Sanders calls Elizabeth Warren the C word (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Intensesaint

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 29, 2019
    Messages
    473
    Reaction score
    327
    Location
    Florida
    Offline
    Good luck convincing all the people that have successfully worked this system, and spent their entire lives benefiting and lifting their families out of despair from it...

    All those people you are referring to currently make up less than half the population and the numbers dwindle every year.

    There's nothing hilarious about being concerened about the fact that the golden era of 1950's American capitalism has been long gone.
     
    Capitalism is only NOT EQUITABLE to those not fully willing to work it...

    totally nonsensical generalization.
    The gap has grown due to more and more people being willing dependents as a lifestyle

    this tired cliche should have died shortly after its birth in the 80s. Education. Nutrition. Infrastructure. Housing. Entrepreneurship. Incarceration. The vast majority of people are employed and hardworking. This absurdity around "willing dependents as lifestyle" is too casually dismissive of reality.

    Especially not enough to where I'd consider scrapping the system that not only built our country

    which nobody in this thread has proposed or talked about. I have no idea against whom you are arguing.

    there are some people out there that have decided they want something they haven't earned on their own merit.

    I heard you the first time.
     
    What's "nonsensical" (and not at all cliche') is this growing notion that someone who has become wildly to moderately successful by working our capitalist system... somehow now owes anybody anything, simply because they aren't "equal" financially.

    Bill Gates is not responsible for my financial reality... The Benson family doesn't owe me healthcare... The Jeff Bezos is not responsible for my student loan debits....

    The growing attitude of entitlement and "I should have everything my neighbor/peer has or life isn't fair/equal" is the problem... and it's only a problem for those not willing to sacrifice or take the necessary risks to transform/work their first world problems into workable solutions.

    The further we go down the "road of less personal responsibility, and more government dependency"... the closer we get to national socialism and the other "C word"... at some point, people become more dependents / enabled-collectors, and less viable producers / vested consumers...

    The fact that Capitalism is becoming a dirty word in some circles... is disturbing.... and the notion that some think we'd somehow be better off with less of it... is Hilarious to me.
     
    Last edited:
    What's "nonsensical" (and not at all cliche') is this growing notion that someone who has become wildly to moderately successful by working our capitalist system... somehow now owes anybody anything, simply because they aren't "equal" financially.

    Bill Gates is not responsible for my financial reality... The Benson family doesn't owe me healthcare... The Jeff Bezos is not responsible for my student loan debits....

    The growing attitude of entitlement and "I should have everything my neighbor/peer has or life isn't fair/equal" is the problem... and it's only a problem for those not willing to sacrifice or take the necessary risks to transform/work their first world problems into workable solutions.

    The further we go down the "road of less personal responsibility, and more government dependency"... the closer we get to national socialism and the other "C word"... at some point, people become more dependents / enabled-collectors, and less viable producers / vested consumers...

    The fact that Capitalism is becoming a dirty word in some circles... is disturbing.... and the notion that some think we'd somehow be better off with less of it... is Hilarious to me.

    Rather than respond to things I *actually* said, you decide to respond to things I haven't said? It's such an odd way to have a discussion - assuming the discussion is with me. Your response has so little to do with what I said, I am not even certain you're responding to me because you aren’t even trying to address things that I’ve said. I said I was in support of capitalism and you respond about how I’m acting as if it it a dirty word. Or that I am absolving people of personal responsibility. Or mandating a forced equality.

    none of these are true.

    and the cliche in question is your variation on the “welfare queen.” You really should read up on entitlements because you seem to have ideas about welfare usage and social support systems that aren’t based on reality.
     
    Last edited:
    Rather than respond to things I *actually* said, you decide to respond to things I haven't said? It's such an odd way to have a discussion - assuming the discussion is with me. Your response has so little to do with what I said, I am not even certain you're responding to me because you aren’t even trying to address things that I’ve said. I said I was in support of capitalism and you respond about how I’m acting as if it it a dirty word. Or that I am absolving people of personal responsibility. Or mandating a forced equality.

    none of these are true.

    and the cliche in question is your variation on the “welfare queen.” You really should read up on entitlements because you seem to have ideas about welfare usage and social support systems that aren’t based on reality.

    I never quoted you... was never responding to you.... was stating my stance on the topic. It was counter to some of the statements made here, but not in response to you directly.

    The topic is all about forced financial equality... (Tax the rich! Give it to me!)... that's exactly what this is. Bunch of Robbin Rood fairy tale BS.

    It's the counter-argument for personal responsibility, accountability, free markets, opportunity for all... Capitalism.

