Is the 2020 Primary already down to a 6-person race

Jul 2019
8,046
4,894
Georgia
It seems like you missed my point. Or maybe you didn't miss it and just decided to change the subject. The point was, Tulsi's not getting those big corporate money donations, like Warren.
Remember Trump talking about buying politicians? Just because Trump said it, doesn't make it not true.
Gabbard is accepting money donations, and getting some. She's not getting as much as Warren because she's not that much of a contender, and doesn't really have a chance of winning the nom.

this isn't rocket surgery
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clara007
Sep 2019
2,285
885
Here
you brought up Warren and her net worth, as if it's somehow comparable to billionaires.
It was Tulsi's net worth, which is much less than Warrens. That was the point. Rich is rich. Period.
It's like learning to swim. It doesn't matter how deep the water is, as long as you can swim. Once you reach rich status, then you're rich. Tulsi is not.
Probably because she's not connected and "established" like Warren is. She's not being bought out, with millions in contributions from everyone that she's gonna favor once elected.

But besides all that, Tulsi is more electable than Warren, Biden or Sanders. Because those three don't make republicans and libertarians think about voting for them. Tulsi does. The votes those three will get, will be from die hard socialist/commi/democrats. Which isn't the case for Tulsi. As you can see even in your own links you posted about how republicans like her.
So far I have seen no republicans even thinking about Warren, Biden or Sanders. Have you?
 
Jul 2019
8,046
4,894
Georgia
It was Tulsi's net worth, which is much less than Warrens. That was the point. Rich is rich. Period.
It's like learning to swim. It doesn't matter how deep the water is, as long as you can swim. Once you reach rich status, then you're rich. Tulsi is not.
Probably because she's not connected and "established" like Warren is. She's not being bought out, with millions in contributions from everyone that she's gonna favor once elected.

But besides all that, Tulsi is more electable than Warren, Biden or Sanders. Because those three don't make republicans and libertarians think about voting for them. Tulsi does. The votes those three will get, will be from die hard socialist/commi/democrats. Which isn't the case for Tulsi. As you can see even in your own links you posted about how republicans like her.
So far I have seen no republicans even thinking about Warren, Biden or Sanders. Have you?
no bro this was your comment

Millionaires like Warren is OK. But not billionaires?

How about people like Gabbard who spent much of her life on a military salary, who's not a millionaire?
you were responding to Clara's post about Bloomberg, and trying to compare Warren's wealth to Bloomberg's

I was just explaining to you why that's an inaccurate comparison

don't really care about Tulsi in this context
 
Sep 2019
2,285
885
Here
no bro this was your comment



you were responding to Clara's post about Bloomberg, and trying to compare Warren's wealth to Bloomberg's

I was just explaining to you why that's an inaccurate comparison

don't really care about Tulsi in this context
Warrens wealth vs Bloombergs wealth. Once you're rich, it doesn't matter how much more one has over the other. If you or her is complaining about one's wealth, what does it matter if one rich person has more than the other? I mean if you're against wealthy people, why not support someone who's not wealthy? It seems pretty hypocritical. To not support someone because they're richer than the rich...... And then bash one someone who's not rich.

Makes no sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: right to left
Jul 2019
8,046
4,894
Georgia
Warrens wealth vs Bloombergs wealth. Once you're rich, it doesn't matter how much more one has over the other. If you or her is complaining about one's wealth, what does it matter if one rich person has more than the other? I mean if you're against wealthy people, why not support someone who's not wealthy? It seems pretty hypocritical. To not support someone because they're richer than the rich...... And then bash one someone who's not rich.

Makes no sense.
gonna post the graphic again, since I believe you might have missed it the first time

there is a huge difference between a million and a billion



and honestly a net worth in the millions doesn't really make a person that rich
that's hers and her husband's combined as well
I'm a pleeb but if you total my assets it's a pretty decent amount (not 13 million but not too shabby either)

the point is, when you're talking about billionaires you're talking a whole nother ballgame. there's rich (which is relative anyway) and then there are billionaires. you can't label Warren a billionaire or even compare her to billionaires, because it's not even close
 
Sep 2019
2,285
885
Here
gonna post the graphic again, since I believe you might have missed it the first time

there is a huge difference between a million and a billion



and honestly a net worth in the millions doesn't really make a person that rich
that's hers and her husband's combined as well
I'm a pleeb but if you total my assets it's a pretty decent amount (not 13 million but not too shabby either)

the point is, when you're talking about billionaires you're talking a whole nother ballgame. there's rich (which is relative anyway) and then there are billionaires. you can't label Warren a billionaire or even compare her to billionaires, because it's not even close

Good grief man. How much more a billion is to a million, is irrelevant.

I've explained MY POINT in the most simplest way I know. And you still don't get it.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: se7en
Jul 2019
8,046
4,894
Georgia
Good grief man. How much more a billion is to a million, is irrelevant.

I've explained MY POINT in the most simplest way I know. And you still don't get it.
okay
just know if you try to whatabout Warren when talking about Bloomberg's money in the future,
I will have a response
every time
 
Dec 2016
5,850
2,961
Canada
Warrens wealth vs Bloombergs wealth. Once you're rich, it doesn't matter how much more one has over the other. If you or her is complaining about one's wealth, what does it matter if one rich person has more than the other? I mean if you're against wealthy people, why not support someone who's not wealthy? It seems pretty hypocritical. To not support someone because they're richer than the rich...... And then bash one someone who's not rich.

Makes no sense.
That's right...the difference between a billionaire and a millionaire today is that the millionaires are aspiring billionaires, and since they share the same economic objectives, their political goals also mirror each other. Nevertheless, when the super-rich keep trying to increase their wealth holdings, they reveal their psychopathic thinking....since they essentially live for free, as there is nothing they could want to buy that is out of their reach. Except for building rockets and escaping to Mars or something.....as the rest of us die in the nuclear or ecological apocalypse their greed has engineered!

And, one other factor that needs to be added to the mix of political/economic analysis is that the Professional Middle Class (the PMC's who do the work of making capitalist systems function) may not be paid much more than the higher paid wages earners, BUT this group we could lump together as the top 10%, are part of the club that is seeing their real wealth increase/ while wealth declines for 90% of the working population because of flatlining wage growth, and rising costs of rents, food and healthcare. Those PMC's who earn over 100K per year may be far closer in earnings to those under their supervision who do the actual work, than with the oligarchs who own the businesses and collect most of their returns from rising stock values and investment income, BUT they are not working class allies, and should never be accepted as such! I think this is the whole reason why "left" has been redefined as "liberal" today, as PMC liberals do not want to talk about or deal with economic or military spending issues, where the top 10% share consensus, while only dividing on social issues. So, they'll use up all the oxygen arguing conservative vs liberal debates, rather than mention the issues that affect 90% of working people!
 
  • Like
Reactions: YoursTruly
Dec 2016
5,850
2,961
Canada
NOt that I really give a crap, but Pete Buttgig is likely the next one to fall, and mostly because so many people are so sick and tired of this shit and want their issues and concerns addressed:

 
  • Like
Reactions: YoursTruly