• Bernie Sanders raised over 42+ million dollars in February
    133 replies, posted
[QUOTE=postal;49841934]So you're betting that not only Bernie and trump will get the nominations, but that Bernie will also beat Trump?? K noted Anyone else feeling ballsy????[/QUOTE] I'll eat a bucket of nails if Kanye wins 2020
[QUOTE=Fat White Lump;49840281]For now, I'll give him another month. Super Tuesday is not looking good for him. I'm not worried, Trump is going to win either way, I would much rather have Bernie beat Hilary. Trump has a 99% chance of beating Bernie and a 97% of beating Hilary.[/QUOTE] Considering bernie is polling like 3 times better than hillary when pitched against trump, then you'd rather have hillary not unlike a trump supporter to be out of the loop though i feel like i shouldnt have said that
[QUOTE=phygon;49840267]increasingly_worried_man.png[/QUOTE] But that's about Trump
What happens when you win a toxx?
[QUOTE=Symwck;49842432]What happens when you win a toxx?[/QUOTE] street cred
[QUOTE=Symwck;49842432]What happens when you win a toxx?[/QUOTE] you gain the access to the log out button and finally escape the Facepunch Studios
[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;49840651]This is why I always post an end date when I do toxx and so forth 2 Weeks toxx if Bernie Sanders wins Super Tuesday tomorrow by at least %5 more than Hillary[/QUOTE] toxxing is always a permaban and mods who take anything less than that are chumps dont be a pussy and put your chips in
Sanders already has significant corporate backing like hilary, ironicly donald trump is funding his own campaign so is the better candidate since he will owe no favors to anyone
[QUOTE=Sword and Paint;49842778][B]Sanders already has significant corporate backing[/B] like hilary, ironicly donald trump is funding his own campaign so is the better candidate since he will owe no favors to anyone[/QUOTE] Source? Because I'm pretty sure most if not all of his donations are from relatively common folk.
[QUOTE=Sword and Paint;49842778]Sanders already has significant corporate backing like hilary, ironicly donald trump is funding his own campaign [B]so is the better candidate[/B] since he will owe no favors to anyone[/QUOTE] he is his own corporate backing, which more or less basically equal to a corporation running for president
[QUOTE=Sword and Paint;49842778]Sanders already has significant corporate backing like hilary, ironicly donald trump is funding his own campaign so is the better candidate since he will owe no favors to anyone[/QUOTE] "Sanders has corporate backing, therefore he'll do something completely out of character and flip once he's elected" vs "Donald Trump surely won't continue to do what he's done his entire life and continue to be a scumbag against the average American."
[QUOTE=Sword and Paint;49842778][I]Sanders already has significant corporate backing[/I] like hilary, ironicly donald trump is funding his own campaign so is the better candidate since he will owe no favors to anyone[/QUOTE] From whom? Also, I love that an argument for Trump is "Well he's very rich!", just vote for Bill Gates as supreme leader already.
[QUOTE=Sword and Paint;49842778]Sanders already has significant corporate backing like hilary, ironicly donald trump is funding his own campaign so is the better candidate since he will owe no favors to anyone[/QUOTE] What corporate backing? Are you talking about all the workers unions? "Bricklayers union", "National Education Association", "United Steelworkers", "International Association of Fire Fighters" You know how those donors are different from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley etc? Those unions donate to Sanders because they agree with his message. The amount they donate amounts to less than 20% of his total funds raised, with over 80% being small donations from citizens. Meanwhile, Super PACs and banks donate to Clinton because they know they can influence her policies and opinions in office. If Super PACs weren't able to stick virtually unlimited money into her campaign, she would have like less than one fifth of her current funds raised. [B]THAT'S significant corporate backing[/B], 80% of maxed out donations
Because more money automatically means more votes right? How'd that work for Jeb Bush?
[QUOTE=wystan;49843098]Because more money automatically means more votes right? How'd that work for Jeb Bush?[/QUOTE] Both Republicans and Democrats are completely different voters. The way the money spent is different.
[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;49843111]Both Republicans and Democrats are completely different voters. The way the money spent is different.[/QUOTE] I think it's all an exercise in futility, especially considering how much of this money comes from younger people who don't have much to be begin with. Normally I would be glad that young people give a shit about politics, but when Bernie loses they will just lose any hope and faith in the system just because their socialist messiah who promised them free college and more money didn't win.
