Shultz knows nothing, hears nothing, sees....

[Yonadav]

As usual, you don't understand what I said to you. In a fight with billionaires, I am all in.  But I'm not picking a fight that I'm afraid of. If we pick a fight with billionaires, there is going to be some pain. They are going to make it hurt. It is going to be ugly. Are you up to it? If you pick a fight with Apple, are you willing to bring your iPhone to the bonfire?

Fine, then fuck Shultz, fuck Bloomberg.

But please do not dare equate them to Hillary, OR Bernie or Warren or AOC for that matter.

The only thing Hillary or Bill can be rightfully accused of is being held hostage.

Yea, greedy people will hurt you and? The Castro Family fucked it's population. The Kim family fucks it's population. The Saudi Royal Family fucks it's population too.

If I were to take a tactic if in charge, I would do what MLK did. Organize boycotts and sit outs and sit ins. 

If you look at what literally ENDED the shutdown, it wasn't that the rich cared about the poor. It was because they finally faced that air traffic employees and TSA employees missing work were costing those businesses money. 

It would take less than a week for government to wake up, if not only air travel was disrupted, but trash collection too. Name me one billionaire that would put up with a month of trash not being taken from their curbside.

This shutdown only ended because the rich were affected. But it is still within the power of workers to not let it get that far. Unfortunately Reagan got the upper hand and workers gave up.

I compare Schultz to Hillary because they are both Wall Street Dems. So of course I wouldn't compare Schultz to Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders-- who are not Wall Street Democrats. A huge problem with talking with you knee jerk types, is that you don't know anything about the party that you claim to identify with. Schultz and Hillary are both New Dems. That's a fact. Hillary is one of the founders of the New Dems. Schultz is a long time supporter of the New Dems. The New Dems are the powerful minority within the Democratic Party that is constantly trying to force the party toward the center, and arguably a bit right of center.

For the third time-- Are you willing to support a fight that you are likely to get hurt in? If we pick a fight with Apple, are you willing to bring your iPhone to the bonfire? I'm getting the feeling that your answer is no, because you avoid answering. That is the problem. You want a general to fight a battle that you aren't willing to soldier in.

[Brian37]

Fine, then fuck Shultz, fuck Bloomberg.

But please do not dare equate them to Hillary, OR Bernie or Warren or AOC for that matter.

The only thing Hillary or Bill can be rightfully accused of is being held hostage.

Yea, greedy people will hurt you and? The Castro Family fucked it's population. The Kim family fucks it's population. The Saudi Royal Family fucks it's population too.

If I were to take a tactic if in charge, I would do what MLK did. Organize boycotts and sit outs and sit ins. 

If you look at what literally ENDED the shutdown, it wasn't that the rich cared about the poor. It was because they finally faced that air traffic employees and TSA employees missing work were costing those businesses money. 

It would take less than a week for government to wake up, if not only air travel was disrupted, but trash collection too. Name me one billionaire that would put up with a month of trash not being taken from their curbside.

This shutdown only ended because the rich were affected. But it is still within the power of workers to not let it get that far. Unfortunately Reagan got the upper hand and workers gave up.

I compare Schultz to Hillary because they are both Wall Street Dems. So of course I wouldn't compare Schultz to Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders-- who are not Wall Street Democrats. A huge problem with talking with you knee jerk types, is that you don't know anything about the party that you claim to identify with. Schultz and Hillary are both New Dems. That's a fact. Hillary is one of the founders of the New Dems. Schultz is a long time supporter of the New Dems. The New Dems are the powerful minority within the Democratic Party that is constantly trying to force the party toward the center, and arguably a bit right of center.

For the third time-- Are you willing to support a fight that you are likely to get hurt in? If we pick a fight with Apple, are you willing to bring your iPhone to the bonfire? I'm getting the feeling that your answer is no, because you avoid answering. That is the problem. You want a general to fight a battle that you aren't willing to soldier in.

AGAIN NO!

Part of dems problem, and it is OUR FAULT as voters, and I said this in a prior post. OUR problem is we don't show up in local/state midterm elections. THAT puts the democrat politicians in the position at being at the constant mercy of the GOP, it isn't that our politicians always agree with corporate America, it is that WE AS VOTERS don't back them up, which puts our politicians in a constant state of compromise.

