Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Bernie Sanders HQ! *A decent human being. (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter BigSteelThrill
- Start date
mcintyre1
Footballguy
The Internet hype machine is starting to wind up. Got a targeted email from Bernie's campaign touting this video made by a "fellow redditor".
Total pandering to my sensibilities, but it worked.
Total pandering to my sensibilities, but it worked.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
That's a really good ad.
I think Jon Stewart captured it, "he has a set of consistent principles, that he has run on his entire political life."
"He is truly an honest man."
I hope this country can get back to talking about ideas, that's where we belong.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Yeah I'm pretty much all in on Bernie at this point. Gonna send him some money. Gonna give him.my vote even if I have to write it in come November. Hillary has already sold herself to the highest bidder and we know damn well it wasn't average Americans who won the auction.
NCCommish
Footballguy
So Bernie told CNN today he wants to provide free college just like the countries we compete against provide for their kids. But he then said he would raise taxes on trade transactions to pay for it. Not sure why. It would cost the US less to just pay for it then it costs us now to lend money to pay for it. By a couple billion dollars IIRC.
Gawain
Footballguy
mcintyre1
Footballguy
The other issue I have with that particular plan is that I believe they tried a similar tax in Switzerland or somewhere that resulted (as expected) in a massive drop in the number of the trades that were being taxed, something like 90% less. My question is whether that is expected and accounted for with this policy change.
mcintyre1
Footballguy
Yeah, I didn't love that he didn't have a great answer for why he had done that, but I do have to give him credit for answering a tough question that most would have simply avoided. My view is that he probably voted against them for reasons related to things that might have been tacked on to the bill, or that he felt the limited funds going around (unless you're the military) could be better spent elsewhere on jobs, health, etc.
mcintyre1
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Gawain
Footballguy
Oh no, I agree. A vote for ten Alaskan bridges and NASA funding should be voted down. If I really cared, I'd look at what the bills actually contained.
I would gladly vote for him, though as a Republican in NY, I'm not liking my chances.
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The_Man
Footballguy
More than 20 years ago, I was the press secretary for the campaign that came closer than anyone else ever has to knocking off Bernie in a race - we held him under 50% of the vote, but still lost by about 3%. My candidate was a liberal Republican, and Bernie was a two-term incumbent Congressman who hadn't yet perfected his shtick, not to mention Vermont hadn't gone as left as it is today.
Today, I love him. But back then, I didn't think he was a good representative for our state. With only one Congressman, I believed it was important to have someone who could work collaboratively with others to get things done that Vermont needed. And I also thought it was important to have someone with a robust constituent services operation, since there was no one else in the House for anyone in the entire state to turn to. Bernie's point of view was that it was impossible for a lone Congressman (alone in his state delegation, and alone as the only Independent) to get anything done, so his job was to go to Washington and shake things up as much as possible. People in Vermont loved it at first - even right wing backwoodsman, who viewed sending Bernie to DC as their "F U" to Congress.
We knew we couldn't win on personality. My candidate was kind of unknown, and who were we to tell people they shouldn't like the guy? So we ran the least personality-drive, most issues-driven campaign you could ever imagine. While Bernie wanted to talk about the multi-national corporations, and big businesses, and demolition of the working class -- all the things that are rightfully fueling his Presidential bid today -- we talked about the most mundane, Vermont-centric stuff you can imagine. And it worked. I feel like if we had another week, we could have beaten him.
At the time we lost, I was crushed. But today I'm so happy we lost, because I have become more liberal and because I've come to recognize Bernie (maybe along with Ralph Nader) as the most prominent, authentic populist voice of the last quarter-century. Look at his views on the military. Even as he's voted against every war, he's worked tirelessly to advance veterans' benefits - the exact opposite of so many who rush our troops into combat and then forget about them when they bear the scars of battle. I admire that so much.
And I also feel some pride that we made Bernie become a better Congressman - he saw how close he came to defeat, and he refocused, making sure that he took care of his constituents' needs before advancing his national agenda. He realized he had to have allies and began to work with the Democratic caucus, even while maintaining his Independent status.
It is going to be great sport to watch him in the very few primary debates that I expect Hillary will deign participate in. But I really don't think he has any chance whatsoever. He's 74. He's loud and abrasive. Nobody knows who he is. And, sadly, the views he espouses are very out of line with the direction America is heading. This is a victory lap before heading into the sunset, not the start of something. But I will be cheering him every step of the way.