    Like successful people owe everyone (less successful) something, Like they didn't get wealthy in the first place by being able to avoid taxes and work the system, Like they are going to just quietly take a loss, Like they won't just pass the cost onto others beneath them or raise prices to cover the loss...

    And the reason I typically don't respond directly to these posts is because of things like your last sentence...

    I really wish people would stop telling me what my reality is... I have grown up in entire neighborhoods where "social support systems" that were initially designed to be a temporary way to help families out of poverty.... morph into a multi-generational lifestyle of entitlement and enabling... that's the reality I dug myself (and my family) out of before I was old enough to drink...

    The continued push towards more government entitlements under the guise of equality........ is fools gold...
     
    Last edited:
    I never quoted you... was never responding to you.... was stating my stance on the topic. It was counter to some of the statements made here, but not in response to directly.

    alright... I guess the quoting of "nonsensical" threw me, then, because it's a word I used in response to you and which you quoted here:

    What's "nonsensical" (and not at all cliche') is this growing notion that someone who has become wildly to moderately successful by working our capitalist system... somehow now owes anybody anything, simply because they aren't "equal" financially.
     
    No, it isn't. But thanks for that great strawman -- probably made as good as it is because of Capitalism, right?

    Sanders (a very well documented Socialist, and forced financial equality activist) describes Warren as a "Capitalist" as if it's a bad thing...

    The topic was about the question - ?Are candidates really using the political support of our Capitalist system as a way to belittle other candidates?... I.e. Saying "free market bad" - "Just tax rich give to poor good"

    I think you may need to reconsider your definition of a strawman argument.
     
    Sanders (a very well documented Socialist, and forced financial equality activist) describes Warren as a "Capitalist" as if it's a bad thing...

    The topic was about the question - ?Are candidates really using the political support of our Capitalist system as a way to belittle other candidates?... I.e. Saying "free market bad" - "Just tax rich give to poor good"

    I think you may need to reconsider your definition of a strawman argument.
    Nah, I'm perfect with my definition. You're the one who said this whole thread is about forced financial equality. It definitely isn't. That's your strawman.

    That'll be $4.95 -- since you adore Capitalism, and logic lessons ain't free.
     
    Nah, I'm perfect with my definition. You're the one who said this whole thread is about forced financial equality. It definitely isn't. That's your strawman.

    That'll be $4.95 -- since you adore Capitalism, and logic lessons ain't free.

    LMAO... So a highly visible presidential candidate, attempting to belittle another highly visible presidential candidate.... by calling her a Capitalist... Has nothing to do with the growing extreme push for forced financial equality?

    That's a bold idea Cotton... Let's see how that works out.

    You can bill me if you like. Hilarious.

    (PS. All things "free" from the government - come with an Acme dynamite kit)
     
    Last edited:
    LMAO... So a highly visible presidential candidate, attempting to belittle another highly visible presidential candidate.... by calling her a Capitalist... Has nothing to do with the growing extreme push for forced financial equality?
    Interestingly enough, there are more options than just pure Capitalism and "forced financial equality." You're falling victim to another logical fallacy -- the false dichotomy. One can be critical of Capitalism without wanting "forced financial equality" -- in fact, not once in this thread has anything remotely close to "forced financial equality" been brought up except by you, when you skillfully constructed then attempted to destroy that strawman. Sanders doesn't want "forced financial equality" -- that is a boogeyman of your own invention.

    $14.95.
     
    Interestingly enough, there are more options than just pure Capitalism and "forced financial equality." You're falling victim to another logical fallacy -- the false dichotomy. One can be critical of Capitalism without wanting "forced financial equality" -- in fact, not once in this thread has anything remotely close to "forced financial equality" been brought up except by you, when you skillfully constructed then attempted to destroy that strawman. Sanders doesn't want "forced financial equality" -- that is a boogeyman of your own invention.

    $14.95.
    Yeah, and I feel like if this is supposed to be the elevated discussion board, there should be honest litigation around these matters, not hyperbole and attempts to out-poison the other person's well. Meaning, you put in the effort to understand the other position's actual position, not simply painting your assumed opponent or their assumed position with the negative projections and caricatures you have defaulted upon.

    While I admit it can be confusing because many American lefties use terms that don't always accurately characterize their beliefs(same is true of the right as well). However, you will not find in any of Sander's rhetoric or policies "forced equality" in the way it seems to be implied here. Which, correct me where I am wrong, seems to infer a pure communistic system of total redistribution, if not Stalinism with the inclusion of the term "forced." And if that isn't the implication, the vague and hostility-laden negative framing saps any chance at nuance or productive discourse.

