Dem Debates

[Raev]

What matters is not Bernie Sanders internal moral compass regarding political corruption but what his policies will do to fix it. Checking his website, his only goal is to overturn 'Citizens United' with a constitutional amendment. I'm sure he'll have no trouble getting that past an army of Wall Street lobbyists. And even if he did, it will do nothing to fix SEC regulators leaving government for cush jobs at Goldman Sachs, or the Clintons handing out favors for companies that hire Bill to give a 1 hour speech for $1.5 million. Meanwhile his expansion of government will give them more power to 'adjust' things in their favor.

Your position on Fukushima is equally strange. You specifically claimed that 'government ... performs this role very well in most other advanced nations, where people are generally happy, healthy, and prosperous'. Yet the Fukushima disaster could easily have been prevented with simple logic: don't build nuclear plants on earthquake fault lines. Your more general position (the important thing is that everyone is a 80 hour a week wage slave!) is equally puzzling.

TLDR: you need to stop pushing your value system on other people. Not everyone wants the same things.

[entruil]

Do we exist to serve the government or does the government exist to serve us!?....

Ron Paul 2032

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What matters is not Bernie Sanders internal moral compass regarding political corruption but what his policies will do to fix it. Checking his website, his only goal is to overturn 'Citizens United' with a constitutional amendment. I'm sure he'll have no trouble getting that past an army of Wall Street lobbyists. And even if he did, it will do nothing to fix SEC regulators leaving government for cush jobs at Goldman Sachs, or the Clintons handing out favors for companies that hire Bill to give a 1 hour speech for $1.5 million. Meanwhile his expansion of government will give them more power to 'adjust' things in their favor.

I'm not naive enough to believe:

1. That Bernie could even win this election, or

2. That if he did, he could triumph over the establishment and implement his policies

What's important is that his victory would be a source of advocacy, and he has admitted this. People need to realize that, as the electorate, the responsibility for these issues ultimately goes back to them, and the extent to which they are informed.

Furthermore, do you have a better alternative? What are you going to do, elect Clinton, Bush, Trump, or a libertarian? How would that be better? Randian libertarian objectivism a la Alan Greenspan is a large part of what got us into this mess, and it's a philosophy that is still largely embodied by the fiscal right and libertarians.

But then, I guess I can understand how you think libertarianism will solve our problems when you simply refuse to accept the fact that all our advanced peers are doing better than us in nearly every metric of prosperity except aggregate total wealth and military power. Even Alan Greenspan came out and admitted he was wrong for promoting objectivist fiscal policy.

When the person championing a certain economic philosophy for several decades admits it was wrong, how do you still promote it?

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

TLDR: you need to stop pushing your value system on other people. Not everyone wants the same things.

It's a thread for discussing our opinions on the issue. I recognize that Bernie isn't going to be elected quite simply because most people either don't agree with him or don't know about him. That doesn't make it any less enjoyable to discuss. Nobody has ever been convinced of anything by rhetoric on the internet unless they are young or are a woman. People can believe what they want.

[Raev]

So, you agree that:

• Our government is corrupt
• Bernie Sanders would increase the size of the government
• Bernie Sanders would not substantially decrease its level of corruption

Ergo, Bernie Sanders is the worst candidate in the field. At least Jeb and Clinton wouldn't make the current mess worse. I don't think a libertarian would be elected, but if they were, then yes I think things would get better by the reverse logic (a small corrupt government is better than a larger corrupt government).

Calling Alan Greenspan a libertarian makes me throw up in my mouth. I don't care what the man thought about himself, when you cause two depressions by messing with monetary policy you are not representative of small government.

Originally Posted by Lune

Nobody has ever been convinced of anything by rhetoric on the internet unless they are young or are a woman.

So you are racist AND sexist, not to mention close-minded. I think I'm just going to call it a day here. It amazes me that you don't realize that your arguments boil down to 'if we just let Northern European males handle things, everything would be OK'.

[quido]

prove it

[TheBiznessTZ]

im learning a lot in this thread bros. Keep it up!

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Calling Alan Greenspan a libertarian makes me throw up in my mouth. I don't care what the man thought about himself, when you cause two depressions by messing with monetary policy you are not representative of small government.

You see, here's the thing. Alan Greenspan wasn't in charge of expanding or shrinking the government. He was in charge of monetary policy. He implemented objectivist/libertarian monetary policy. It was a disaster. You don't get to disown him because of the wider repercussions of a policy born from an ideology that you support. Never mind the fact that Greenspan's policies somewhat shrunk the government's legal role in regulating destructive financial behavior. (But he did not eliminate it, and yes, the government and finance industries were complicit in some shady, corrupt shit)

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So you are racist AND sexist, not to mention close-minded. I think I'm just going to call it a day here. It amazes me that you don't realize that your arguments boil down to 'if we just let Northern European males handle things, everything would be OK'.

Oh man, it really is that simple for you isn't it? I talk about cultures and nations, and because of the groups I've selected as examples (which included Japan), you distill the concept of race? How am I racist for stating which countries are currently successful? Are you for real?

And please tell me you aren't so socially inept as to be unable to separate lighthearted casual internet political incorrectness from full blown sexism. I say something tantamount to "get back in the kitchen", and now I'm a woman-hater. Okay. I didn't know this was tumblr.

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So, you agree that:

• Our government is corrupt
• Bernie Sanders would increase the size of the government
• Bernie Sanders would not substantially decrease its level of corruption

Ergo, Bernie Sanders is the worst candidate in the field. At least Jeb and Clinton wouldn't make the current mess worse. I don't think a libertarian would be elected, but if they were, then yes I think things would get better by the reverse logic (a small corrupt government is better than a larger corrupt government).

We disagree on whether the government should be big or small. I feel as though I made a pretty good case for the value of government, but of course we're never going to agree on this point. Somehow the fact that large, successful, largely non-corrupt governments exist doesn't count, apparently because the fact that they exist is... racist? Oh well

I also disagree that Bernie Sanders would not substantially decrease its level of corruption. Honestly I believe his advocacy has a good chance of being effective, and would at the very least start us on the road to change. Bush, Trump, Clinton, or a libertarian would only get us in deeper.

[entruil]

End the Federal Reserve Corporation

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So, you agree that:

• Our government is corrupt
• Bernie Sanders would increase the size of the government
• Bernie Sanders would not substantially decrease its level of corruption

wait are you trying to say that the government is somehow more corrupt than corporations in a free market...?!

The government must answer to the people, corporations must not if they want to make the most amount of money possible.

If you think that the Government is corrupt, a system that has checks and balances in order for it to be transparent so that it cannot be corrupt, can still become corrupt.. however a corporation which is obliged to keep its activities secret would somehow be less corrupt.. well then it is you that is being naive.

ITT there are two types of people, people that pledge allegiance to a system designed so that people can control the checks and balances of their environment.. and people who pledge allegiance to a system designed to remove them from the equation.

The government you can believe in, if you believe in a corporation, you simply have been hoodwinked by television or commercials.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The truth is, based off the information that the scientific community provides, if we don't do anything as he stated in the debates, we likely will make the world inhabitable in a few generations.

Ah, so now you agree with batshit insane Sanders. Even if man continues pumping out CO2 like no tomorrow, the world will still be quite habitable in 100, 500, and 1000 years. But no yeah, keep on saying things that not even the most pessimistic of scientists predict. It makes you look like you're smarter than the collective knowledge of mankind. It really does.