Which Democrats will be up against Trump

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by JulieW, Feb 15, 2020.

  1. sammysilver

    sammysilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    6,418
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sydney
    Earlier in jest I joked about a VP Hilary replacing POTUS Bloomberg through nefarious means; however, could say a two year deal be in place for an ordered transition though ill health?

    All speculation, but not that outrageous as between the two, they may increase their vote by 50% and topple the Don.
     
  2. Calendyr

    Calendyr Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2020
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    Can you give me specific examples of what he is proposing that would support your argument? All I have heard from him is to make sure people who work have a living wage and that everyone in the population doesn't die or go bankrupt when they get sick. He also is at war with Big Pharma because the price of medication in the US is 10 times higher than the same ones sold to other countries. I don't see a maniac leftist in that. But maybe you have some points he made that I missed?
     
  3. Calendyr

    Calendyr Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2020
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    You are right, he wants to increase taxes on the richest people in the country. Considering they are paying less than the middle class, do you think that is unfair?

    As for redistribution of expenses, again you are right. The US spends more on it's military than the next 5 biggest military combined. Do you think that such a huge army is necessary? Or is it that political bribery has run out of hand and that the defense contractors have made too many friends in places of power? Currently if the US went to war with the entire world, it would probably win. These are crazy expenses when a part of your population can't feed itself even when working full time, your citizen have to fight private insurance companies to get medical treatments and cost of school is so high that when you leave college, you are into economic slavery for the vast majority of your life to try to repay the student loans.

    It's a matter of priorities, the USA has very high GDP yet, still runs a ridiculous deficit every year. People in power have obviously not been doing their job. People in the stacking community expect a crash of the dollar and the entire economy, why do you think that is? So keeping the status quo when you are on the highway to hell seems to me like the wrong thing to do... don't you think?
     
  4. Calendyr

    Calendyr Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2020
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
     
  5. Calendyr

    Calendyr Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2020
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    Please show me those numbers. Every country, including your own has a government run medicare system. How can the richest country in the world not be able to afford it? Will there be additional taxes for it? Obviously but people are already paying that money to the private sector, the difference is that the payment would be cut and taken as taxes instead to finance it. That is basic economics. Currently the cost of medical assistance in the US is the highest in the word, by far. It cost about 10 times more in the US for any medical assistance including birth. In a government plan, hospitals would not be able to charge what ever they want and pharma companies would have to adjust the price of the medication to reflect prices they charge elsewhere.

    There are a lot of variables you are not taking into account.
     
  6. Calendyr

    Calendyr Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2020
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    So from all of this, all you guys could come up with was that Bernie Sanders liked the Russian metro system and their art. WHAT A MONSTER!!!!

    LOL
     
  7. Oddjob

    Oddjob Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2018
    Messages:
    3,505
    Likes Received:
    3,957
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Oz
    Would you / other Canadians trade Justin Castro, I mean Justin Trudeau for a man who combs his hair with a balloon?

    At the end of the day be someone a rabid socialist or an avowed fascist, they always preach about doing something for the national good, a person of the people... for the people, then if they get into power, their true colours shine through.

    Castro promised the Cuban people a paradise with free democratic elections, to make the medical system free and universal, end legal race discrimination, restore land-ownership rights to Cubans and invite foreign investment.....A couple years down the track that didn't work out as planned and Fidel was dictator for life and Cuba cemented it's place in the Third World on nearly every measure.....but Bernie said in 2016 "We could learn a lot from Cuba"..... I don't have to go into what happens when fascists such as Mussolini or Hitler are elected in their own right (via their party) to power and take over.

    Bernie may not be a Castro (yet), but the Bernie Sanders Trojan Horse if it got inside the White House gates it would disgorge more socialist change than just the "warm and fuzzies" he campaigns on......this a script we have seen many times before.

    And why do most high profile socialists have money and preach about inequality so much...I don't see Bernie letting the poor or homeless doss in one of his three houses when not in use by him....but that's okay in socialism as "it's do as I say, not as I do"......same with Bernie roughing it in a private jet or first class seat as he travels around the US.