    What Sanders platform is, simply put, is mirroring progressive European or Scandinavian countries. He and others like AOC embrace the term "Democratic Socialist," but besides some flirtations with workplace democracy concepts that already exist in places like Germany, they are probably more accurately described as Social Democrats. Which at its core is simply the promotion of a highly democratically organized, tightly regulated mixed economy(where most goods and services are produced through markets) that is particularly sensitive to great contrasts in wealth inequality and structured to support a robust social safety net.

    And I feel like it would far more helpful to start arguments on theses premises that ACTUALLY reflect what people like Sanders believe as opposed to the inaccurate simple narratives people are defaulting with. And for me, a debate centered around an honest framing and making good faith attempts to articulate why that vision is the correct path forward or not seems far more interesting IMO.
     
    Interestingly enough, there are more options than just pure Capitalism and "forced financial equality." You're falling victim to another logical fallacy -- the false dichotomy. One can be critical of Capitalism without wanting "forced financial equality" -- in fact, not once in this thread has anything remotely close to "forced financial equality" been brought up except by you, when you skillfully constructed then attempted to destroy that strawman. Sanders doesn't want "forced financial equality" -- that is a boogeyman of your own invention.

    $14.95.

    I do also wonder if Info understands that, on a more relatable level, someone can be quite critical of the US military's decisionmaking and still be thankful with the protection they provide our country. It seems to me he's purposefully playing the blind partisan at this point, especially with the fairytale generalizations about what the left wants. He already has claimed that anyone more critical of american Capitalism these days is small in number. Of course he was proven wrong, but at this point i don't think he wants anything more than to shoot off more conspiracist generalizations and insist they are fact as 'gotchas'.
     
    LMAO... So a highly visible presidential candidate, attempting to belittle another highly visible presidential candidate.... by calling her a Capitalist... Has nothing to do with the growing extreme push for forced financial equality?

    It has already been repeated here that it was not to belittle, but to draw a distinction. As Warren stated herself. The evidence abounds. Youre doing nothing but trying to sow tension at this point.
     
    The topic is all about forced financial equality... (Tax the rich! Give it to me!)... that's exactly what this is. Bunch of Robbin Rood fairy tale BS.
    This topic is not about that. That may be what you are hearing, but that is not what's being said.

    We all pay taxes that benefit everyone. This is not a new concept to our economic system. This is not stealing from the rich to give to the poor. This is about taxing the wealthiest at a higher level to be able to give more to everyone, including the wealthy.

    The wealthy would be eligible for the same programs that everyone else would be. The wealthiest would benefit from a healthier and better educated society, just like everyone else would. No matter what any of of us may think to the contrary, we are all in this together so it is in everyone's best interest if we all work together instead of crab climbing over each other to try to be "the one" that gets to the top of the bucket.

    Personally, I don't have a problem with there being billionaires, as long as it's also true that there is no one living without shelter, food, healthcare or education. The two are not mutually exclusive. We can have billionaires and make sure that no one goes with out shelter, food, healthcare or education. It means higher taxes for the wealthiest, but those extra taxes will in no way be enough to make the wealthiest no longer super wealthy. They will still be super wealthy. They'll just be a little less super wealthy.

    Since we can have both, why would anyone be opposed to having both? What's wrong with the super wealthy being a little less super wealthy to make sure that everyone gets the basic necessities they need to live a healthy life? Not anything near a life of luxury, just a healthy life.
     
    Last edited:
    Sanders (a very well documented Socialist, and forced financial equality activist) describes Warren as a "Capitalist" as if it's a bad thing...
    He didn't actually do that. He responded to question about there being no difference between him and Warren. He respectfully and calmly pointed out that she is a capitalist and he is a socialist. The link cited in the original post and the title of the thread mischaracterized what Sanders was actually saying. Sanders has complete respect for Warren. He was in no way slighting her when he said she's a capitalist.

    Now Sanders has said that there shouldn't be billionaires. Last night Steyer, a billionaire, agreed with Sanders. However, if you listen to what Sanders and Steyer are saying, the problem isn't that we have billionaires it's that corrupt billionaires have used their billions to corrupt the government to their benefit at the expense of the rest of us.

    In addition to having half-billionaires on up pay more in taxes to guarantee everyone's basic needs are met, we need serious political reform to protect against the super wealthy using their wealth to corrupt the government to their benefit at the expense of everyone else.

    As long as we have systems in place that guarantee everyone has basic needs and that protects our government from financial corruption, then there is no problem with having billionaires or even trillionaires.
     
    Last edited:

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom