Bernie 2020

@Tony Stark

Are you a trader? If not, what in the hell are you doing on this site?

If yes, how can you be an advocate of the financial transaction tax that Sanders is proposing?

The proposed taxes below:
Stocks = 0.5%
Bonds = 0.1%
Derivatives = 0.005%

An example buying and selling 100 shares of appl:

$299 x 100 = $29,900 * 0.5% = $149.5 * 2 = $299

The FTT will absolutely destroy trading in the US.

You would be shooting yourself in your own foot. If the FTT were to actually pass, Baron should just shut this site down. Trading is over at least in the US.

This is another reason Bernie won't win. All of Wall Street's money and power will be going against Bernie.

Furthermore, the math the Sanders campaign is using stating it will raise $2.4T in taxes is retarded. They are assuming that the volume of trades just continues unabated with the tax in place. This is an example of how retarded socialist are and illustrates that they don't at all understand the impact of socialism. Socialist make the assumption that we are in a bubble on an island with no other alternatives. The wall street bankers will pick up their ball and play ball somewhere else in the world. Then the the socialist will institute capital controls, pass more taxes, and take over businesses so they don't leave the US. At that point, all the citizens become captive slaves to the federal government. It is asinine. Socialism is a rabbit hole that is a downward spiral that is extremely hard to stop once it is instituted.
 
Last edited:
BushBoy Karl Rove does make some solid points here. below.

Of course, it is totally valid too to let real-live voting results from real live states set off alarms.

This is not a game for binary thinkers, there are a lot of moving parts.

And of course there is always the obvious, which is that Bernie may actually have an overwhelming commanding lead now, but for that reason, the forces will start taking him down so that he does not. Doesn't mean that the alarms now are not valid. Alarms are sort of meant to respond to so that you can change things unless you are just a panicky type and start breathing into a paper bag, as the dems do after elections.

Rove does do a good job of downplaying the results of recent primaries.
What he also under-mentions though that it is the combination of Bernie doing well in the flyover nobody-cares states PLUS leading in the polls bigtime in states like California. That's what gets ya from a 2-alarm chili up to a 5-alarm.
============================================

Karl Rove: 'Not so fast' on the narrative that Bernie Sanders is the front-runner
Fox News contributor Karl Rove said on Monday that there's still “a long way to go” before declaring Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., to be the clear frontrunner for the Democrat presidential nomination.

“Let’s be careful,” Rove told “America’s Newsroom,” explaining that commentators are moving too quickly when it comes to Sanders' lead.

Rove said that 3,979 delegates will vote at the Democratic National Convention, with the nominee needing to secure 1,991 to put them over the top.

“They have elected in the three contests thus far a grand total of 101 delegates to the Democratic National convention. That’s 2.5% of the total," he explained, noting that Sanders has amassed "one-43rd" of the delegates he will need and 47 more states need to vote.

Sanders scored a decisive win in the Nevada Caucuses Saturday, tallying 46 percent of the vote with 50 percent of the results in -- a win that is worrying many members of the Democratic establishment that there may be no path to stop Sanders before the party's convention in July.


“Bernie’s got a lead, the field is splintered. He won Iowa with the lowest percentage of anybody in history and it ain’t even close. He won New Hampshire with the lowest percentage of the vote of anybody in history because the field is splintered," said Rove.

Former Vice President Joe Biden put a positive spin on his Nevada results and leaned on his supposed South Carolina firewall, where a majority African-American Democratic electorate still has him in the lead of the RealClearPolitics average of polls, with Sanders in a close second, billionaire Tom Steyer in third and Buttiegieg sitting in fourth place.
 
Last edited:
Oh man, Milwaukee, we have problem!!


Bernie Sanders' disastrous answer on '60 Minutes'

begin quote:

