Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[Theodarzna]

So I just got (yet another) political add on YouTube, which raised two important questions:

1) Why the fuck is Tulsi Gabbard still running ads?

2) Why is she dog whistling 9/11 truthers? Seriously, the whole add was a clear appeal to conspiracy theorists.

I couldn't find the add, but here is an article about it.

Just what we needed, another candidate that throws around dangerous conspiracy theories to promote their political agenda.

Her dangerous political agenda of not drone striking civilians and participating in forever wars across the planet? Yup.... sounds super dangerous if you work for Raytheon I guess.

[Fugus]

So I just got (yet another) political add on YouTube, which raised two important questions:

1) Why the fuck is Tulsi Gabbard still running ads?

2) Why is she dog whistling 9/11 truthers? Seriously, the whole add was a clear appeal to conspiracy theorists.

I couldn't find the add, but here is an article about it.

Just what we needed, another candidate that throws around dangerous conspiracy theories to promote their political agenda.

Honestly haven't got any political ads from youtube when I watch, but I can't help but notice the hypocrisy on their part with them actually airing paid political ads while at the same time demonetizing other political videos. Not talking about conspiracy theory ones, I mean legit political channels.

[Blade Wolf]

So I just got (yet another) political add on YouTube, which raised two important questions:

1) Why the fuck is Tulsi Gabbard still running ads?

2) Why is she dog whistling 9/11 truthers? Seriously, the whole add was a clear appeal to conspiracy theorists.

I couldn't find the add, but here is an article about it.

Just what we needed, another candidate that throws around dangerous conspiracy theories to promote their political agenda.

It's about the Saudis involvement in 9/11 which is a fact.



This is what it's about.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8279236.html

The victims of 9/11 got the green light to bring legal action against the Saudis but the goverment is withholding information needed to proceed.

[mvaliz]

Warren especially is trying to redefine the scope of political discussion by, as you say, rejecting the conventional wisdom entirely because it's ultimately a product of that same post-Reagan/Thatcher era narrative in which taxes are an intrusive nuisance to fund bloated bureaucracies giving handouts to lazy people.

I think it's simply more plausible that she realized responding to stupid accusations (ie. Dumbass Dump's "Pochahontas" because she once commented she has native American blood-relation that he questions) results in not a constructive counter-argument, but instead a shitmore amount of stupid accusations (ie. Proving she's part Cherokee, but instead of people accepting it - everybody else says that's "proof" she's overusing her blood-line heritage as a tool - despite discussing it only once ever).

In short: She's no longer taking the bait anymore, because the bait always leads to trolls and nothing constructive.

- - - Updated - - -

So I just got (yet another) political add on YouTube, which raised two important questions:

1) You still get ads on Youtube?

2) Seriously, you aren't using Adblock on Youtube!?! o_O

EDIT: Double post for some reason. =/

[jeezusisacasual]

The problem with dual (American) citizenship is the financial burden it imposes (that, and not Donald Trump or my disagreements with US politics in general was my primary motivator behind renouncing my citizenship) - first, there's the fact that the United States is one of the few nations that taxes foreign earned income (yes, there's an exclusion, but its not that high); second, there's difficulty banking, as many banks are unwilling or unable to do business with American citizens due to the burden doing so places on them (thanks, Obama); and finally, there's the difficulty and cost in finding a good accountant who can handle the intersection of doing business abroad and complying with US tax law.(Although, in the other direction, be aware that expatriation is not cheap or easy - Uncle Sam makes you jump through hoops and pay through the nose for your freedom; the "right" answer is very much going to depend on long term plans and individual financial situation (although keep in mind that one reason to hold US citizenship ("the Marines will (within reason) come get you if the country you're in goes to hell") is no longer in effect - it is for other major countries, from EU member states, to China, to India, but the United States now lets its citizens go hang if they have the bad fortune to be doing the "business of Empire" when the fire starts (even, or perhaps especially, if the US participates in the fire-starting)).

You can exempt a decent portion in my case almost 41k USD worth. In others as large as 107k depending on a variety of factors. I also manage my own taxes which helps save a decent chunk. I work for ANZ which ends the banking problem and i have used them for the past 5 years or so, i was in New Zealand for a stint also. Like i said i work in finance which perhaps gives me a bit of a leg up when it comes to the average person in dealing with these sort of issues but doing ones taxes and allotments should be second nature at this point. The fee's associated with the international tax prep / filing are a decent chunk of money around 3-4k.

[Voidwielder]

Dude, it's a twitter post by someone running for President. Give me a break.

Secondly, we're a capitalist country. There is nothing wrong with great wealth. And Bill Gates did build one of the great companies of our times. Oh, and by the way how has he spent most of the past 20 years since he stood down from his day-to-day job at Microsoft?

That's right. Being a philanthropist.

What do you think will be Bill Gates' biggest legacy to the world...founding Microsoft or doing more to personally finance the eradication of Malaria in Sub-Saharan Africa than by anyone living? Hey remember that time he pledged $5 billion to fight AIDS in Africa?

Yeah. A real Lex Luthor this one.

But I realize your non-serious commitment to a non-serious economic/political system will prevent you from recognizing the great good that capitalism has brought into the world.

Please hit me with the latest "End-Stage Capitalism" internet meme. I haven't had a good scoffing today.

Billionaires give their money to charities rather than directly to poor people because charities are part of the moral money laundering scheme that helps billionaires maintain good PR and keeps the recipients of that “charity” dependent on table scraps. That wealth IS the poor’s.

