Skip to main content
Update
The boards are getting a new home!

We're pleased to announce an update is coming to the community boards.

Saturday, September 24th: We are migrating the boards to a new platform. The site is currently in read-only mode and we will bring it back online as soon as the migration is complete.

Fool.com | The Motley Fool Community
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 9
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
The only chance is working to get more Dem.s elected in the Senate and House. All else these days is empty political rhetoric.

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The only chance is working to get more Dem.s elected in the Senate and House. All else these days is empty political rhetoric.

Ken

++++++++++++++++

Is this because you believe Democrats are most likely to be favorable to a socialist agenda, if not a cheerleader for the same?

ww
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
From his tweet:

Yes, we must abolish Citizens United.

No one can 'abolish' a Supreme Court decision except the Supreme Court. And they're not gonna. Because, y'know, there's now a conservative supermajority on the Court. The soonest we might get a liberal majority on the Court that might entertain changing Citizens United is probably another 20 years or so.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 16
Is this because you believe Democrats are most likely to be favorable to a socialist agenda, if not a cheerleader for the same?

It is not a socialist agenda that seeks to reverse the transfer of wealth from the middle class and poor to the wealthy a trend in place for the last forty years.

Yelling “socialism!” has always been the tactic of the the rich whenever they saw their gravy train threatened by rising wages. Because, they think, only they have the divine right to garner the fruits of prosperity and American labor.

The true socialists these days are those who claim the profits, while sticking the country with the losses.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
It is not a socialist agenda that seeks to reverse the transfer of wealth from the middle class and poor to the wealthy a trend in place for the last forty years.

+++++++++++++++++

Silly gibberish.

Just what money that was other wised earmarked via "earnings" for the poor and middle class did folks like Jobs, Musk,Buffet, etc. take??

ww
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
No one can 'abolish' a Supreme Court decision except the Supreme Court.

Bernie Sanders is talking about introducing a constitutional amendment. I know! We're talking Bernie Sanders here. But Bernie is aware that this is a Supreme Court Ruling.


https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/sanders-files-...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Bernie Sanders is talking about introducing a constitutional amendment. I know! We're talking Bernie Sanders here.

Wow. That's perhaps the worst version of this amendment I've seen. And that's saying something.

At a minimum, he's barring every advocacy group from politics altogether - groups like the NAACP, NARAL, Emily's List, the Sierra Club, Justice Democrats, ActBlue, Sunrise Movement, etc. would all be prohibited from doing anything that involved spending money to influence an election. That would include not just candidates but referenda - if the local billionaire wants to put a referendum on the ballot to turn some wilderness into condominiums, he can spend as much money personally as he wants but environmental groups can't spend any money to defeat it.

But it's worse than that. The amendment probably prohibits the Democratic and Republican parties from spending any money to run elections as well - the plain text would even prohibit the candidates themselves from having a campaign organization. The amendment doesn't just give Congress the power to regulate these things - it denies non-natural persons the 'ability' to make such expenditures or contributions.

No more endorsements by newspapers, of course; or op-eds in favor of or against those referenda either. But arguably no more media coverage of elections at all, either, since such would likely constitute expenditures by non-natural persons to influence the outcome of elections. The entire purpose of press reporting on elections is to influence the election, by providing information to voters that they will then (presumably) take into account in making their election choices. The language doesn't use the 'promote the success or defeat' terminology usually in election laws like this - merely to influence the outcome.

I know, it's just a messaging effort. But it's just terrible.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
At a minimum, he's barring every advocacy group from politics altogether - groups like the NAACP, NARAL, Emily's List, the Sierra Club, Justice Democrats, ActBlue, Sunrise Movement, etc. would all be prohibited from doing anything that involved spending money to influence an election.

~~~

Seems to me he's trying to back to the old ways, when "By the People" and "For the People" actually ment something. I must say that this was far before any of our times, but I agree. I feel my vote is severly watered down my PAC's and whoever else is giving politician $$$. I thought that "buyting votes" was illegal in this country... yet we have PACs and SIG, what's mentioned above, ect... all of these are wrong and do not serve the interest of "The People".


ww.enufsaid.pl/wehaveacorruptGOVT.period!/

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
" thought that "buying votes" was illegal in this country... yet we have PACs and SIG, what's mentioned above, ect... all of these are wrong and do not serve the interest of "The People".


Mark Zuckerberg spent over $400 million to turn out the Democratic vote for Biden in 2020. The massive donations in "Zuck bucks" supercharged the Left's get-out-the-vote effort, effectively privatizing the 2020 election.

This should never have been permitted
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Mark Zuckerberg spent over $400 million to turn out the Democratic vote for Biden in 2020. The massive donations in "Zuck bucks" supercharged the Left's get-out-the-vote effort, effectively privatizing the 2020 election.

This should never have been permitted


~~~

How is this legal?

Politicians are REALLY only there for themselves. Laws are not passed "for us", they are passed to "control us". I still think that the ONLY good thing "he" ever said was "Drain the Swamp"... but that is TRUELY the only thing!


Please remember: "Politics...POLI = many, TICS = blood sucking creatures"



ww.truethat.pl

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Well that was pointless, Bernie.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Club 401K IS socialist - when it benefits *them*

They use ol' Bernie but every single time - pick the Goldman Sachs candidate - this time it was Big Bank Biden.

Basically - Club 401K is Country Club Republicans who love China.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The $350 million from Zuckerberg supported vote-by-mail efforts. Without this support, lines at the polls would have been longer, it would have taken longer to count the ballots, and there would have been more COVID-19 deaths and cases. The US Congress failed to send the needed funds that election boards were asking for. I am in favor of fully funding election boards and making it easy to vote legally. Zuckerberg's money did not change the 2020 results, but helped the election run more smoothly. Many local government groups apply for grants. Everything from tanks for police to corn for food pantries.

How Private Money From Facebook's CEO Saved The 2020 Election, December 8, 2020
"donations to help local election offices — most notably, $350 million from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan... Turner is one of 25 election directors from swing states interviewed by APM Reports who said the grant money was essential to preventing an election meltdown amid worries over a pandemic... The Center for Tech and Civic Life gave grants to more than 2,500 jurisdictions this year to help departments pay for election administration. The money arrived as historically underfunded election department budgets were sapped from unforeseen purchases during the primaries and were forced to spend money on election workers, postage and printing for the increasing number of voters who wanted to vote by mail."
https://www.npr.org/2020/12/08/943242106/how-private-money-f...

It’s Official: The Election Was Secure, December 11, 2020
"the 2020 general election was one of the most secure elections in our history. Voters turned out in record numbers to cast their ballots by mail and in person, and the votes were counted in a timely manner... The nation’s top intelligence and law enforcement agencies have confirmed that there is no evidence of significant voter fraud in American elections and that the 2020 election was secure... Time and time again, when the rubber hits the road, there's no evidence — whether that's in court cases, ... presidential commission ..., or academic studies. We never see evidence of widespread voter fraud."
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/its-...
Print the post Back To Top