Here's the exchange between Sanders and Anderson Cooper on "60 Minutes":
Cooper: Do you know how all -- how much though? I mean, do you have a price tag for -- for all of this?
Sanders: We do. I mean, you know, and -- and-- the price tag is -- it will be substantially less than letting the current system go. I think it's about $30 trillion.
Cooper: That's just for "Medicare for All," you're talking about?
Sanders: That's just "Medicare for All," yes.
Cooper: Do you have -- a price tag for all of these things?
Sanders: No, I don't. We try to -- no, you mentioned making public colleges and universities tuition free and canceling all student debt, that's correct. That's what I want to do. We pay for that through a modest tax on Wall Street speculation.
Cooper: But you say you don't know what the total price is, but you know how it's gonna be paid for. How do you know it's gonna be paid for if you don't know how much the price is?
Sanders: Well, I can't -- you know, I can't rattle off to you every nickel and every dime. But we have accounted for -- you -- you talked about "Medicare for All." We have options out there that will pay for it.
What? So, Sanders not only a) isn't sure how much all of his proposals would cost but also b) isn't able to say how he would pay for these programs. That strikes me as a potential weak spot if/when Sanders winds up as the Democratic nominee against President Donald Trump.
Which is the point that former Vice President Joe Biden's campaign immediately sought to make. "For the second time in the last month, Senator Sanders has admitted that he does not know the astronomical price tag that his massive new programs would force onto American families," said Biden deputy campaign manager Kate Bedingfield. "That's untenable."
And in a weekend memo from the Democratic centrist group Third Way warning the party of the perils of nominating Sanders, authors Jonathan Cowan and Matt Bennett write:
"Experts estimate that Sanders' major proposals would cost a staggering $60 trillion and would double the size of the government (while his tax plans fall $27 trillion short of paying for it). There's a reason that, when pressed on the cost of his plans, Sanders simply refuses to answer, saying he actually has no idea and 'no one does.'"
That $60 trillion number comes from The Atlantic's Ron Brownstein, a CNN contributor, who broke down the costs of Sanders' proposals like "Medicare for All," the "Green New Deal" and free tuition at public colleges and arrived at that stunning price tag.
Just how big a number is that? This, from Brownstein, puts the $60 trillion in spending proposals in very clear context:
"The Vermont independent's agenda represents an expansion of government's cost and size unprecedented since World War II, according to estimates from his own website and projections by a wide variety of fiscal experts.
"Sanders' plan, though all of its costs cannot be precisely quantified, would increase government spending as a share of the economy far more than the New Deal under President Franklin Roosevelt, the Great Society under Lyndon Johnson or the agenda proposed by any recent Democratic presidential nominee, including liberal George McGovern in 1972, according to a historical analysis shared with CNN by Larry Summers, the former chief White House economic adviser for Barack Obama and treasury secretary for Bill Clinton."
Now consider that there is no estimate from any credible budgeting service that suggests that the government would be able to bring in the sort of revenue needed to pay for that spending surge over the next decade. Sanders' plan to raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations would close some of that gap, but a study from a fellow at the Manhattan Institute (a conservative think tank) cited by Brownstein suggests the top end of revenue from the Sanders' tax increases is $23 trillion.
Sanders doesn't talk much about the price tag of what he's proposing or the very real likelihood that his tax plan will not be enough to fill the spending gap he would create. Which makes sense -- because, politically speaking, the idea of raising taxes on what we broadly consider the middle class isn't terribly popular among, well, the middle class. (Raising taxes on the wealthy or corporations, on the other hand, is a stone-cold winner politically.)
But Sanders once did admit the harsh reality of how his plans would be paid for during a debate over the summer. Here's the exchange between Sanders and NBC's Savannah Guthrie (bolding is mine):
Guthrie: Will you raise taxes for the middle class in a Sanders administration?
Sanders: People who have health care under "Medicare for All" will have no premiums, no deductibles, no copayments, no out of pocket expenses. Yes, they will pay more in taxes, but less in health care for what they get.


So, here's what we now know about Sanders' plans for America:
1) He isn't sure how much they will cost.
2) He isn't totally sure how he will pay for them.
3) It's likely they will be paid for by an increase in taxes on the middle class.
Whoo boy. Maybe Sanders is right that America is ready for a fundamental reorienting of how we value ourselves, our society and our money. But if he's not -- and this election winds up being like virtually every other election in which people vote on who is going to let them keep more of their money -- then Sanders (and Democrats by extension) have a big problem.

end quote
 
Tsing Tao said:
Friends on the right, please stop pointing out all the flaws in Bernie and his plans. Let him win the nomination and then we can have all the fun.
More...


I join with thee in spirit, but watching the field be divided such that it goes to a brokered convention and Bernie be denied again would be great fun, as the dem party breaks into civil unrest and stays home in masses and openly trashes whomever the nominee is if not Bernie.

Watching the dems choose their weapon to blow their legs off.

DOESN'T GET ANY FUNNER THAN THAT SHORT OF BRINGING HILLARY IN AT THE LAST MINUTE.
 
I want Sanders as the Democratic choice. Let’s put this bullshit political argument to rest. The left wants to take us down the path of European socialism. The right wants to steer the country back towards the original vision of its founders, limited government.

Let the voters decide and the losers shut the hell up. If you don’t like it, move.
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
Oppo research and counteroffensive against Bernie just thinking about gearing up, even though he is an oppo researcher's dream come true. Too bad people don't do dossiers on dems.

Wayyy to get the Florida vote, Comrade.


Bernie Sanders defends Fidel Castro's socialist Cuba: 'Unfair to simply say everything is bad'


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bernie-sanders-fidel-castro-cuba-socialist-defense
More...

"Unfair to simply say everything is bad"

lol that's all you have?

I've been to Cuba. The food is fantastic.
 
ERj9wsIWAAE1ydK
 
There was a large "shy Trump" vote in 2016 as nobody with a brain would admit in public that they were voting for the cocksucker... just as there will be a MASSIVE "shy Bernie" vote in 2020.

The middle class still is massively in debt and is paying for the tax cuts. They will come out for Bernie in DROVES. Millions of marginalized rust-belters will publicly support Trump but vote for Bernie.

I don't like the guy, but Trump is fucking retarded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top