[PACOX]

Billionaires give their money to charities rather than directly to poor people because charities are part of the moral money laundering scheme that helps billionaires maintain good PR and keeps the recipients of that “charity” dependent on table scraps. That wealth IS the poor’s.

Charities are tax write offs, especially the ones designed for that purpose.

How many middle and poor people get to write off their charitable contributions? I mean you can but it's pointless in most cases.

[JohnBrown1917]

https://twitter.com/tommyxtopher/sta...28325664792576


So much for Warren giving a fuck about the working class.

[Dontrike]

https://twitter.com/tommyxtopher/sta...28325664792576


So much for Warren giving a fuck about the working class.

A question about what colored folk that Warren can't answer (and honestly who can answer a dumb question like that) would be working with her is Warren not caring about the working class?

Okay.

[I Push Buttons]

https://twitter.com/tommyxtopher/sta...28325664792576


So much for Warren giving a fuck about the working class.

If there is one thing fringe leftists can be counted on to actually get done, its self-sabotage and eating their own.

[JohnBrown1917]

If there is one thing fringe leftists can be counted on to actually get done, its self-sabotage and eating their own.

lol those siding with bankers are not 'left-wing'.

- - - Updated - - -

A question about what colored folk that Warren can't answer (and honestly who can answer a dumb question like that) would be working with her is Warren not caring about the working class?

Okay.

Its hard to pay attention to the names she named I see.

[Dontrike]

Its hard to pay attention to the names she named I see.

I didn't care enough to watch it, just saw the text on the tweet and my interest ended there.

[Skroe]

If Bloomberg were actually serious about beating Trump he spend 2% it his wealth over the next year to wipe out Trumps fundraising and messaging advantage and help any of the existing Democrats.

But he won’t because his latest stunt is all about a billionaires ego.

[Starter]

If Bloomberg were actually serious about beating Trump he spend 2% it his wealth over the next year to wipe out Trumps fundraising and messaging advantage and help any of the existing Democrats.

But he won’t because his latest stunt is all about a billionaires ego.

I doubt he will run too. Trump is afraid he will though lol

[PACOX]

https://twitter.com/tommyxtopher/sta...28325664792576


So much for Warren giving a fuck about the working class.

That's such a stupid question. One, naming a cabinet now is just stupid. Even if you have people in mind it's a bad look when you work with and/or run run against them.

The question is a loaded trap, as if her worth as a candidate is to pull 3 black names out a hate to say she has 3 token black people in her administration...and why 3?

That was some bullshit.

I don't want to just dismiss Angela Rye because she has said a lot of stuff I agree with but it seems like she is becoming an industry hack. She'll have her own show on CNN or something one day.

[Endus]

That's such a stupid question. One, naming a cabinet now is just stupid. Even if you have people in mind it's a bad look when you work with and/or run run against them.

Just as a for-instance, I imagine Kamala Harris is a top pick for AG, if she doesn't get the nom.

But as a candidate, you can't say that about a fellow candidate, because it's seen as dismissing their candidacy unfairly. You've gotta either wait until they step down or lose, or come to a mutual agreement that you're each other's cabinet picks, and state that publicly.

Which is why she dodged the question by saying some of them are running for President.

The question is a loaded trap, as if her worth as a candidate is to pull 3 black names out a hate to say she has 3 token black people in her administration...and why 3?

That was some bullshit.

It's right up there with "when did you stop beating your husband?"

If she names a fellow candidate, she's dismissing their candidacy and talking down to them, which will put Warren in a bad light.
If she names some handful of members of Congress, then anyone she didn't name has cause to feel snubbed.
If she tries to name every black member of Congress, that's way more than 3 names, and if she misses even one person, that's all anyone would take away from it.

There is no good answer to be had. Every single answer will anger her colleagues or will be used maliciously by the press to inflame sentiments against Warren. The journalist shouldn't have even asked.

Now, if Warren had proposed a set of cabinet picks for her Presidency, and none of them were people of color, then you'd have something to work with. This is just bad gotcha bullshit.

[ringpriest]

If Bloomberg were actually serious about beating Trump he spend 2% it his wealth over the next year to wipe out Trumps fundraising and messaging advantage and help any of the existing Democrats.

But he won’t because his latest stunt is all about a billionaires ego.

I'd agree that ego is a large part of it, but given his announced strategy (skip the first four, then go all in on Super Tuesday), I suspect his candidacy is also about making certain there's an alternative to Sanders and Warren should Biden collapse (Bloomberg's very presence also lets Biden, Buttigeig and others seem moderate by comparison); the wealth inequality and populist impulses that (very mistakenly) led to Trump are also present on the American left (where the mere invocation of "socialism!" is an insufficient deterrent to anti-plutocratic sentiment), and most hectomillionaires (or Very High Net Worth Individuals) would really rather not have American voters thinking about whether or not highly concentrated wealth truly benefits the public or nation (much less that it's within their power to actually do something about it).

[Frogguh]

Every single candidate is either incompetent or a complete nutjob. Just pick the loser you think has the best chance of beating Trump, because none of them are good candidates by any objective measure.

[Skroe]

Every single candidate is either incompetent or a complete nutjob. Just pick the loser you think has the best chance of beating Trump, because none of them are good candidates by any objective measure.

With the right message any of the big 3 can.

The question isn't if Donald Trump can beat the Democratic nominee. The question is if the Democratic nominee is going to beat themselves.

[JohnBrown1917]

Every single candidate is either incompetent or a complete nutjob. Just pick the loser you think has the best chance of beating Trump, because none of them are good candidates by any objective measure.

Unles you actualy want to improve the lives of those that are not rich, I suppose? Although even then thats only Bernie.