Today, I love him. But back then, I didn't think he was a good representative for our state. With only one Congressman, I believed it was important to have someone who could work collaboratively with others to get things done that Vermont needed. And I also thought it was important to have someone with a robust constituent services operation, since there was no one else in the House for anyone in the entire state to turn to. Bernie's point of view was that it was impossible for a lone Congressman (alone in his state delegation, and alone as the only Independent) to get anything done, so his job was to go to Washington and shake things up as much as possible. People in Vermont loved it at first - even right wing backwoodsman, who viewed sending Bernie to DC as their "F U" to Congress.
We knew we couldn't win on personality. My candidate was kind of unknown, and who were we to tell people they shouldn't like the guy? So we ran the least personality-drive, most issues-driven campaign you could ever imagine. While Bernie wanted to talk about the multi-national corporations, and big businesses, and demolition of the working class -- all the things that are rightfully fueling his Presidential bid today -- we talked about the most mundane, Vermont-centric stuff you can imagine. And it worked. I feel like if we had another week, we could have beaten him.
At the time we lost, I was crushed. But today I'm so happy we lost, because I have become more liberal and because I've come to recognize Bernie (maybe along with Ralph Nader) as the most prominent, authentic populist voice of the last quarter-century. Look at his views on the military. Even as he's voted against every war, he's worked tirelessly to advance veterans' benefits - the exact opposite of so many who rush our troops into combat and then forget about them when they bear the scars of battle. I admire that so much.
And I also feel some pride that we made Bernie become a better Congressman - he saw how close he came to defeat, and he refocused, making sure that he took care of his constituents' needs before advancing his national agenda. He realized he had to have allies and began to work with the Democratic caucus, even while maintaining his Independent status.
It is going to be great sport to watch him in the very few primary debates that I expect Hillary will deign participate in. But I really don't think he has any chance whatsoever. He's 74. He's loud and abrasive. Nobody knows who he is. And, sadly, the views he espouses are very out of line with the direction America is heading. This is a victory lap before heading into the sunset, not the start of something. But I will be cheering him every step of the way.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
This is an observation from business and politics: people who believe and know their subject are better and more convincing than people who go in with notes and preconceived notions of what people want to hear. This is true even when their audience does not necessarily agree with the person on every single item, they tend to favor the person whom they trust more in knowledge and as a person. The above reads a little like he was a populist in VT, but it also sounds to me like he's not about pressing buttons. I think if someone hears Bernie, and they hear Hillary, with an open mind, most often (50+%) they will pick Bernie. The question is how many will get that chance and how many will be open minded. He does seem to have a history of upsets though. IIRC he first got into politics as mayor of a small town, those are the people who intrigue me the most, they get involved because they are civically active trying to improve things around them. It also sounds to me like VT is maybe more like our democracy was envisioned, smaller and more intimate.
timschochet
Footballguy
The polls consistently show that most of the people who will be deciding between these two (Democrats) do not believe that Hillary is as dishonest as you do.
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
timschochet
Footballguy
I did. But his implication is that people will find Bernie to be honest, and Hillary to be less than honest. They don't.
The_Man
Footballguy
Oh, Bernie's the real deal. He's been talking about the exact same issues for almost 40 years. His first electoral victory was for Mayor of Burlington - a small town, but the biggest one in Vermont - when he beat the long-time Democratic incumbent (a Richard Daley type) by 12 votes in a 4-way race. It was such a shock that the rumor forever after was that some of the incumbent Mayor's staff had voted for Bernie as a joke.
It was under him that Burlington changed from a small town to the "Seattle of New England" or whatever you want to call it - a progressive, educated, cool place.
There is not a single question that will throw him, because he believes completely in his worldview, and isn't beholden to any interest group that will make him hold his tongue. He's the kind of politician who doesn't really care what you think, he's there to tell you what he thinks. Of course, that's also his greatest weakness. He can't compromise and his belief that he alone is right and holds the moral high ground in every argument can get tiresome. But it should make for great political theater while his campaign lasts.
It was under him that Burlington changed from a small town to the "Seattle of New England" or whatever you want to call it - a progressive, educated, cool place.
There is not a single question that will throw him, because he believes completely in his worldview, and isn't beholden to any interest group that will make him hold his tongue. He's the kind of politician who doesn't really care what you think, he's there to tell you what he thinks. Of course, that's also his greatest weakness. He can't compromise and his belief that he alone is right and holds the moral high ground in every argument can get tiresome. But it should make for great political theater while his campaign lasts.
tom22406
Footballguy
Bernie reminds me a little of Ron Paul with how loyal his followers are.Clearly they are worlds apart in how they view things but they are the type of candidate who draws interest and say and believe things the usual suspects rarely say which is very refreshing.
I guess my hope is one day to have a President just be able to tell it like it is but in this political climate not a chance in hell that ever happens in my lifetime.
I guess my hope is one day to have a President just be able to tell it like it is but in this political climate not a chance in hell that ever happens in my lifetime.
