.

71 dB

Quote from: schnittkease on July 13, 2019, 11:07:54 PM
Thanks for expressing this better than I could.

Thanks! I appreciate this. I am able to express these things pretty well, because I have followed these things quite a lot for 2 and a half years from sources that I believe give good information about these things. As Kyle Kulinski puts it: "You are hypereducated about these things because you listen to me. Go and spread the word."  ;D
Spatial distortion is a serious problem deteriorating headphone listening.
Crossfeeders reduce spatial distortion and make the sound more natural
and less tiresome in headphone listening.

My Sound Cloud page <-- NEW Jan. 2024 "Harpeggiator"

71 dB

Quote from: amw on July 12, 2019, 07:37:43 AM
No presidential candidate will be able to enact "Medicare for All" or a "public option" (or tuition free college, universal child care, or whatever else candidates' flagship policies are) without also replacing the 20-30 Senate Democrats and 80-120 House Democrats who oppose those policies, as well as the 40-50 Senate Republicans and 170-200 House Republicans who also oppose those policies. So it's kind of irrelevant what any of them promise domestically unless they solve that problem first.

You think this way, because presidents haven't really fought for medicare for all. That would have been working against the interests of your donours. Kyle Kulinski would do this as the president: He would call every person in congress against medicare for all to the oval office and tell them that medicare for all is an non-debateable issue: Vast majority of the people want it, it saves money and is morally the right thing to do. So, president Kyle Kulinski would tell that he will campaign against every person in congress who is not for medicare for all. Good luck getting re-elected! That's how you FIGHT. Of course you are not able to do anything if you don't fight and you surrender to the Reps like Nancy Pelosi. If you fight you will get things done. The problem the Dems have is they are too corrupt to fight for the regular people. If they start fighting like some of them such as AOC, Ilhan Omar, regular people would vote for them more and the Republicans would come the "fringe" party for conservative billionaires and uneducated ignorant people having ~30 % support.
Spatial distortion is a serious problem deteriorating headphone listening.
Crossfeeders reduce spatial distortion and make the sound more natural
and less tiresome in headphone listening.

My Sound Cloud page <-- NEW Jan. 2024 "Harpeggiator"

drogulus

#90
Quote from: amw on July 12, 2019, 07:37:43 AM
No presidential candidate will be able to enact "Medicare for All" or a "public option" (or tuition free college, universal child care, or whatever else candidates' flagship policies are) without also replacing the 20-30 Senate Democrats and 80-120 House Democrats who oppose those policies, as well as the 40-50 Senate Republicans and 170-200 House Republicans who also oppose those policies. So it's kind of irrelevant what any of them promise domestically unless they solve that problem first.

     I want what I can't get, but also what I can get. The left/left always treats the "can't get" stuff as the only stuff.  It must come from their historical fixation on total power.
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:123.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/123.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

JBS

Quote from: 71 dB on July 14, 2019, 07:24:35 AM
You think this way, because presidents haven't really fought for medicare for all. That would have been working against the interests of your donours. Kyle Kulinski would do this as the president: He would call every person in congress against medicare for all to the oval office and tell them that medicare for all is an non-debateable issue: Vast majority of the people want it, it saves money and is morally the right thing to do. So, president Kyle Kulinski would tell that he will campaign against every person in congress who is not for medicare for all. Good luck getting re-elected! That's how you FIGHT. Of course you are not able to do anything if you don't fight and you surrender to the Reps like Nancy Pelosi. If you fight you will get things done. The problem the Dems have is they are too corrupt to fight for the regular people. If they start fighting like some of them such as AOC, Ilhan Omar, regular people would vote for them more and the Republicans would come the "fringe" party for conservative billionaires and uneducated ignorant people having ~30 % support.

Medicare for all would not be passed, President Kulinski would not even be renominated much less reelected, and the Democrats would be the fringe party of the Left.
You seem to be unable to understand that what you despise as corporatist policies are the mainstream policies. They don't get passed because the big donors like them. They get passed because they appeal to the broad center of the American electorate.
The sources you trust are actually garbage, part of the Leftist echo chamber (parallel to the Rightwing echo chamber). You want an accurate view of American politics? Watch CNN.
Some time back you claimed that the corporate media in America are silent about climate change. In fact, they constantly push global warming/climate change every chance they get. You would know that if you paid attention to CNN and not the Leftist echo chamber.

