Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian Puppet...

[Greg]

Me..? You don´t read my girlish posts anyway...?

But ok, this is an interesting one, so I´ll take the bait. Hillary, for all her flaws, is certainly a skilled politician. She knew this would get massive attention. So why give that to a candidate that draws around 1-2% and is on the verge of going out of the race...? Still not sure on that one, could be either way... Now, Gabbards response is even more interesting. Almost full out Trumpish outlash. She too of course knows that will be seen everywhere. So still trying to fugure out what it all actually means...

Now, for the actual issue of "grooming", that is a blatant exaggeration. But there´s no doubt she gets massive attention in russian state controlled media, I mean just look yourselves, and that a lot of her social media trending hashtags are indeed russian bots. I wan´t to stress however that I don´t think there´s any collusion or whatever here. But of course Putin would be happy with someone that looks ready to withdraw from the world, or atleast have her knick enough votes from a dem to make sure Trump keeps doing his thing for another four years. Russia absolutley loves his foreign policy (or lack there of).

As for Tulsi, I still don´t quite get her. On many social and ecnomic issues she seems as left as Obama, actually Obama also had a similar stance on wars before taking office and faced with the mess of reality in the middle east... chances are it´d be the same for her.
But it is peculiar with a "moderate democrat" that draws praise from the far left, libertarians, some Fox News-guys, Russia, David Duke and Ron Paul.

She could be the lead every night on every Russian news segment and it wouldn't mean anything. Who cares how much attention the Russian media gives her?

[Vlad the lad]

I honestly think it's a once in a generation type ticket. A real grassroots lead chance to redo the economy in ways that haven't been done before, and also have a person who's dead serious about ending the wars and sound foreign policy in general. I'm only 26 but it would be the first time I would have ever voted in my life, and I would be smiling from ear to ear ready to pull the lever.

I hope you aren’t voting in the states. You want to redo the economy? What does that mean? Bring back the recession?

And end the wars? I thought everyone was upset with Trump for ending a war

[Greg]

Don't doubt Hillary's political acumen. She called out Donald's nefarious relationships early in the 2016 election and was and will continue to be shown to be spot on.

The Trump-right has been oddly enamored with Tulsi since day 1. As one should never doubt Hillary's political acumen, one should always question the political acumen of the Trump-right! There isn't much synaptic dance-floor music being played there to put it kindly! My guess is the Trump-right's Facebook page, courtesy of Mr Zuck, has been filling in that Tulsi music for quite a while now.

Hillary coming out and making this known is one of the more interesting political developments since the whistle-blower gave Congress the impeachment roadmap and it will be seen as quite prescient for those who actually care about the constitution. We have to wait and see but with 66 million votes, Hillary deserves and has earned the attention.

WHAT nefarious relationships?

Hillary is a crazy old bitty that needs to just go away. If you are a Republican she is actually an assett for you at this point. Few in the center are going to take her seriously anymore. She comes off as (and is) a spiteful old hag who thinks Americans are stupid for not electing her.

[steelerhater]

WHAT nefarious relationships?

Hillary is a crazy old bitty that needs to just go away. If you are a Republican she is actually an assett for you at this point. Few in the center are going to take her seriously anymore. She comes off as (and is) a spiteful old hag who thinks Americans are stupid for not electing her.

I just think it’s hilarious that someone supporting Hillary is talking about nefarious relationships. Lol.

[darb72]

I honestly think it's a once in a generation type ticket. A real grassroots lead chance to redo the economy in ways that haven't been done before, and also have a person who's dead serious about ending the wars and sound foreign policy in general. I'm only 26 but it would be the first time I would have ever voted in my life, and I would be smiling from ear to ear ready to pull the lever.

EDIT: I'm gonna try to explain this to you, but first read this. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/why-s...-always-fails/

Okay, here's how this goes.

By the time I was your age, thanks to hard work, I was settling into my career. Around the same time my wife finished her masters in accounting and so settled into her career. Now she's the vice-president for a multi-billion dollar bank, and I'm an egghead. We're not the 1% by any stretch, but we have a nice house, three cars, and I was able to take off to England for a month this summer to finish some research while she got season tickets to Alabama games. When we got married, she was a roving teller and I was TA hoping like hell for an adjunct position that'd pay me 11k a year. We kept at it and worked hard for what we have.

The question is, why should we go through all that struggle (I had offers to teach at some community colleges around here for 40k a year but wanted a university position) if we're just gonna have the same things as a guy flipping burgers? Why should I go to college for seven years, three of which were spent away from the woman I love, if I'm not gonna be paid much more than someone who barely graduated high school? That is the thing socialists cannot answer. Why would people work hard if there is no reward?

You're answer is gonna be some variation of nobody will have to work hard. Probably followed up by some argument about the people owning the means of production. The thing you fail to grasp is that if nobody has any capital (you'll note that is the root word of capitalism) then no factories are being built. You might try saying that the government will build the factories, which is communism. Then I'll ask you about innovation. For example, American pharmaceutical companies outstrip the rest of the world when it comes to medical breakthroughs. True we're more expensive, but damn if it ain't worth it.