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish
Footballguy
Really? I saw a poll that showed 4 out of 10 democrats wouldn't describe her as honest and 6 out of 10 independents wouldn't.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the responses guys. As funny as it sounds, as an individual seeking statelessness, I think I'll vote for a socialist, even funnier I think is that it is during an election where Ron Paul's son is running... Foreign policy is just to important an issue to overlook. Mainly I think because it effects people who don't have a voice in our system. Godspeed.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Many times when politics comes up in conversation it's in the context that all politicians are lying, crooked, corrupt, hypocrits who will say anything to get elected/re-elected. The idea of an honest politician who actually believes in something with enough conviction to try and see it through at all costs is basically a myth.
Yet now we have that. A guy who is very clear about what he wants and you're either onboard with it or not, but he's not going to change it to get your vote.
And the vast majority will probably not be able to tell you his name 2 years from now, while they're busy complaining about all the scandalous, lying politicians out there.
Yet now we have that. A guy who is very clear about what he wants and you're either onboard with it or not, but he's not going to change it to get your vote.
And the vast majority will probably not be able to tell you his name 2 years from now, while they're busy complaining about all the scandalous, lying politicians out there.
The Commish
Footballguy
If his name is on the ballot here in SC during primaries I'll vote for him because of the things you mention. It helps a lot that I agree with him on what the government's role in healthcare should be.
The Commish
Footballguy
There are several in this vein. They're as easy to find as the "pro Hillary" ones yet they don't ever seem to make it to the threads of footballguys.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Truthfully?
Because those with all the money/resources/power spend enough to gain benefits from the laws.
And when debated they will talk about abstract jobs/investments/creators (which is a total fairy tale).
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Remove capital gains, and more millionaire investors will put their money overseas, in countries that welcome their investments. How will that help us?
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Someone will fill their spots. No problem. We intake tons of rich from around the world who are dieing to do business here.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Right on cue.IMAX 3D said:
It doesn't quite work that way. That's a way over simplified position that would have terrible ramifications if people who were actually decision makers actually thought this was the case. Just terrible.
timschochet
Footballguy
Maybe they don't, NC. but that's a pretty high level. I work with people who buy and/or develop small shopping centers and single tenant investments- guys that have 4 or 5 million to spend. You raise capital gain taxes and they will go elsewhere, I guarantee it. Or they'll simply stop investing.
the moops
Footballguy
People would decide to make no money investing rather than just make slightly less money investing?
timschochet
Footballguy
Unfortunately, that's been my experience since 2008. The money stays in the bank, and they simply wait for things to get better.
NCCommish
Footballguy
When it comes to taxes as a percentage of GDP we are 25% below the OECD average. Our corporate effective rate is nearly 70% lower than the rest of the G8 which average around 22% to our 13%. And yet there are still businesses headquartered and inveatorsnstill invest in these higher tax countries. Why?
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Touche. Nice.
You're right, of course, it's all I got. The rest is theory. Either you believe that we can raise these taxes and it won't hurt investment, or you believe that it WILL hurt investment. What you believe in these cases is probably based on your political philosophy. Personally, I don't know. I've always believed that heavier taxation is bad for business, and every investor I work with believes that too. But on the other hand, in the past few decades, when taxes have gone up the economy has generally improved, and when taxes have been lowered (as in 2001) there was no effect or things were worse. So who knows?
timschochet
Footballguy
I know. Because people still want to be here anyway. But as much as that argues for your POV, I could just as easily twist it around and suggest that if we had an even LOWER effective corporate tax rate, there would be even MORE investors.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Really? History suggests we'd just be broke or are you intending the public to take on the entire tax burden? Looking for an 80% rate are you?
timschochet
Footballguy
There's a lot of smart people who agree with you on this. There's also a lot of smart people who disagree. I'm just not sure, honestly.
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Forget investors for a second, how much money could we raise just by closing tax loopholes that allow big corporations to rake in billions of dollars in income while paying, literally, zero taxes. It's pretty ridiculous that GE and Google combine to pay $0 in taxes every year.
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/top-10-corporate-tax-avoiders
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/top-10-corporate-tax-avoiders
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
But we were EXACTLY talking about Millionaires as per Tims post. Nice switch-a-roo.IMAX 3D said:
These people aren't going to quit trying and they aren't going to leave America (without even more to fill the ranks). That's conservatives scare tactics, nothing more.
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
I would certainly like a more equal treatment of capital, labor, and consumption. In the current state, that probably means bringing labor down and consumption up whether than just raising capital to labor.
Something Herman Cain actually had a good idea about...
So all of these people who are dieing to do business here aren't doing so right now, but they'll gladly jump right in when they'd have a lower ROI? Oof.
Similar threads