Hillary never got elected, Obama did, and Bill did as well. But even with Obama and Bill, they never dealt with the House and Senate as a long term majority ON AVERAGE as leaning democrat, where as the GOP has had a LONG TERM average as controlling all three branches with MORE POWER ON AVERAGE.

It does no good for dems to simply win the White House. If you look at the AVERAGE POWER since Reagan, considering, NOT JUST THE PRESIDENT, but the House and Senate and Supreme Court AS AN AVERAGE, the GOP has dominated congress ON AVERAGE since Reagan. That dominance makes it hard for any democrat President, or House or Senate member to do anything long term. And the SCOTUS since Reagan has voted mostly for big business most of the time.

[Yonadav]

I compare Schultz to Hillary because they are both Wall Street Dems. So of course I wouldn't compare Schultz to Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders-- who are not Wall Street Democrats. A huge problem with talking with you knee jerk types, is that you don't know anything about the party that you claim to identify with. Schultz and Hillary are both New Dems. That's a fact. Hillary is one of the founders of the New Dems. Schultz is a long time supporter of the New Dems. The New Dems are the powerful minority within the Democratic Party that is constantly trying to force the party toward the center, and arguably a bit right of center.

For the third time-- Are you willing to support a fight that you are likely to get hurt in? If we pick a fight with Apple, are you willing to bring your iPhone to the bonfire? I'm getting the feeling that your answer is no, because you avoid answering. That is the problem. You want a general to fight a battle that you aren't willing to soldier in.

AGAIN NO!

Part of dems problem, and it is OUR FAULT as voters, and I said this in a prior post. OUR problem is we don't show up in local/state midterm elections. THAT puts the democrat politicians in the position at being at the constant mercy of the GOP, it isn't that our politicians always agree with corporate America, it is that WE AS VOTERS don't back them up, which puts our politicians in a constant state of compromise.

Hillary never got elected, Obama did, and Bill did as well. But even with Obama and Bill, they never dealt with the House and Senate as a long term majority ON AVERAGE as leaning democrat, where as the GOP has had a LONG TERM average as controlling all three branches with MORE POWER ON AVERAGE.

It does no good for dems to simply win the White House. If you look at the AVERAGE POWER since Reagan, considering, NOT JUST THE PRESIDENT, but the House and Senate and Supreme Court AS AN AVERAGE, the GOP has dominated congress ON AVERAGE since Reagan. That dominance makes it hard for any democrat President, or House or Senate member to do anything long term. And the SCOTUS since Reagan has voted mostly for big business most of the time.

It does no good for Dems to win anything if voters are just electing leaders to fight battles that their base isn't going to support them in. You want to elect someone to pick a fight with billionaires, but you aren't willing to support that fight. I want to tax billionaires. But I don't think that it is going to increase tax revenue until people are willing to come to demonstrations and publicly smash their iPhones. Until you are willing to do stuff like that, you are just a person whose hobby is bad mouthing billionaires while getting down on your knees when they open their zippers.

[Brian37]

AGAIN NO!

Part of dems problem, and it is OUR FAULT as voters, and I said this in a prior post. OUR problem is we don't show up in local/state midterm elections. THAT puts the democrat politicians in the position at being at the constant mercy of the GOP, it isn't that our politicians always agree with corporate America, it is that WE AS VOTERS don't back them up, which puts our politicians in a constant state of compromise.

Hillary never got elected, Obama did, and Bill did as well. But even with Obama and Bill, they never dealt with the House and Senate as a long term majority ON AVERAGE as leaning democrat, where as the GOP has had a LONG TERM average as controlling all three branches with MORE POWER ON AVERAGE.

It does no good for dems to simply win the White House. If you look at the AVERAGE POWER since Reagan, considering, NOT JUST THE PRESIDENT, but the House and Senate and Supreme Court AS AN AVERAGE, the GOP has dominated congress ON AVERAGE since Reagan. That dominance makes it hard for any democrat President, or House or Senate member to do anything long term. And the SCOTUS since Reagan has voted mostly for big business most of the time.

It does no good for Dems to win anything if voters are just electing leaders to fight battles that their base isn't going to support them in. You want to elect someone to pick a fight with billionaires, but you aren't willing to support that fight. I want to tax billionaires. But I don't think that it is going to increase tax revenue until people are willing to come to demonstrations and publicly smash their iPhones. Until you are willing to do stuff like that, you are just a person whose hobby is bad mouthing billionaires while getting down on your knees when they open their zippers.

UGGGGGGG!

It does no good to keep doing what we have done since Reagan, and cave in.

[Yonadav]

It does no good for Dems to win anything if voters are just electing leaders to fight battles that their base isn't going to support them in. You want to elect someone to pick a fight with billionaires, but you aren't willing to support that fight. I want to tax billionaires. But I don't think that it is going to increase tax revenue until people are willing to come to demonstrations and publicly smash their iPhones. Until you are willing to do stuff like that, you are just a person whose hobby is bad mouthing billionaires while getting down on your knees when they open their zippers.

UGGGGGGG!

It does no good to keep doing what we have done since Reagan, and cave in.

You are the one who caves in.  Be a man. Make a sign about how badly you want billionaires to stop tax dodging and get their money out of politics. Take that sign down to your local Starbucks. Demonstrate. Tell everyone to stop spending their money at Starbucks. Throw coffee that you made at home at the Starbucks windows. Try to get people to join you. Fuck Starbucks. But you're probably drinking a Starbucks right now.

[Brian37]

UGGGGGGG!

It does no good to keep doing what we have done since Reagan, and cave in.

You are the one who caves in.  Be a man. Make a sign about how badly you want billionaires to stop tax dodging and get their money out of politics. Take that sign down to your local Starbucks. Demonstrate. Tell everyone to stop spending their money at Starbucks. Throw coffee that you made at home at the Starbucks windows. Try to get people to join you. Fuck Starbucks. But you're probably drinking a Starbucks right now.

Will you cut it with the "man crap".

Bullshit like that assumes only men should fight to the death, and every dispute must end up in violence, and women are not capable of leadership.

Sorry asshole, I don't have to explain myself to you.

The argument is not over you and I taking pistols at 12 paces at high noon, but TACTICS.

Shultzs is full of shit, and so is Bloomberg. If let the rich do what they want worked, then Reagan would be right and nobody would be bitching. But for you to say that dems are the same as the GOP is fucking BULLSHIT.

I am not interested in your hollow cliche grade school dares.

This is about logic. Not whom can draw their gun faster in a Eastwood Spaghetti Western.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

What? You guys don't like Schultz? He's basically Hillary Clinton with a penis.  He's one of the New Dems that you people have always loved long time.

I must have missed the bit where Schultz has 30 years of government experience.  My bad.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

I want to hear more about how smashing iphones will somehow help to raise the tax rate for billionaires.  I'd be even more interested to know how doing that would get them to actually pay those taxes.  I've got two iphones.  If I'd known that they had such eldritch power I'd have smashed them long ago!  

In mere reality, it seems like we'd just be smashing our shit.  Billionaires aren't exactly known for giving a fuck about my shit. I think that beheading a few and burning down their summer homes might be more effective ways to enact change by smashing something. If smashing shit is going to work, smashing their shit, that they do care about, seems like it might be more effective. Hey, we could take their iphones and smash them!

[Yonadav]

You are the one who caves in.  Be a man. Make a sign about how badly you want billionaires to stop tax dodging and get their money out of politics. Take that sign down to your local Starbucks. Demonstrate. Tell everyone to stop spending their money at Starbucks. Throw coffee that you made at home at the Starbucks windows. Try to get people to join you. Fuck Starbucks. But you're probably drinking a Starbucks right now.

Will you cut it with the "man crap".

Bullshit like that assumes only men should fight to the death, and every dispute must end up in violence, and women are not capable of leadership.

Sorry asshole, I don't have to explain myself to you.

The argument is not over you and I taking pistols at 12 paces at high noon, but TACTICS.

Shultzs is full of shit, and so is Bloomberg. If let the rich do what they want worked, then Reagan would be right and nobody would be bitching. But for you to say that dems are the same as the GOP is fucking BULLSHIT.

I am not interested in your hollow cliche grade school dares.

This is about logic. Not whom can draw their gun faster in a Eastwood Spaghetti Western.

I didn't give you a hollow grade school dare. You don't have the guts to actually support the fight that you want an elected leader to pick.  You know nothing about tactics. You know so little that you want to elect a general to fight a war that you refuse to soldier in. If we pick a fight with billionaires (and I want to), we have to understand that they will retaliate. It's going to hurt, and we have to be willing to accept the pain. They will try to drive up the prices of things in sneaky ways. They will move their wealth beyond the reach of taxes so that we have to increase deficit spending. If we are going to pick a fight with billionaires who absolutely will retaliate, we need to be willing to do whatever it takes.

If we don't do whatever it takes, our attempt to tax the billionaires will just end up making everything more expensive, and the policy will be called a failure, and we will not elect another progressive candidate again for several decades.  If we pick this fight, we can't lose it. The billionaires have already made it clear that they are willing to fight in deplorable ways. Look at how they jacked up the price of pharmaceuticals. They will do more of the same, and worse.

You don't get that. If we pick this fight, you are actually going to have fight. And by fight, I mean that you are going to have to endure some pain and refuse to cry uncle. What I am saying to you is common sense. It is obvious that you do not pick a fight with Apple unless you are willing to smash your iPhone. Because hey, it can get a whole lot worse than that. We might have to watch our sick relatives die because the billionaires placed their medicine out of reach.

If you think that we are going to put a wealth tax on the billionaires and they are just going to comply and not doing anything to retaliate, you're an idiot. We need to be willing to retaliate in return. If we don't retaliate in return, then their retaliation is just going to cost us and make the tax on them look bad, and they will win. The candidate that vows to make billionaires pay is going to need much more from us than simply our vote.

And quite frankly, we should be making an example out of Starbucks right now. We should all be telling each other to not buy Starbucks. We should be making a boycott of Starbucks as public as possible.  When billionaires try to control our politics, we need to strike back at the businesses associated with them.

[Brian37]

Will you cut it with the "man crap".

Bullshit like that assumes only men should fight to the death, and every dispute must end up in violence, and women are not capable of leadership.

Sorry asshole, I don't have to explain myself to you.

The argument is not over you and I taking pistols at 12 paces at high noon, but TACTICS.

Shultzs is full of shit, and so is Bloomberg. If let the rich do what they want worked, then Reagan would be right and nobody would be bitching. But for you to say that dems are the same as the GOP is fucking BULLSHIT.

I am not interested in your hollow cliche grade school dares.

This is about logic. Not whom can draw their gun faster in a Eastwood Spaghetti Western.

I didn't give you a hollow grade school dare. You don't have the guts to actually support the fight that you want an elected leader to pick.  You know nothing about tactics. You know so little that you want to elect a general to fight a war that you refuse to soldier in. If we pick a fight with billionaires (and I want to), we have to understand that they will retaliate. It's going to hurt, and we have to be willing to accept the pain. They will try to drive up the prices of things in sneaky ways. They will move their wealth beyond the reach of taxes so that we have to increase deficit spending. If we are going to pick a fight with billionaires who absolutely will retaliate, we need to be willing to do whatever it takes.

If we don't do whatever it takes, our attempt to tax the billionaires will just end up making everything more expensive, and the policy will be called a failure, and we will not elect another progressive candidate again for several decades.  If we pick this fight, we can't lose it. The billionaires have already made it clear that they are willing to fight in deplorable ways. Look at how they jacked up the price of pharmaceuticals. They will do more of the same, and worse.

You don't get that. If we pick this fight, you are actually going to have fight. And by fight, I mean that you are going to have to endure some pain and refuse to cry uncle. What I am saying to you is common sense. It is obvious that you do not pick a fight with Apple unless you are willing to smash your iPhone. Because hey, it can get a whole lot worse than that. We might have to watch our sick relatives die because the billionaires placed their medicine out of reach.

If you think that we are going to put a wealth tax on the billionaires and they are just going to comply and not doing anything to retaliate, you're an idiot. We need to be willing to retaliate in return. If we don't retaliate in return, then their retaliation is just going to cost us and make the tax on them look bad, and they will win. The candidate that vows to make billionaires pay is going to need much more from us than simply our vote.

And quite frankly, we should be making an example out of Starbucks right now. We should all be telling each other to not buy Starbucks. We should be making a boycott of Starbucks as public as possible.  When billionaires try to control our politics, we need to strike back at the businesses associated with them.

Yea because everything in life is a Hollywood movie, blood sport, where we cut each other's fingers shake hands and exchange blood.

"Guts" isn't about simply rushing to the enemy just because you have anger. If it worked like that Hitler would have won.

I honestly DO NOT GIVE A FUCK what you think of my objections. The point remains you have nothing to defend what you think will work.