    Bernie is a "small s" socialist now to the public, but he's spent a lifetime planning to be where he wants and if he gets it, the US will go so hard left under Sanders, it'll make your Canadian Liberals Party and Justin Trudeau look like hard right conservatives.
     
  8. Calendyr

    Calendyr Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2020
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    Well, that could be said about anyone. Sanders have been saying the same thing since he started his career. He has fought inequality and defended the common man his whole life. Maybe he could change but I see nothing in his actions that would give any indications he would.

    On the other hand, Trump has been fleecing people his whole life. Hiring people to work for him and not paying them. He is the only man I know who managed to have a casino go bankrupt... A CASINO!!! That is a place that prints money. The number of businesses he started and crashed are ridiculous. He campaigned on fighting the establishment and defending the comman man. Once in office he passed laws that gave tax breaks to the millionaires and billionaires. Every time he opens his mouth he lies, and all of those lies can be verified.

    So if you ask me, the greatest threat is Trump, not Sanders.

    Not that I trust any politician, I think as a group, they are the worst thieves and crooks the world has ever seen. But from the lot, I think Sanders has to be the least problematic.

    As for Trudeau... The only guy I would not trade him for it Trump. Trudeau is sending our country in the dumpster faster than anyone has ever done. And the Canadians re-elected the guy ;(

    As a whole, I think the problem is that there is never any candidate worth getting the job. We are always faced with the duty of trying to find the lesser evil (literally). To me, Trump is the worst president the US has ever had. I simply cannot understand why so many people like him.
     
  9. Oddjob

    Oddjob Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2018
    Messages:
    3,505
    Likes Received:
    3,957
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Oz
    Just this Monday gone, Bernie held a rally in Seattle and was introduced by Seattle Councilwoman Kshama Sawant, a very hard left socialist who is a member of a Trotskyist group who's goal is a socialist America and world and nationalisation of US corporations. I dare say a candidate for office, any office would not have such a far left person speak at a rally unless they identify and support the ideals of such a person. I can't imagine Justin T or anyone from our Labor Party in Australia having a person of such extreme far left views anywhere near them especially during an election campaign.

    The real Comrade Sanders has yet to show his true face.

    As an aside, someone once used the phrase during an Australia Federal election a decade or so back (not sure if it was coined earlier or not) when discussing the two main party leaders....they said "It's a choice of the evil of two lessors" or words to that effect. I think that description has merit sometimes.
     
  10. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    19,669
    Likes Received:
    2,842
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    It'll be his economic policies that we need to look at, not his social policies, though he does mix them a bit on purpose in an attempt to garner support for his economic policies. Here's a few. Sander's views on economic theory is very much influenced by Marx.

    Marxist proposal 1: Nationalisation of the banking industry.
    • Allow every post office to offer basic and affordable banking services and end lending discrimination.
    • Break up too-big-to-fail banks and end the too-big-to-jail doctrine.
    Marxist proposal 2: Nationalisation of private industry.
    • Give workers an ownership stake in the companies they work for
    • Fundamentally shift the wealth of the economy back into the hands of the workers who create it.
    Marxist proposal 3: Pursue policies that view jobs as the end goal of production.
    • Eliminate “Right to Work for Less” laws and guarantees the right to unionize for workers historically excluded from labor protections, like farm workers and domestic workers.
    • Enact a federal jobs guarantee, to ensure that everyone is guaranteed a stable job that pays a living wage.
    Marxist proposal 4. Redistribute wealth
    • Establish an annual tax on the extreme wealth of the top 0.1 percent of U.S. households.
    • Only apply to net worth of over $32 million and anyone who has a net worth of less than $32 million, would not see their taxes go up at all under this plan.
    • Pass the For the 99.8 Percent Act to establish a progressive estate tax on multi-millionaire and billionaire inheritances.
    • End special tax breaks on capital gains and dividends for the top 1%.
    Marxist proposal 5. Create labour/supply guilds
    • Level the playing field for farmers and farm workers.
    • Fundamentally rewrite all of our trade deals to deals to prevent the outsourcing of American jobs and raise wages.
    • Sign an executive order ending federal contracts to corporations that outsource American jobs
    • Eliminate the incentives baked into our current trade and tax agreements that make it easier for multinational corporations to ship jobs overseas.
    • Fundamentally rewrite all of our trade deals to deals to prevent the outsourcing of American jobs and raise wages.
     
    minimilled likes this.
  11. Ipv6Ready

    Ipv6Ready Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2016
    Messages:
    4,081
    Likes Received:
    963
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    North Sydney
    GOP are winners, they are spreading Clinton will be Bloomberg’s running mate, it’s brilliant.
    This will catapult Sanders.