I'm a medievalist by trade, so I know plenty about the rise of capitalism and what came before it. For about 5,000 years, society was pretty much the same. Hell, the British were still using medical textbooks from ancient Rome in the 18th century. But the plague hit Europe in the 14th century and suddenly people started getting paid fair wages for their labor. The king and parliament passed laws that stipulated peasants could not be paid more for farming one landowners farm than another's, but that most assuredly was laughed at by everybody who mattered (you might recognize the attempt at wage fixing as something your party believes in). People started getting paid more if they worked harder. Some were able to buy land. I remember an article dealing with the caste system, and this guy started out as an indentured servant in England, selling his own wares at market once a week. When he died, he left three sizable tracts of land to his two sons and daughter. Before capitalism he would never have been able to do that. You, for some inexplicable reason, want us to go back to the way things were BEFORE the bubonic plague hit.

And you call yourselves progressive.

[blueridgemtnman]

I would love that ticket. The fact Warren and Biden are leading in the polls is just depressing.

Everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinion. I, for one, despise pretty much everything Gabbard stands for(not everything). Way too far left for me, although, for some reason, some folks on here seem to think she's somewhat center or moderate. I can't grasp where they get that, but to each their own. Maybe in relation to some of the far left candidates, she may seem much better, perhaps (?) I've read up on her and I'll pass.

[bandc]

EDIT: I'm gonna try to explain this to you, but first read this. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/why-s...-always-fails/

Okay, here's how this goes.

By the time I was your age, thanks to hard work, I was settling into my career. Around the same time my wife finished her masters in accounting and so settled into her career. Now she's the vice-president for a multi-billion dollar bank, and I'm an egghead. We're not the 1% by any stretch, but we have a nice house, three cars, and I was able to take off to England for a month this summer to finish some research while she got season tickets to Alabama games. When we got married, she was a roving teller and I was TA hoping like hell for an adjunct position that'd pay me 11k a year. We kept at it and worked hard for what we have.

The question is, why should we go through all that struggle (I had offers to teach at some community colleges around here for 40k a year but wanted a university position) if we're just gonna have the same things as a guy flipping burgers? Why should I go to college for seven years, three of which were spent away from the woman I love, if I'm not gonna be paid much more than someone who barely graduated high school? That is the thing socialists cannot answer. Why would people work hard if there is no reward?

You're answer is gonna be some variation of nobody will have to work hard. Probably followed up by some argument about the people owning the means of production. The thing you fail to grasp is that if nobody has any capital (you'll note that is the root word of capitalism) then no factories are being built. You might try saying that the government will build the factories, which is communism. Then I'll ask you about innovation. For example, American pharmaceutical companies outstrip the rest of the world when it comes to medical breakthroughs. True we're more expensive, but damn if it ain't worth it.

I'm a medievalist by trade, so I know plenty about the rise of capitalism and what came before it. For about 5,000 years, society was pretty much the same. Hell, the British were still using medical textbooks from ancient Rome in the 18th century. But the plague hit Europe in the 14th century and suddenly people started getting paid fair wages for their labor. The king and parliament passed laws that stipulated peasants could not be paid more for farming one landowners farm than another's, but that most assuredly was laughed at by everybody who mattered (you might recognize the attempt at wage fixing as something your party believes in). People started getting paid more if they worked harder. Some were able to buy land. I remember an article dealing with the caste system, and this guy started out as an indentured servant in England, selling his own wares at market once a week. When he died, he left three sizable tracts of land to his two sons and daughter. Before capitalism he would never have been able to do that. You, for some inexplicable reason, want us to go back to the way things were BEFORE the bubonic plague hit.

And you call yourselves progressive.

I feel like you are misinformed on the way Andrew Yang wants to fund his main policy. From what you are saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that you think Yang wants to implement a sort of wealth tax/income tax, which is categorically wrong. I disagree with wealth taxes because as you said, it punishes those who work and save to get to where they want to in life.

What Yang is proposing is a Value Added Tax (VAT) which taxes consumption. A VAT combined with a Universal Basic Income is super progressive and allows people to build on that while making sure basic staples like food and shelter are taken care of. As he says, "it's not socialism, it's capitalism that doesn't start at zero."

It's the opposite of providing tax breaks to corporations and giving bailouts to wall street. Yangs premise is that the way we have been doing business in the country is creating a larger and larger wealth gap. By giving the money directly to the people, it will spur entrepreneurship, job creation, and a much healthier form of capitalism.

Also, I would also kindly like to point out that your point about people working less has been debunked with pretty much every UBI study. The only people who work less were new mothers and kids who just finished high school (who probably went to college or something). Everyone worked just about the same or changed their profession in order to do something that made them happier.