[QUOTE=rilez;49841775]That's not quite right for Oklahoma, but he has tightened his lead there considerably in the past week. I feel good about his chances on ST. I doubt he will win Georgia, Alabama, or Texas. He will obviously take Vermont. I feel like he needs OK, CO, MN and maybe MA to stay competitive. A tight race in Virginia would be nice too. If he gets blown out in TX like he did in SC, he'll be in a rough spot. Texas has a shit ton of delegates.[/QUOTE] Texas has the third most delegates in the whole US, after California then New York. And he's not polling well in any of those three.
[QUOTE=postal;49841934]So you're betting that not only Bernie and trump will get the nominations, but that Bernie will also beat Trump?? K noted Anyone else feeling ballsy????[/QUOTE] I ate a spoon of tabasco once
[QUOTE=wystan;49843130]I think it's all an exercise in futility, especially considering how much of this money comes from younger people who don't have much to be begin with. Normally I would be glad that young people give a shit about politics, but when Bernie loses they will just lose any hope and faith in the system just because their socialist messiah who promised them free college and more money didn't win.[/QUOTE] I have been following you on a few threads of politics in SH, and it is pretty disconcerting. However, I am sure that you cannot be so deluded to think that this is the sole reason why we (millenials) would want him in office. Electing Bernie is about setting the trend for the future. He isn't going to make sweeping changes in his time in the presidency. We are 99.9% likely to never see free tuition, and getting his healthcare changes, as necessary as they are, are very unlikely as well. However, he is the start of what needs to happen in this country if we want to maintain our position socially. Automation in just 20 years time is going to completely destroy unskilled labor. Where will all of those displaced workers go? Society is moving towards a less employable future, which is fine, because that is what technology does. But, at the same time, we need to start taking the steps to prepare for that before it happens. I think that is something that we could both agree on.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;49843700]I have been following you on a few threads of politics in SH, and it is pretty disconcerting. However, I am sure that you cannot be so deluded to think that this is the sole reason why we (millenials) would want him in office. Electing Bernie is about setting the trend for the future. He isn't going to make sweeping changes in his time in the presidency. We are 99.9% likely to never see free tuition, and getting his healthcare changes, as necessary as they are, are very unlikely as well. However, he is the start of what needs to happen in this country if we want to maintain our position socially. Automation in just 20 years time is going to completely destroy unskilled labor. Where will all of those displaced workers go? Society is moving towards a less employable future, which is fine, because that is what technology does. But, at the same time, we need to start taking the steps to prepare for that before it happens. I think that is something that we could both agree on.[/QUOTE] First off, I'm flattered. And your reply is already better written and more respectful than the usual foreigners that harp on me for my views. But I'm curious, can you please clarify what trend we would be setting by electing Bernie? What would he be the "start" of? I agree with you on automation and having worked in labor jobs I agree we need to prepare for it, but how do you tie that in with Bernie? What about him and his policies address that? Is it about getting an education since eventually labor jobs will be less numerous?
[QUOTE=Kylel999;49841164]That being said, Vermin Supreme 2016[/QUOTE] [B][I]Toxx it.[/I][/B] [editline]1st March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=wystan;49843735]First off, I'm flattered. And your reply is already better written and more respectful than the usual foreigners that harp on me for my views. But I'm curious, can you please clarify what trend we would be setting by electing Bernie? What would he be the "start" of? I agree with you on automation and having worked in labor jobs I agree we need to prepare for it, but how do you tie that in with Bernie? What about him and his policies address that? Is it about getting an education since eventually labor jobs will be less numerous?[/QUOTE] "The usual foreigners?" Did somebody give my angry conservative uncle a Facepunch account?
[QUOTE=wystan;49843735]First off, I'm flattered. And your reply is already better written and more respectful than the usual foreigners that harp on me for my views. But I'm curious, can you please clarify what trend we would be setting by electing Bernie? What would he be the "start" of? I agree with you on automation and having worked in labor jobs I agree we need to prepare for it, but how do you tie that in with Bernie? What about him and his policies address that? Is it about getting an education since eventually labor jobs will be less numerous?[/QUOTE] My roundabout point I was making was that socialism, in moderation, is not the end of the land of the free. Bernie is not a full-out socialist that he is painted to be, but he does bring some large issues to the table with new ways of solving them. He looks to countries like Denmark and what they have accomplished. Which, in my opinion, and I am sure you can agree as well, that it is a shame that we have to look to other countries rather than be the leading example. Universal healthcare, living wages, more affordable/accessible education are just a few of the things that he would be the trendsetter for. It seems idealistic to vote for him, and it is, but it is also really the only way forward out of the political trench that we have ourselves in. And, to be fair, he is probably the most genuine of the candidates running. (A quick aside: I also worked labor. Commercial landscape installations in central FL for 2 years in the field, currently working in the office now.)
