Jump to content
SaysWho?

~*Official 2020 Candidates Thread*~

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

 

The personal wealth of a politician is irrelevant unless it was gotten in less than ethical or in an illegal manner.

 

Of course there are questions about his and his wife's finances after his first Senate run which is by pure coincidence just outside of the ten year release (after delaying by almost four years). Total coincidence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

pYmUjHS.jpg

 

Is he saying he's planning on riding Trump into battle??? :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Chris- said:

 

Does that matter? I pay a lot of attention to leftist-oriented publications (Splinter, Jacobin, etc.) and organizations (like the local DSA chapter). The rhetoric expressed is always that wealth and capitalism are unequivocally bad; whether you are talking about $2 million, $20 million, or $200 million, that rhetoric is incompatible with the notion that someone can make that much money in one year without any ethical misgivings. 

 

To be fair their heart is in the right place - they are just massively over-correcting because wealth has, almost synonymously become associated with being bad because, generally speaking, wealthy people have shown they are bad with their wealth. 

 

Now, to your earlier point about it being unobjectionable in the absence of exploitation, I absolutely agree. Are you suggesting that leftists wouldn't understand that? I still think "wealth is bad" is a good short hand because generally speaking it's true - Bernie Sanders being the exception (and there are other exceptions of course) only proves the rule. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jason said:

 

 

The kid in question is currently leaning toward Klobuchar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SaysWho? said:

 

The kid in question is currently leaning toward Klobuchar.

 

White boys can't duck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

I once thought she had good political instincts 🤷‍♂️

 

She's awful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

 

I once thought she had good political instincts 🤷‍♂️

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2019 at 10:03 AM, Greatoneshere said:

 

To be fair their heart is in the right place - they are just massively over-correcting because wealth has, almost synonymously become associated with being bad because, generally speaking, wealthy people have shown they are bad with their wealth. 

 

Now, to your earlier point about it being unobjectionable in the absence of exploitation, I absolutely agree. Are you suggesting that leftists wouldn't understand that? I still think "wealth is bad" is a good short hand because generally speaking it's true - Bernie Sanders being the exception (and there are other exceptions of course) only proves the rule. 

It’s not true. It’s absurd. There are plenty of unethical rich people, but it doesn’t follow that wealth itself is bad. 

 

Have you ever spent a meaningful amount of time in a developing nation? This whole notion that wealth is bad has been tested and the results are in. I strongly prefer being in rich countries where there are a lot of millionaires and a lot of wealth. 

 

How do you help the poor with redistribution if you don’t have wealth to tax?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Massdriver said:

It’s not true. It’s absurd. There are plenty of unethical rich people, but it doesn’t follow that wealth itself is bad. 

 

Have you ever spent a meaningful amount of time in a developing nation? This whole nation that wealth is bad has been tested and the results are in. I strongly prefer being in rich countries where there are a lot of millionaires and a lot of wealth. 

 

How do you help the poor with redistribution if you don’t have wealth to tax?

 

I would say you are fundamentally misunderstanding what people mean when they use the shorthand "wealth is bad" which was entirely my point. The argument I'm making is that wealth isn't bad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

I would say you are fundamentally misunderstanding what people mean when they use the shorthand "wealth is bad" which was entirely my point. The argument I'm making is that wealth isn't bad. 

You said it was good short hand. Wealth is good is good short hand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

It’s not true. It’s absurd. There are plenty of unethical rich people, but it doesn’t follow that wealth itself is bad. 

 

Have you ever spent a meaningful amount of time in a developing nation? This whole nation that wealth is bad has been tested and the results are in. I strongly prefer being in rich countries where there are a lot of millionaires and a lot of wealth. 

 

How do you help the poor with redistribution if you don’t have wealth to tax?

 

Perhaps developing nations are poor precisely because they’ve been exploited by wealthier nations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, SilentWorld said:

 

Perhaps developing nations are poor precisely because they’ve been exploited by wealthier nations. 

That’s true for many poor countries, but not all of them. However  it doesn’t follow that wealth is bad. Every nation on earth could be wealthy. It isn’t a zero sum game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind having fewer obscenely wealthy people if it meant they don't control as much compared to poorer people, and poorer/middle-class people have more spending power. We live in a nation where a not insignificant amount of people are scared of a sudden $500 medical bill; that's hardly a resounding "results are in and fuck yeah."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wealth isn't bad, the wealthy using their political power to keep people poor and refuse to help them are bad and thinking that poor people don't have a voice in that discussion is also bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...