Also, I would argue and say that the local infrastructure and economy would drastically increase in quality because of the infusion of consumer spending power. You don't need the government building factories when your average consumer is working hard and also has the commensurate amount of money to spend. I can foresee an increased need for mechanics/garages, bakeries, art, and other local businesses that get filled by the private sector.

The only jobs that the government would supply perhaps would be the updating of infrastructure.

[blah3]

I feel like you are misinformed on the way Andrew Yang wants to fund his main policy. From what you are saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that you think Yang wants to implement a sort of wealth tax/income tax, which is categorically wrong. I disagree with wealth taxes because as you said, it punishes those who work and save to get to where they want to in life.

What Yang is proposing is a Value Added Tax (VAT) which taxes consumption. A VAT combined with a Universal Basic Income is super progressive and allows people to build on that while making sure basic staples like food and shelter are taken care of. As he says, "it's not socialism, it's capitalism that doesn't start at zero."

It's the opposite of providing tax breaks to corporations and giving bailouts to wall street. Yangs premise is that the way we have been doing business in the country is creating a larger and larger wealth gap. By giving the money directly to the people, it will spur entrepreneurship, job creation, and a much healthier form of capitalism.

Also, I would also kindly like to point out that your point about people working less has been debunked with pretty much every UBI study. The only people who work less were new mothers and kids who just finished high school (who probably went to college or something). Everyone worked just about the same or changed their profession in order to do something that made them happier.

Also, I would argue and say that the local infrastructure and economy would drastically increase in quality because of the infusion of consumer spending power. You don't need the government building factories when your average consumer is working hard and also has the commensurate amount of money to spend. I can foresee an increased need for mechanics/garages, bakeries, art, and other local businesses that get filled by the private sector.

The only jobs that the government would supply perhaps would be the updating of infrastructure.

UBI is ridiculous. To give all that money to people you first have to take that money from people. So even if it were run at 100% efficiency (which it absolutely won’t) you are at 0% influx of money into the economy.
And a VAT tax is simply going to run up the cost of goods so people aren’t really going to be buying more, they are simply going to be paying more for what they already buy

[bandc]

UBI is ridiculous. To give all that money to people you first have to take that money from people. So even if it were run at 100% efficiency (which it absolutely won’t) you are at 0% influx of money into the economy.
And a VAT tax is simply going to run up the cost of goods so people aren’t really going to be buying more, they are simply going to be paying more for what they already buy

Yep, I completely agree with you that money would be taken from the consumer because some of the tax would be passed along to us. However, adding a UBI of $1,000 a month makes it almost negligible. For the average person, it's a complete win since, by the numbers, you would have to spend between $10,000 - $11,000 per month on non-staple goods in order to nullify the net increase of receiving the UBI.

Most rich people spend that amount pretty easily which is why they would probably pay into it more. But for the average person, the increase in the amount on goods because of the VAT would amount to about +/- $550/600 based on most studies. The average person would come out ahead by about $11,400.

The European level VAT is around 20%. Yang is proposing 10% along with a UBI. You also have to remember that corporations will have to eat to some of the tax in order to remain competitive. You can't just pass everything off to the consumer or you'll fall behind.

I think this is the best way to start decreasing the wealth gap.

[BPF2]

UBI is ridiculous. To give all that money to people you first have to take that money from people. So even if it were run at 100% efficiency (which it absolutely won’t) you are at 0% influx of money into the economy.
And a VAT tax is simply going to run up the cost of goods so people aren’t really going to be buying more, they are simply going to be paying more for what they already buy

Congratulations, you get an extra $1,000 per month, free of charge, no strings attached. Your living expenses went up by $1,200 per month, but don't worry about that. Free money.

[wickedsolo]

Everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinion. I, for one, despise pretty much everything Gabbard stands for(not everything). Way too far left for me, although, for some reason, some folks on here seem to think she's somewhat center or moderate. I can't grasp where they get that, but to each their own. Maybe in relation to some of the far left candidates, she may seem much better, perhaps (?) I've read up on her and I'll pass.

Socially, I'm not super enthusiastic about her ideas. However, I like that she is pretty Libertarian when it comes to foreign intervention. That I agree with.

However, seems to me that Trump is becoming more Libertarian when it comes to getting away from foreign interventionism, etc.

[blah3]

Yep, I completely agree with you that money would be taken from the consumer because some of the tax would be passed along to us. However, adding a UBI of $1,000 a month makes it almost negligible. For the average person, it's a complete win since, by the numbers, you would have to spend between $10,000 - $11,000 per month on non-staple goods in order to nullify the net increase of receiving the UBI.
.

This makes no sense. If you agree that money will come out of the economy, you can’t then go around and just hike up the amount given in UBI and say I will more than offset it. The fancy new VAT tax is to pay for the UBI, so by definition the amount taken out of the economy has to Be the same amount given. It’s a total wash (again assuming 100% efficiency which won’t happen)