    Trump will run three months of your taxes are increasing in to the Election Day,...

    “Will Bernie double or triple your taxes to pay for hippies and illegals to stay at home”
     
  12. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    13,425
    Likes Received:
    2,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    Interesting.

    This collection of quite reasonable ideas is why Marxism is still alive after 150 or so years of pipe smoking discourse by jaded professors, naive youth absorbing unicorn dreams and perhaps 80 million dead. (btw this is otherwise known as "I should be in charge but I can't cut it in democracy, I'm ill bred for monarchy, but I'm brilliant at moralistic murder as the leader of a gang").

    I've always thought of those who claim themselves "marxists" as basically atheists ransacking christ's ideas and forming a version of the catholic church.
     
    minimilled and Oddjob like this.
  13. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    13,425
    Likes Received:
    2,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    The Democrat power brokers would rather lose than win with the "wrong person". If Trump had opted to run in the Democrats process he wouldn't have made it past the first debate.
     
  14. Ipv6Ready

    Ipv6Ready Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2016
    Messages:
    4,081
    Likes Received:
    963
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    North Sydney
    I don't know because trump likely would had run on a platform of embracing latinos, MAGA and very keen into universal health care had democrats not rebuffed him.

    Trump ran for himself, all the slogan was made up to suit his supporters
     
  15. Calendyr

    Calendyr Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2020
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
     
  16. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    19,669
    Likes Received:
    2,842
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    @Calendyr I’ll look at each of your responses in more detail when I get a chance.

    But briefly there seems to be a common thread running through your views on each topic. That is that you have no hesitation in using the State to force your values on to others.

    In short, it’s immoral to do that.
     
  17. tas stacker

    tas stacker Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Hobart
  18. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    19,669
    Likes Received:
    2,842
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    Here we go.

    Let's just make it clear that I don't get my information from propaganda websites and that whilst "The Big Short" was entertaining, nor do I get my information from Hollywood movies. Though I did appreciate a platinum blonde Margot Robbie sipping champers in a bubble-bath.

    The dot points I listed are from Sander's own website, the headings are my interpretation of them in line with Marxist doctrine. Now as you have acknowledged that you are neither aware of his campaign policies in detail nor that you've not read anything written by Comrade Karl then you really haven't gotten off to a very good start in defending your position that Sanders is not a socialist by casting doubt on the legitimacy of the points I raised. :rolleyes:

    Hamilton was a Founding Father and he advocated a banking system. Those FFs opposed to the idea, and it was probably Jefferson you were talking about, were in favour of an agrarian based economy. The forced de-amalgamation of any privately owned entity by the State is textbook socialism.

    The fact that governments have chosen to go guarantor to banks is an indictment of the crony-capitalist system that the State has fostered. Establishing a public banking system where public bureaucrats and politicians rather than market forces decide lending policy is a recipe for nepotism. And is straight out of the socialist handbook too by the way, see the debate on post-war Japan elsewhere on this forum.

    I haven't got a problem with it either, as long as it's voluntary and the workers either buy shares in the company or receive them in kind for services rendered. But if it's forced by the State then it won't work. South Africa or Zimbabwe or Venezuela for instance. All classic socialist plays. All piles of shit.

    The huge gap is a result of intrusion into the market place by central banks and politicians creating asset bubbles. The forced redistribution of wealth is classic socialist doctrine.

    I am in favour of Unions, as long as they don't receive preferential treatment.

    Value is subjective. It's impossible for one individual to know what another individual considers the necessities of life to be, let alone a distant bureaucrat or politician in Washington. Centrally planned consumer markets are classic socialist plays.

