What's the Worst That President Bernie or Warren Could Be?

in threespeak •  2 months ago 

▶️ Watch on 3Speak

--Audience Question: Why are people afraid of a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren presidency?

What do you think?

▶️ 3Speak

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

This is quite simple; people are afraid of getting forced to pay for free stuff that they don't want to purchase. Many times, this free stuff is worthless anyhow. Just look at how modern higher education has completely rewired peoples brains with identity politics. It's causing people to feel oppressed, pissed off, and entitled.

The 100s of new "gender identity" groups want to legislate how people use the English language and would like to impose financial penalties on the use or misuse of gender pronouns. Also, take a look at the American Health Care system and the rate of iatrogenic deaths in this country. Medical errors and the poisons they give are the third leading cause of death in America, and that's just on the self-reported cases where hospitals are honest.

I'm sure you can imagine, it's in their best interest to hide or cover up these numbers. That said, the real numbers are probably more towards 40-50%. Prove this data to yourself, and if you still want to pay for free medical and college via your payroll taxes, then you'll end up taking home only thirty to fifty percent of your earnings. The fiat currency system is on the ropes, and if you elected either of those two, then you'll have a lot less money to live on because of all the not-free stuff.

You suggest that if these programs cannot pay for themselves, that it's a small issue, and we'll just add it to the national debt. I'm telling you they will pay for it with increased payroll taxes, and if they don't get the numbers right, they'll continue to tweak them upwards until they do. Even Andrew Yang's UBI was a joke, aside from jacking-up purchase prices at the point of sale by 10% or more.

Then, there is his caveat about how a carbon tax will also be employed and a "portion of it" will be used to fund the programs' differences. Did he say how much the carbon tax would be, who it would be paid to, and what percentage of that would fund the freedom dividend? NOPE, NOPE, and NOPE. If you can't see the hustle, then all you need to do is reread this comment several times, internalize it, and realize that I am telling you the truth.

  ·  2 months ago Reveal Comment

I guess blindly following the advice of the military and intelligence community is actually an example of the worst they can do. Too many people in there who believe it is the role of America to be the police of the World. At least for Warren, has a weak track record on war and militarism.

So this is where I could prefer a more "small government" and libertarian-leaning candidate, at least to Warren assuming the worst as the question implies.

I think you are taking this argument too literally in this case. It's not like either of them would follow the advice blindly.

I don't think they would either. But did you watch the video? Pakman suggested that unlike Trump, they would follow the advice of the military and intelligence communities. I was just pointing out that it could be "the worst thing they could do", as those communities are part of them problem that needs change.

Definitely, blindly following the advice of the military apparatus would be pretty terrible. (It would probably continue the current course of the US further escalating with North Korea and Iran). But, in the context of the video, I don't think that would be a viable scenario for the two candidates. Especially Bernie is more the pacifist type (I don't know too much about Warrens background to say anything about her), so he'd probably only actually follow their advice if he thinks that there is a real danger.

I don't think Bernie would. But Warren's track record on foreign policy is pretty bad. At least for a progressive candidate. Anyways, the point here was to "imagine the worst", and not to make the case that these are likely outcomes.

Now we get into linguistics. "The worst case" for any candidate of any political party would be nuclear war ending with the human race. I believe the discussion was more around "considering the characters of the candidates, their track records and their planned policies".

I’d be worried about anyone being worse than Trump. It’s highly unlikely, and with Trump gone at least Americans can stop being embarrassed at having such a dense buffoon as their president.

They tend to be oligarch when it comes to decision making and it's definitely a free world of democracy, no one wants to be committed to someone who might make erratic decisions in power and then end up affected a massive amount of people. So people consider track record so war and whatnots is a big probability

I listened to the Bernie speech where he criticizing the india's action Kashmir in a Muslim meeting. I felt disgusted about him. The man not trying to understand the ground reality in Kashmir acted for Muslim appeasement with out shame.

Surely Americans as much as they appear liberal, like any other country people don't want some one like Bernie who do appeasement politics rather than deal with reality.

Posted using Partiko Android

  ·  last month Reveal Comment