Trump looks like he's going to win, this is how stupid America has become. You may not agree with all of Sanders policies but he is the lesser evil of the lot of them.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;49843780]My roundabout point I was making was that socialism, in moderation, is not the end of the land of the free. Bernie is not a full-out socialist that he is painted to be, but he does bring some large issues to the table with new ways of solving them. He looks to countries like Denmark and what they have accomplished. Which, in my opinion, and I am sure you can agree as well, that it is a shame that we have to look to other countries rather than be the leading example. Universal healthcare, living wages, more affordable/accessible education are just a few of the things that he would be the trendsetter for. It seems idealistic to vote for him, and it is, but it is also really the only way forward out of the political trench that we have ourselves in. And, to be fair, he is probably the most genuine of the candidates running. (A quick aside: I also worked labor. Commercial landscape installations in central FL for 2 years in the field, currently working in the office now.)[/QUOTE] But I see a problem in comparing ourselves to any nation, especially Denmark , in examples of certain policies working, not that I'm against these solutions 100%, but what works in a nation of 5.7 million should not be expected to wonderfully work in a nation of 320 million but people tend to think "if we did things like X our problems would be solved", "If X has something why can't we". I think healthcare and education costs are talking points for both parties and both are working towards making them more affordable it's just that Bernie is the most extreme in his goals and promises. I agree he is genuine, if I can say one thing he has been consistent over the decades in his views, I just disagree strongly with almost all of them. So he is genuine, but I'd argue so is Trump, it's just Trump lacks any form of tact. Not saying that is a good or bad thing, but they both I think are genuine. Hillary however, I don't think so.
[QUOTE=wystan;49843854]But I see a problem in comparing ourselves to any nation, especially Denmark , in examples of certain policies working, not that I'm against these solutions 100%, but what works in a nation of 5.7 million should not be expected to wonderfully work in a nation of 320 million but people tend to think "if we did things like X our problems would be solved", "If X has something why can't we". I think healthcare and education costs are talking points for both parties and both are working towards making them more affordable it's just that Bernie is the most extreme in his goals and promises. I agree he is genuine, if I can say one thing he has been consistent over the decades in his views, I just disagree strongly with almost all of them. So he is genuine, but I'd argue so is Trump, it's just Trump lacks any form of tact. Not saying that is a good or bad thing, but they both I think are genuine. Hillary however, I don't think so.[/QUOTE] Hilary is equivalent to Cruz or Rubio in my eyes, which is not good. She's in the wrong party tbh. However, I don't mean to copy Denmark 1:1. But I would rather think of Denmark as a state, rather than comparing it to our entire country. The US is essentially what the EU is, and each of our states is like one of their member countries. So it isn't completely out of the realm of possibility that we would be able to implement those policies here. My biggest qualm with the whole thing is that we are paying ludicrously more for the same thing as these countries. So minus administrative overhead (which is a government specialty), the number of people should be irrelevant since this would be a linear-scaling variable. They collect taxes from 5.7 million to provide services to those 5.7 million. The US would collect taxes from 320 million to provide services to those 320 million. Since we talked about automation, tax increases are inevitable to support those who are displaced. We might as well start looking now for ways to get ahead. There's obviously more to it than just taxes = healthcare+college, such as military, environment (something Republicans are hauntingly ignorant of), etc. But, the point still stands to be made.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;49843780]My roundabout point I was making was that socialism, in moderation, is not the end of the land of the free. Bernie is not a full-out socialist that he is painted to be, but he does bring some large issues to the table with new ways of solving them. He looks to countries like Denmark and what they have accomplished. Which, in my opinion, and I am sure you can agree as well, that it is a shame that we have to look to other countries rather than be the leading example. Universal healthcare, living wages, more affordable/accessible education are just a few of the things that he would be the trendsetter for. It seems idealistic to vote for him, and it is, but it is also really the only way forward out of the political trench that we have ourselves in. And, to be fair, he is probably the most genuine of the candidates running. (A quick aside: I also worked labor. Commercial landscape installations in central FL for 2 years in the field, currently working in the office now.)[/QUOTE] Don't forget the 25% goods and services tax, along with the 35-40% middle-income tax rate. Also, Denmark has a lower effective corporate tax rate than the US (20% vs 27%). Their strategy is to have business-friendly policies which allow them to flourish and employ people, with these people getting paid well due to strong collective bargain powers (unions etc.). The high wages are then fed back to the government through the personal income tax rates, which supports its welfare functions. Bernie seems to want to implement the good parts of the Scandinavian model (primarily its welfare state functions) while refusing to accept that this requires a massive increase in the tax base that cannot be supported solely by the top income brackets and corporations. Taxes have to be increased across the board if you want to support such a massive expansion of public spending. [QUOTE=Revenge282;49843920]Hilary is equivalent to Cruz or Rubio in my eyes, which is not good. She's in the wrong party tbh. However, I don't mean to copy Denmark 1:1. But I would rather think of Denmark as a state, rather than comparing it to our entire country. The US is essentially what the EU is, and each of our states is like one of their member countries. So it isn't completely out of the realm of possibility that we would be able to implement those policies here. My biggest qualm with the whole thing is that we are paying ludicrously more for the same thing as these countries. So minus administrative overhead (which is a government specialty), the number of people should be irrelevant since this would be a linear-scaling variable. They collect taxes from 5.7 million to provide services to those 5.7 million. The US would collect taxes from 320 million to provide services to those 320 million. Since we talked about automation, tax increases are inevitable to support those who are displaced. We might as well start looking now for ways to get ahead. There's obviously more to it than just taxes = healthcare+college, such as military, environment (something Republicans are hauntingly ignorant of), etc. But, the point still stands to be made.