Hollywood Beach Broadwalk

schnittkease

#92
CNN regularly cites (skewed) polls conducted by Third Way, the centrist think tank that called Sanders "an existential threat." Obviously, that is fair.

Here's a subtle example of Yahoo Finance screwing Sanders over: Andre Iguodala on AOC's and Warren's wealth tax proposals: 'I'm all for it'. Notice that Sanders isn't present in the title, but lo and behold—the second sentence of the article reads: "In a recent episode of "Influencers with Andy Serwer," Iguodala got behind proposals from from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) to institute a wealth tax." If people took a few seconds to read even the first paragraph, this would do no damage; the problem is that many don't make it past the headline. The title implies that Warren has completely usurped the "progressive vote" and is the only one pushing wealth taxes when it is clearly not the case.

JBS

Quote from: schnittkease on July 14, 2019, 07:23:07 PM
CNN regularly cites (skewed) polls conducted by Third Way, the centrist think tank that called Sanders "an existential threat." Obviously, that is fair.

Here's a subtle example of Yahoo Finance screwing Sanders over: Andre Iguodala on AOC's and Warren's wealth tax proposals: 'I'm all for it'. Notice that Sanders isn't present in the title, but lo and behold—the second sentence of the article reads: "In a recent episode of "Influencers with Andy Serwer," Iguodala got behind proposals from from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) to institute a wealth tax." If people took a few seconds to read even the first paragraph, this would do no damage; the problem is that many don't make it past the headline. The title implies that Warren has completely usurped the "progressive vote" and is the only one pushing wealth taxes when it is clearly not the case.

What special expertise on economics does Mr. Iguodala have that merits anyone paying him more attention on the subject than, say, you or me?  Yahoo Finance is exhibiting a subtle bias there, but not in the way you think.

And in fact Warren out of those three is the only one who has proposed an actual wealth tax (that is, a tax on actual assets). AOC wants to increase income tax rates, Sanders wants to revive the estate tax. I'd have to check the fine print, but a wealth tax is probably unconstitutional (see Article I Section 9 Paragraph 4).

Hollywood Beach Broadwalk

schnittkease

Quote from: JBS on July 14, 2019, 07:50:04 PM
What special expertise on economics does Mr. Iguodala have that merits anyone paying him more attention on the subject than, say, you or me?  Yahoo Finance is exhibiting a subtle bias there, but not in the way you think.

And in fact Warren out of those three is the only one who has proposed an actual wealth tax (that is, a tax on actual assets). AOC wants to increase income tax rates, Sanders wants to revive the estate tax. I'd have to check the fine print, but a wealth tax is probably unconstitutional (see Article I Section 9 Paragraph 4).

Iguodala's expertise on the subject is irrelevant. The fact is that Sanders should have been included in the title and he wasn't.

Arguably, Sanders' plan is the most sweeping and will bring about change the fastest. We know from his record that he is not afraid to go against the grain and does not backtrack on key issues. Warren was too scared to endorse Sanders over Clinton in 2016 and her foreign policy is a mess compared to his. In terms of all-round substance, Sanders is your guy.

71 dB

Quote from: JBS on July 14, 2019, 04:13:13 PM
Medicare for all would not be passed, President Kulinski would not even be renominated much less reelected, and the Democrats would be the fringe party of the Left.

President Kulinski would be re-elected with flying colors. Without term limits the right-winger would never get rid of him. Anyway, all of that is speculation as the guy has said being a political commentator is more of his things than being the president, but we never know. Maybe he has changed his mind by the time he is old enough to run.

Quote from: JBS on July 14, 2019, 04:13:13 PMYou seem to be unable to understand that what you despise as corporatist policies are the mainstream policies.

