I love how chris is so trusting of trumpianism 😂

I think this is my favourite article of the entire campaign so far:

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/12...age-editor.html

 

In general the angle that Mayor Pete has clearly spent years crafting his image to do nothing but become the president is highly amusing and I'm sure it will continue to be up until the moment he is given this or a future nomination.

 

~

 

Also the 6th Democratic debate has happened and aside from talking about impeachment the other notable thing is that I've seen some good words for Yang for once (outside of #YangGang), he seems like a lovely guy the sort of person that shouldn't be in politics with some great and different ideas and it's making me think that a Sanders/Yang ticket would be inspiring.

 

On the flipside, the other combination out of current runners I can easily see happening is Biden/Buttigieg which is sort of the exact opposite.

also by-the-by, there's now leaked audio of a Trump adviser saying that 'Republicans traditionally rely on voter suppression'.

 

openly anti-democracy, folks.

Ivanka Trump WILL run for President one day. I can see her becoming the first female President.

 

 

She has reportedly made a pact with her husband, fellow nepotism icon Jared Kushner, to run for president, while her friends are “one hundred percent sure” she will enter the race in the near future.

Edited December 30, 20195 yr by Crazy Chris-tmas

I love how chris is so trusting of trumpianism 😂

 

Well the economy is apparently doing ok...

The Obama economy is doing okay for THE RICH. No one else.

The Obama economy is doing okay for THE RICH. No one else.

 

News flash- Obama left the White House 3 years ago! :lol:

And Trump inherited his economy :lol:

And Trump inherited his economy :lol:

 

 

And it's doing fine which usually means an encumbent is re-elected.

It's doing fine for the rich. Plutocracy.

It's doing fine for the rich. Plutocracy.

 

An economy which doesn't have an uneven distribution of wealth is not the utopia you believe it to be.

 

If you people with wealth 'til their pips squeak' they will simply take their money & leave the country - and if you overpay the less talented, they will become lazy, knowing their income stream is guaranteed.

Granted, that is an extreme example, but everyone suffers by too much gov't control in the markets nonetheless.

 

This all presupposes an awful lot.

 

Firstly, the economy doing good is only a good factor for the incumbent if the individual voter actually feels that they are benefiting, with greater wealth inequality, probably less likely. Besides, economics has given way to culture as the principal reason, bad because it creates less floating voters but it's what we're in. If Trump is reelected, it'll be because half of America feel they can identify with him.

 

An economy which doesn't have an uneven distribution of wealth is not the utopia you believe it to be.

 

If you people with wealth 'til their pips squeak' they will simply take their money & leave the country - and if you overpay the less talented, they will become lazy, knowing their income stream is guaranteed.

Granted, that is an extreme example, but everyone suffers by too much gov't control in the markets nonetheless.

 

The data does not support higher migration rates of the rich. It's an awful lot of hassle to move for very little extra tax, and if we take Warren as the median Democratic candidate, because she actually did publish a handy tax mockup a month or so ago, it is very little extra tax that can go a long way to making society more equal.

 

Plus you're opening up the incredibly obvious points that there is no possible gap in talent that can explain away such horrific wealth disparity as there is in America today, everyone is far more equal in skill and talent than that, billionaires were born higher up the hierarchy, so they get to be higher up. To infer that billionaires are inherently talented in a thread partly about the current president is ludicrous. Nor is it true that the poor are lazy, nor would that be an issue if the economy was more equal.

 

The even distribution of wealth should come at a time when minimal work needs to be done. The economy for developed nations is getting there. We need to make sure that when that moment arrives it can be something that everyone can share in and not just a few who want to horde it all for themselves, presenting a million reasons with their vast influence as to why they deserve it more.

An economy which doesn't have an uneven distribution of wealth is not the utopia you believe it to be.

 

If you people with wealth 'til their pips squeak' they will simply take their money & leave the country - and if you overpay the less talented, they will become lazy, knowing their income stream is guaranteed.

Granted, that is an extreme example, but everyone suffers by too much gov't control in the markets nonetheless.

 

What are your evidence? Where are your studies?

 

The poor were worked to DEATH by the Victorians and still called lazy. You sound just like them! It would take 1000s of years to reach a bilkion follars, without spending a penny, on a typical wage. So, are the billionaires more than a billion times tslented and work a billion tines harder than the poor? What? Nooo?

What are your evidence? Where are your studies?

 

East Germany, USSR, North Korea, Venezuela...

 

East Germany, USSR, North Korea, Venezuela...

 

Bulgaria... no wait that one was doing better under socialism than capitalism best not mention it... The negative aspects of most historical socialist states were largely due to low tech and authoritarianism and its inevitable warping of Marxist theory into effective state capitalism that produced the same inefficiencies and the same effective hierarchical society, not socialism. And Venezuela is not relevant to the developed world.

 

No serious leftist in the developed world is advocating anything in the slightest like those 4 states. Sanders and Corbyn are (were) going for social democracy which is still capitalism, just more caring and less likely to collapse in on itself by driving those at the bottom into misery. Which is a good thing to aim for until we reach post-scarcity.

BOOM.

 

Don't expect him to reply adter that scalpting.

BOOM.

 

Don't expect him to reply adter that scalpting.

 

Wrong again!

Wrong again!

 

That isn't a reply. It's you admitting that you read it, but fled from the thread as you have nothing to say. Your right wing philosophy has failed you.

That isn't a reply. It's you admitting that you read it, but fled from the thread as you have nothing to say. Your right wing philosophy has failed you.

 

People accuse me of baiting *you* - this comment proves it is not all one way.

People accuse me of baiting *you* - this comment proves it is not all one way.

 

But I'm right. You just ran in with a non-reply.

 

So, if you think you can: actually respond to the points above.