[/QUOTE] I don't know the specifics, but I'm pretty sure the US government is organised in a very different way from Denmark. Denmark isn't a federation of states for one, with each state more-or-less free to set its own laws and policies. It's much easier to push a policy through to the whole country compared to the US.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;49843920]Hilary is equivalent to Cruz or Rubio in my eyes, which is not good. She's in the wrong party tbh. However, I don't mean to copy Denmark 1:1. But I would rather think of Denmark as a state, rather than comparing it to our entire country. The US is essentially what the EU is, and each of our states is like one of their member countries. So it isn't completely out of the realm of possibility that we would be able to implement those policies here. My biggest qualm with the whole thing is that we are paying ludicrously more for the same thing as these countries. So minus administrative overhead (which is a government specialty), the number of people should be irrelevant since this would be a linear-scaling variable. They collect taxes from 5.7 million to provide services to those 5.7 million. The US would collect taxes from 320 million to provide services to those 320 million. Since we talked about automation, tax increases are inevitable to support those who are displaced. We might as well start looking now for ways to get ahead. There's obviously more to it than just taxes = healthcare+college, such as military, environment (something Republicans are hauntingly ignorant of), etc. But, the point still stands to be made.[/QUOTE] We are paying more than other countries and we should find a better way to handle that I agree, but the number of people is relevant since within Denmark's 5.7 million, they are 89-90% racially/ethnically homogeneous and illegal immigration isn't near as much of an issue there. Like it or not certain groups of people give and take more into the economy, same goes for illegal immigrants, I don't want to get into that much and derail, but it's a factor. Also like you said it's more than taxes, the size of the US economy and what we spend on differs greatly, it's also worth noting that the US has a higher GDP per capita than Denmark so in theory we could spend more on our citizens, but I'm sure the margin we pay for healthcare and the like is still crazy big. But a lot of our money goes to, as you said, our military which considering we are the backbone of NATO and frankly have to pick up the slack of all the other countries that don't spend enough on their own defense, save for the other 4 that actually spend the goal of 2% of their GDP on the military (UK, Estonia, Poland, and Greece), so I don't feel we can downsize the military like Sanders wants to, being the only Superpower comes with some responsibilities I feel, and part of that is a strong military presence and a driving force in R&D.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;49844001]Don't forget the 25% goods and services tax, along with the 35-40% middle-income tax rate. Also, Denmark has a lower effective corporate tax rate than the US (20% vs 27%). Their strategy is to have business-friendly policies which allow them to flourish and employ people, with these people getting paid well due to strong collective bargain powers (unions etc.). The high wages are then fed back to the government through the personal income tax rates, which supports its welfare functions. Bernie seems to want to implement the good parts of the Scandinavian model (primarily its welfare state functions) while refusing to accept that this requires a massive increase in the tax base that cannot be supported solely by the top income brackets and corporations. Taxes have to be increased across the board if you want to support such a massive expansion of public spending. I don't know the specifics, but I'm pretty sure the US government is organised in a very different way from Denmark. Denmark isn't a federation of states for one, with each state more-or-less free to set its own laws and policies. It's much easier to push a policy through to the whole country compared to the US.[/QUOTE] I accept that taxes would be much different than what we know today. My arguement isn't that it won't cost us more, it's that we are going to have to give more in order to support more people in the future who are quite literally unemployable (not as a consequence of a lack of skill, but simply because of a lack of necessity). As for your point about the organization of the US, I was vague. I would like to see something like this done on a state level, as a sort of trial run before it goes full spread. It would be interesting to see how each state could handle it. Then again, it may also be a giant clusterfuck. But on top of what we have been discussing, he is also targeting election reform. Honestly this is the one thing that I want him to accomplish if he wins. It isn't a crazy goal like healthcare, but it is definitely the first step in refining a system that is so horribly flawed. Plus, you can't fault him for going at it. There's no logical way to spin it against him.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;49844032]I accept that taxes would be much different than what we know today. My arguement isn't that it won't cost us more, it's that we are going to have to give more in order to support more people in the future who are quite literally unemployable (not as a consequence of a lack of skill, but simply because of a lack of necessity). As for your point about the organization of the US, I was vague. I would like to see something like this done on a state level, as a sort of trial run before it goes full spread. It would be interesting to see how each state could handle it. Then again, it may also be a giant clusterfuck. But on top of what we have been discussing, he is also targeting election reform. Honestly this is the one thing that I want him to accomplish if he wins. It isn't a crazy goal like healthcare, but it is definitely the first step in refining a system that is so horribly flawed. Plus, you can't fault him for going at it. There's no logical way to spin it against him.[/QUOTE] I see. It seems like not many of Bernie's supporters recognise that, though, which is why I felt compelled to point it out. Also, as I said, I'm not familiar with how the US government is organised at all so I don't know about trialling such things on a state level. How would something like that be done? Regarding election reform, I have no knowledge of the US electoral system and therefore I have no opinion of it.
[QUOTE=wystan;49844024]We are paying more than other countries and we should find a better way to handle that I agree, but the number of people is relevant since within Denmark's 5.7 million, they are 89-90% racially/ethnically homogeneous and illegal immigration isn't near as much of an issue there. Like it or not certain groups of people give and take more into the economy, same goes for illegal immigrants, I don't want to get into that much and derail, but it's a factor. Also like you said it's more than taxes, the size of the US economy and what we spend on differs greatly, it's also worth noting that the US has a higher GDP per capita than Denmark so in theory we could spend more on our citizens, but I'm sure the margin we pay for healthcare and the like is still crazy big. But a lot of our money goes to, as you said, our military which considering we are the backbone of NATO and frankly have to pick up the slack of all the other countries that don't spend enough on their own defense, save for the other 4 that actually spend the goal of 2% of their GDP on the military (UK, Estonia, Poland, and Greece), so I don't feel we can downsize the military like Sanders wants to, being the only Superpower comes with some responsibilities I feel, and part of that is a strong military presence and a driving force in R&D.[/QUOTE] I'm glad you brought up NATO because that was what I was thinking when I said "such as military" in my post. We dug ourselves a hole with NATO because we became such a reliant backbone that if we do weaken our presence, our allies will be the ones who take the brunt of it. At the same time, there are a handful of members who are not contributing the required GDP, and we are the ones who are picking up the slack. I completely disagree with downsizing the military like some people mention, and it is one of the things I disagree with Sanders on. People don't realize that the US provides logistics for a shit ton of countries. That is where most of our money goes (aside from R+D, which has become a market for the US). By removing logistical support from our allies, we really put Europe in a bad position, and that isn't an option. At the same time, people complain about the overzealousness of the US military overseas in conflicts, but we are the only ones who act. If allies went into destablized countries to handle some of the issues we do, the story could be spun completely differently. However, leaving the US to do the dirty work and keep everyone elses hands clean makes it much easier to point the finger. But you pretty much pointed out every reason I had for why scaling down isn't a great idea. Sure, there's contracts that we could be more strict with and cut spending in smaller areas, but overall, it's far too touchy. [editline]1st March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Headhumpy;49844058]I see. It seems like not many of Bernie's supporters recognise that, though, which is why I felt compelled to point it out. Also, as I said, I'm not familiar with how the US government is organised at all so I don't know about trialling such things on a state level. How would something like that be done? Regarding election reform, I have no knowledge of the US electoral system and therefore I have no opinion of it.[/QUOTE] It's a good point, and a very likely reality if it happens. Of course, everything can be improved, and hopefully we can do that when it comes time. As for the states, they essentially work on their own with assistance from the federal government. Sometimes there's overreach, but it is pretty minimal. The worst that happens is that a state refuses something the federal government mandates and they lose funding on something that the federal government was helping with. But I don't think there is anything from stopping the states from doing something similar to what Denmark has, and the smaller population would be a good place to make a testbed for change. It's complicated, but just essentially think of something like the EU. Election reform, as Bernie is discussing it, is essentially getting big money out of the political influence and trying to stop the whole "purchasing" of candidates. Clinton is a great example of that, oil lobby, Citizens United, etc. It's the leading reason why we can't go green like we should.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.