• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

JuiceCrewAllStar said:
nobody's trying to take away the "option" of philanthropy

they're trying to create a system where large-scale philanthropy needn't exist

and in the meantime, let's call out the bullshit philanthropy that exists as a tax shield or to curry/consolidate political power
Click to expand...

There are many organizations like the Trump Foundation who steal from everyone, but there are many that provide tremendous and positive help to those in need.
 
RJKarl said:
There are many organizations like the Trump Foundation who steal from everyone, but there are many that provide tremendous and positive help to those in need.
Click to expand...

right, we don't disagree there

where we disagree is whether it's better that those organizations be the safety net or one that is democratically elected
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
right, we don't disagree there

where we disagree is whether it's better that those organizations be the safety net or one that is democratically elected
Click to expand...
What’s wrong with having both? Government helps create a safety net based on the views of constituents the elect them, and people can then spend their personal income in areas they feel the government is not addressing properly. Seems like hat might work.
 
WFcatamount22 said:
Good thing taxes go directly to the people they are intended to benefit, no wasteful spending and bureaucratic bloat there.
Click to expand...

You say this like you aren't some asshole that thinks we should be piss testing people to be eligible for support, when the overwhelming evidence is that people know best how to spend their own money. Also, no wasteful spending on locking people up all the time rather than providing them stable housing and mental health services. No wasteful spending in our free market healthcare system. Fuck outta here with that "wasteful spending" bullshit.
 
WFcatamount22 said:
What’s wrong with having both? Government helps create a safety net based on the views of constituents the elect them, and people can then spend their personal income in areas they feel the government is not addressing properly. Seems like hat might work.
Click to expand...

Just look at the privatization of government services in Kansas. It's going great!
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
right, we don't disagree there

where we disagree is whether it's better that those organizations be the safety net or one that is democratically elected
Click to expand...

How do we disagree about the second position? I've never said anything like charities should be the safety net and never would. I think programs like food stamps, Medicaid and housing vouchers need to be expanded.
 
MHBDemon said:
You say this like you aren't some asshole that thinks we should be piss testing people to be eligible for support, when the overwhelming evidence is that people know best how to spend their own money. Also, no wasteful spending on locking people up all the time rather than providing them stable housing and mental health services. No wasteful spending in our free market healthcare system. Fuck outta here with that "wasteful spending" bullshit.
Click to expand...

I’m down for allowing people to pursue chemical happiness without repercussions. Also up for prison reform.
 
Only positive I see from this extremely over crowded field is that maybe it prevents any one candidate from building a huge lead in endorsements before the primary. I think Harris is still the obvious establishment darling, but ber opponents dont seem discouraged.
 
It's so obvious how Harris and Booker are co-opting language from the left because some consultant told them it polls well with millennials, even though it completely contradicts their records in office.
 
I accidentally got the M&M’s fortune cookie last night

933bf9a3a3005394c8ca1916b3ef44a9.jpg
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
Only positive I see from this extremely over crowded field is that maybe it prevents any one candidate from building a huge lead in endorsements before the primary. I think Harris is still the obvious establishment darling, but ber opponents dont seem discouraged.
Click to expand...

MHBDemon said:
It's so obvious how Harris and Booker are co-opting language from the left because some consultant told them it polls well with millennials, even though it completely contradicts their records in office.
Click to expand...

Once again I will point out that Harris is the 2nd-most liberal senator behind Warren, so calling her “establishment” and claiming she is “co-opting left language” is just patently untrue. Criticize her prosecution record, that will keep you busy for a while, but save the “she’s Clinton 2.0!” pearl-clutching for the sailors and moons of the world.

Those are fair claims for Booker though, considering his Wall St connections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top