Jesus Christ! Can't you understand that I understand all of this including what is wrong about what you say? Look at my posts here. My post are among those with most facts and substance. schnittkease was kind enough to say "Thanks for expressing this better than I could." Do you think I could formulate coherent, logical and fact-based posts here if I didn't understand what's going on in the US politics?

According to WHO are corporatist policies mainstream? Oh yeah, according to the corporate media! I wonder why they act like the  corporatist policies are mainstream. Could it be because the corporations have bought them to do that?

Quote from: JBS on July 14, 2019, 04:13:13 PMThey don't get passed because the big donors like them.

That's why the 28th Amendment to take money out of politics is needed. Did you know that lefties are fighting for that? The corporate media is not covering that much, are they? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_PAC

Quote from: JBS on July 14, 2019, 04:13:13 PMThey get passed because they appeal to the broad center of the American electorate.

The corporate media has been able to smear things and brainwash people to vote against their own good. Most election are won by the candidate with most money. More money means bigger chance to be corrupt or having financial interest against regular people. The Internet and alternative information channels like Youtube have broken the monopoly of information the corporate media has had. People can listen to say The Humanist Report Youtube channel and get real information and facts about things. The younger generation is already anti-corporate and can see through the bs of corporate media. The Republicans are able to retain political power utilizing voter suppression and gerry-mandering. Every American should understand that the Republicans do not believe in the concept of Democracy. The fact that the corporate Dems are insanely weak in fighting for their constituents also helps Republicans.

Quote from: JBS on July 14, 2019, 04:13:13 PMThe sources you trust are actually garbage, part of the Leftist echo chamber (parallel to the Rightwing echo chamber). You want an accurate view of American politics? Watch CNN.

Hahhahhaahhhaah!  ;D CNN is accurate? You are killing me! Are you really that doltish? I am very aware of the dangers of echo chambers. These lefty sources say all the time they have a lefty bias, but they are very careful to give as accurate facts as possible. Turns out most of the time the facts are on the lefty side. That's because corporations aren't interested of facts. They are interested of profits. If denying climate change means more profit then climate change is a Chinese hoax and so on...

That fact that you call these lefty sources garbage is a sign that you haven't even listened to them. You don't know anything about them. Or maybe you are a CEO of an insurance company spreading disinformation here. Or you are just ignorant, dumb or brainwashed.

Listen to some videos by Kyle Kulinski and tell me what that guy says is garbage. Why is it that almost no right-winger had the balls to debate him in the Politicon? Only Scottie Nell Hughes was brave enough. That's because he is the "Kyledriver". He knows the facts, he is smart and intellectually extremely honest. He knows how to debate. That's why. The right-wingers know they don't have a chance against him with their Koch-brothers funded nonsense.

You suffer from corporate echo-chamber syndrome. Start watching Kyle Kulinski's videos for antidote. If you don't like his face/voice there are many other option (David Pakman, The Humanist Report, The National Rational etc.), but I think Kyle Kulinski is the best. What is it that is echoing in the lefty echo chamber? Facts or lies?

Quote from: JBS on July 14, 2019, 04:13:13 PMSome time back you claimed that the corporate media in America are silent about climate change. In fact, they constantly push global warming/climate change every chance they get. You would know that if you paid attention to CNN and not the Leftist echo chamber.

The corporate media is talking about climate change now because the left has made it a hot (pun intended) topic and because the campaigns of people running for president have also brought it up, but what are they proposing? Are they advocating the lefty politicians like AOC and the New Green Deal? Saying they are silent about climate change is wrong, but they are framing it from the corporate perspective. At best the corporate media can be pretty good and I have seen good segments from them (for example MSNBC's coverage of the border crisis seems good, but that doesn't mean MSNBC is good when it's about medicare for all because they take money from insurance companies), but they also have their ugly dark corporate moments and that's why the independent lefty Youtubers are far superior.

I myself learned about climate change back in the 80's (it was called greenhouse effect and I have considered it a fact for ~35 year) in my teens so following the US debating about the issue in 2019 would be comical if it wasn't extremely serious for the future of our planet. In Finland I think every politician says the climate change is real and an serious issue. The only debate is about what should be done about it ranging from "Finland is so small country that it's useless to do anything - large countries can fix this for us" to "Finland should be the leading country in the World in green technology and fighting the climate change showing example to other countries." Our new government is left-leaning and includes the Green Party so at the moment Finland has the political agenda of being among the leading countries in the World combatting climate change.
Spatial distortion is a serious problem deteriorating headphone listening.
Crossfeeders reduce spatial distortion and make the sound more natural
and less tiresome in headphone listening.

My Sound Cloud page <-- NEW Jan. 2024 "Harpeggiator"

JBS

Quote from: schnittkease on July 14, 2019, 08:30:27 PM
Iguodala's expertise on the subject is irrelevant. The fact is that Sanders should have been included in the title and he wasn't.

Arguably, Sanders' plan is the most sweeping and will bring about change the fastest. We know from his record that he is not afraid to go against the grain and does not backtrack on key issues. Warren was too scared to endorse Sanders over Clinton in 2016 and her foreign policy is a mess compared to his. In terms of all-round substance, Sanders is your guy.

Actually Warren's plan is the most radical.  Sanders and AOC are merely proposing a return to higher income and estate taxes.    Warren is proposing an entirely new tax, one that the Federal government has never levied, although it's standard practice at the state and local levels (property taxes and intangible taxes).   

Since, as I said before Warren's plan is possibly unconstitutional, and won't work even if it is (holding companies and offshore trusts  and other entirely legal things that the rich already use to avoid paying taxes will come in very handy to avoid a wealth tax),  her plan would be much less effective than that of Sanders (or AOC).   But it is far more leftist than theirs.

As to the Yahoo post, the bias does not lie in ignoring Sanders in the headline.  The bias lies in the fact that Yahoo is using the opinions of a person with no special expertise on the question to push a progressive agenda.   Of course, 71db will deny that, since Yahoo is a corporation.

Hollywood Beach Broadwalk

JBS

Quote from: 71 dB on July 15, 2019, 04:08:08 AM
President Kulinski would be re-elected with flying colors. Without term limits the right-winger would never get rid of him. Anyway, all of that is speculation as the guy has said being a political commentator is more of his things than being the president, but we never know. Maybe he has changed his mind by the time he is old enough to run.

Jesus Christ! Can't you understand that I understand all of this including what is wrong about what you say? Look at my posts here. My post are among those with most facts and substance. schnittkease was kind enough to say "Thanks for expressing this better than I could." Do you think I could formulate coherent, logical and fact-based posts here if I didn't understand what's going on in the US politics?

According to WHO are corporatist policies mainstream? Oh yeah, according to the corporate media! I wonder why they act like the  corporatist policies are mainstream. Could it be because the corporations have bought them to do that?

That's why the 28th Amendment to take money out of politics is needed. Did you know that lefties are fighting for that? The corporate media is not covering that much, are they? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_PAC

The corporate media has been able to smear things and brainwash people to vote against their own good. Most election are won by the candidate with most money. More money means bigger chance to be corrupt or having financial interest against regular people. The Internet and alternative information channels like Youtube have broken the monopoly of information the corporate media has had. People can listen to say The Humanist Report Youtube channel and get real information and facts about things. The younger generation is already anti-corporate and can see through the bs of corporate media. The Republicans are able to retain political power utilizing voter suppression and gerry-mandering. Every American should understand that the Republicans do not believe in the concept of Democracy. The fact that the corporate Dems are insanely weak in fighting for their constituents also helps Republicans.

Hahhahhaahhhaah!  ;D CNN is accurate? You are killing me! Are you really that doltish? I am very aware of the dangers of echo chambers. These lefty sources say all the time they have a lefty bias, but they are very careful to give as accurate facts as possible. Turns out most of the time the facts are on the lefty side. That's because corporations aren't interested of facts. They are interested of profits. If denying climate change means more profit then climate change is a Chinese hoax and so on...

That fact that you call these lefty sources garbage is a sign that you haven't even listened to them. You don't know anything about them. Or maybe you are a CEO of an insurance company spreading disinformation here. Or you are just ignorant, dumb or brainwashed.

Listen to some videos by Kyle Kulinski and tell me what that guy says is garbage. Why is it that almost no right-winger had the balls to debate him in the Politicon? Only Scottie Nell Hughes was brave enough. That's because he is the "Kyledriver". He knows the facts, he is smart and intellectually extremely honest. He knows how to debate. That's why. The right-wingers know they don't have a chance against him with their Koch-brothers funded nonsense.

You suffer from corporate echo-chamber syndrome. Start watching Kyle Kulinski's videos for antidote. If you don't like his face/voice there are many other option (David Pakman, The Humanist Report, The National Rational etc.), but I think Kyle Kulinski is the best. What is it that is echoing in the lefty echo chamber? Facts or lies?
 

The corporate media is talking about climate change now because the left has made it a hot (pun intended) topic and because the campaigns of people running for president have also brought it up, but what are they proposing? Are they advocating the lefty politicians like AOC and the New Green Deal? Saying they are silent about climate change is wrong, but they are framing it from the corporate perspective. At best the corporate media can be pretty good and I have seen good segments from them (for example MSNBC's coverage of the border crisis seems good, but that doesn't mean MSNBC is good when it's about medicare for all because they take money from insurance companies), but they also have their ugly dark corporate moments and that's why the independent lefty Youtubers are far superior.

I myself learned about climate change back in the 80's (it was called greenhouse effect and I have considered it a fact for ~35 year) in my teens so following the US debating about the issue in 2019 would be comical if it wasn't extremely serious for the future of our planet. In Finland I think every politician says the climate change is real and an serious issue. The only debate is about what should be done about it ranging from "Finland is so small country that it's useless to do anything - large countries can fix this for us" to "Finland should be the leading country in the World in green technology and fighting the climate change showing example to other countries." Our new government is left-leaning and includes the Green Party so at the moment Finland has the political agenda of being among the leading countries in the World combatting climate change.

The best answer to that post is a very simple observation.

It is as fact based as most of the things Donald Trump says and tweets.

Hollywood Beach Broadwalk

71 dB

Quote from: JBS on July 15, 2019, 06:58:25 AM
The best answer to that post is a very simple observation.

It is as fact based as most of the things Donald Trump says and tweets.

My knowledge and understanding of the US politics is clearly too much for you so you compare my posts to Trump's tweets. You seem to be more interested of holding on to your ignorant beliefs than actually learn new things and facts.
Spatial distortion is a serious problem deteriorating headphone listening.
Crossfeeders reduce spatial distortion and make the sound more natural
and less tiresome in headphone listening.

My Sound Cloud page <-- NEW Jan. 2024 "Harpeggiator"

Muzio

Quote from: 71 dB on July 15, 2019, 04:08:08 AM
The corporate media is talking about climate change now because the left has made it a hot (pun intended) topic and because the campaigns of people running for president have also brought it up, but what are they proposing? Are they advocating the lefty politicians like AOC and the New Green Deal? Saying they are silent about climate change is wrong, but they are framing it from the corporate perspective. At best the corporate media can be pretty good and I have seen good segments from them (for example MSNBC's coverage of the border crisis seems good, but that doesn't mean MSNBC is good when it's about medicare for all because they take money from insurance companies), but they also have their ugly dark corporate moments and that's why the independent lefty Youtubers are far superior.

I myself learned about climate change back in the 80's (it was called greenhouse effect and I have considered it a fact for ~35 year) in my teens so following the US debating about the issue in 2019 would be comical if it wasn't extremely serious for the future of our planet. In Finland I think every politician says the climate change is real and an serious issue. The only debate is about what should be done about it ranging from "Finland is so small country that it's useless to do anything - large countries can fix this for us" to "Finland should be the leading country in the World in green technology and fighting the climate change showing example to other countries." Our new government is left-leaning and includes the Green Party so at the moment Finland has the political agenda of being among the leading countries in the World combatting climate change.

President Trump pulled the USA out of the "man-made climate change" cabal.  Although the climate does change over long periods of time (e.g., ice age), man has little or nothing to do with it.  Lots of science to support this, as the President has noted.   :)