    Warren Buffet and Bill Gates support the redistribution of wealth because Warren Buffet and Bill Gates derive pleasure from philanthropic ventures. In other words they value giving away some of their money because it makes them feel good and is a noble thing to do. Forcing others to "feel good" by redistributing their wealth without their consent is not noble. If I force my values on to others then I'm acting immorally. And it's impossible to justify anything from a position of immorality.

    How do you know that the mega-wealthy make so much money that they don't know what to do with it? If I had billions I'd want to make more billions. And the best way to that is to make stuff that other people want. Of course I'll have to employ people to do that, and invest in capital goods and buy resources first before I'd be rewarded with my extra billions. Then if I don't blow it all on a space venture to Mars or hookers and blow, I may actually want to repeat the whole process again. Giving more people jobs, giving more consumers stuff and investing more into capital goods and R&D.

    Loopholes are legal. We need to overhaul the tax system, not take more money from people.

    This is in regards to ending tax breaks on capital gains. They do pay taxes, it's called income tax.

    It's not a problem that needs to be fixed. There will be a place for goods produced by market gardeners in the shopping baskets of some consumers, but factory-farming is the most efficient use of scarce resources. It is the best management technique in combatting the unwanted side-effects of disease and natural disasters. It's not perfect, but the alternative eg permaculture, organic farming is wasteful of resources or as in the case of "courtyard" farms such as in China, deadly (African swine fever).

    o_O

    Sure. Let's have some bureaucrat in Washington, or Canberra or Ottawa decide on behalf of all of us what we buy and where we buy it. And let's have them decide what will be grown and where, who makes the ploughs and the clothes. They can also decide who is not allowed to make the ploughs, just on the off chance that those people make better ploughs than the people sanctioned by the State. Classic socialism.

    Free trade is not destroying the US economy. It's not destroying the world's economies either. The last 10 years have been the most prosperous decade in history (or as far as we can measure). And this is because of globalisation which has opened the markets of the world. Impediments to free-trade have the power to undo all of that.

    One of the basic laws of economics is comparative advantage. Adam Smith wrote about it over 200 years ago in The Wealth of nations, though Sanders hasn't caught onto it yet even though he's close to 200 years old. When we ship jobs/production overseas we import more wealth back into the country than before due to comparative advantage. The creation of laws that restrict free-trade by insisting that Federal contracts use only local workers or products etc destroy wealth not enhance it. And yes Trump is guilty of that as well.

    The rest of the points pretty much relate to that. It's probably why another member posted here that you should learn about economics.
     
  19. Oddjob

    Oddjob Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2018
    Messages:
    3,505
    Likes Received:
    3,957
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Oz
  20. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    19,669
    Likes Received:
    2,842
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    @Calendyr, a common economic fallacy held is the view that workers create wealth. This is not true. Wealth by definition in classical economics is considered to be the capacity for individual consumers to satisfy their needs and desires. Generally an individual can only satisfy his needs and desires by exchanging value, and the best system to achieve this is one which operates under a voluntary, mutually beneficial economic system - or not at all.

    Workers are one link in the chain of production. The others are entrepreneurs, resources and capital goods. It is the whole production process that builds wealth.

    The only way a consumer can build more and more wealth ie an increasing ability to satisfy their needs and desires is by getting more value in their exchanges. They can do this either by wage increases, or through productivity improvements which drive down the price of consumer goods/services, or optimally, a combination of both. Wage rises alone though may not build wealth if there is no corresponding productivity improvements, and in order to get productivity improvements an entrepreneur has to cut the costs involved in production, ideally by investing in capital goods that deliver cost savings in labour and resource allocation/use.

    Making more jobs for the sake of more jobs does not drive down the cost of production, therefore it doesn’t enhance wealth. Transferring the ownership of companies from capitalists to workers does not drive down the cost of production, therefore it doesn’t enhance wealth. Sourcing more expensive locally produced raw materials and finished goods instead of foreign alternatives that are cheaper doesn’t drive down the cost of production, therefore it doesn’t enhance wealth.

    Bernie’s policies won’t drive down the cost of production, therefore Bernie’s policies won’t enhance wealth.
     

Share This Page