chosen listlengths 2 2 | rejected listlengths 2 2 | __index_level_0__ int64 270k 308k |
|---|---|---|
[
{
"content": "CMV: Mike Bloomberg's campaign is proof that the ultra wealthy in the US can afford a higher tax rate with no ill effect on them Mike Bloomberg recently dropped out of the 2020 Presidential race after spending over $500 million dollars of his own money on his campaign. Even with this loss, he is still worth over $55 billion dollars. I believe that this effortless spending on Bloombergs part showcases the reality that is wealth inequality between the ultra rich and working class. While I do not believe the rich should give up their fortunes, I do believe that any arguments against taxing them more is simply propaganda from those who hold the wealth and higher power at this point. Certain media outlets claim that taxing the super wealthy is unfair and would be detrimental to those below them due to \"trickle down\" effects. There is also rhetoric that many self made billionaires worked hard for their fortunes, and that if we as Americans work hard, we might be rich ourselves one day. I believe that moving forward, we should push for much higher taxes on those earning/worth more than 1 billion USD. If the money Bloomberg spent on his campaign went to actual communities that need funding, actual change could have been possible. Social programs could benefit greatly from these funds, and maybe we could afford to better fund national programs such as healthcare or family leave.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "> I believe that moving forward, we should push for much higher taxes on those earning/worth more than 1 billion USD. How do you propose that this is done? You should note that billionaires do not earn billions, they own things that are worth billions.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Mike Bloomberg's campaign is proof that the ultra wealthy in the US can afford a higher tax rate with no ill effect on them Mike Bloomberg recently dropped out of the 2020 Presidential race after spending over $500 million dollars of his own money on his campaign. Even with this loss, he is still worth over $55 billion dollars. I believe that this effortless spending on Bloombergs part showcases the reality that is wealth inequality between the ultra rich and working class. While I do not believe the rich should give up their fortunes, I do believe that any arguments against taxing them more is simply propaganda from those who hold the wealth and higher power at this point. Certain media outlets claim that taxing the super wealthy is unfair and would be detrimental to those below them due to \"trickle down\" effects. There is also rhetoric that many self made billionaires worked hard for their fortunes, and that if we as Americans work hard, we might be rich ourselves one day. I believe that moving forward, we should push for much higher taxes on those earning/worth more than 1 billion USD. If the money Bloomberg spent on his campaign went to actual communities that need funding, actual change could have been possible. Social programs could benefit greatly from these funds, and maybe we could afford to better fund national programs such as healthcare or family leave.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "one dude voluntarily pissing away his money to stroke his ego is completely different than the gov't taking away money by force from all people who are \"rich\"",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,783 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Mike Bloomberg's campaign is proof that the ultra wealthy in the US can afford a higher tax rate with no ill effect on them Mike Bloomberg recently dropped out of the 2020 Presidential race after spending over $500 million dollars of his own money on his campaign. Even with this loss, he is still worth over $55 billion dollars. I believe that this effortless spending on Bloombergs part showcases the reality that is wealth inequality between the ultra rich and working class. While I do not believe the rich should give up their fortunes, I do believe that any arguments against taxing them more is simply propaganda from those who hold the wealth and higher power at this point. Certain media outlets claim that taxing the super wealthy is unfair and would be detrimental to those below them due to \"trickle down\" effects. There is also rhetoric that many self made billionaires worked hard for their fortunes, and that if we as Americans work hard, we might be rich ourselves one day. I believe that moving forward, we should push for much higher taxes on those earning/worth more than 1 billion USD. If the money Bloomberg spent on his campaign went to actual communities that need funding, actual change could have been possible. Social programs could benefit greatly from these funds, and maybe we could afford to better fund national programs such as healthcare or family leave.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "No one espouses \"trickle down\", the term was coined as a dig at Hoover's engineering degree. The joke being that he knows that water trickles down but he doesn't realize that money trickles up. The whole thing has been a dig for a century and doesn't really have theoretical defense since it is a straw man position designed and intended to be easily attacked. The big issues with taxes is that very often they do things that they aren't intended to do. Corporate taxes are a poster child for tax incidence. What is tax incidence? Well, it's who *really* ends up paying the tax. But, I hear you say, corporations pay the tax, they send in the check. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter who mails in the check it only matters who is out money. In the case of corporate taxes it is the consumer who is made to take the first bite of the shit sandwich. Companies who can get away with raising prices to account for the higher tax do so, yeah the company writes the check but it is the guy buying the stuff who is paying. If they can only raise prices so much or they are selling luxury goods and walk away if the price rises at all they turn around and make employees eat it. Sometimes it's obvious, like pay cuts or layoff, but it's usually something far more subtle like shifting to less expensive benefits or not hiring replacements when someone retires or quits. While companies usually have the power in these situations they don't have all the power, particularly when workers are highly skilled, hard to replace, or well organized. Then, and only then, do the shareholders have to eat what remains. Fifty years ago it was the Bloombergs of the world, but now an increasing proportion of that is workers again since the shift from pensions to 401(K) and other defined contribution schemes workers own ever larger proportions of publicly traded companies, which means that they're getting hosed twice. That \"getting hosed twice\" issue is why Capital Gains Taxes are a thing. Capital Gains are Income. I would like to see them taxed as Income. But, as long as Corporate taxes are a thing you have the money being taxed as profit for the company and then immediately taxed a second time as income for the shareholder. They argued that this was unfair, and set up a lower rate for capital gains. I would love to see Corporate Taxes done away with altogether and Capital Gains taxes as income. Not only would that only hit the Bloombergs (and also people with non-tax advantaged retirement savings), but corporate taxes are riddled with loopholes and accounting conventions and all sorts of ways to cheat that simply don't exist in income taxes. You'd be taxing the same money at a higher rate with fewer loopholes. I see that as an unqualified win in the way that adding entirely new taxes wouldn't necessarily be. I would love to see things streamlined. A VAT with the express purpose of raising money. VATs have a history of working well as designed and not changing behavior much. Luxury taxes or a tax intended to punish the rich for buying expensive toys or to keep people from buying things damaging to their health, never raise nearly enough money. The rich simply go and buy from overseas, which utterly destroyed the American yacht industry in the early 1990's. Ironically, it was Bush Senior who pushed for and passed it, but it is an object lesson that it would be good of us to not forget. The poor will simply turn to tax evasion to get their tax-stickerless cigarettes, which only feeds organized crime and cut into the revenue such schemes always claim but never deliver on. An additional Land Value Tax, something that taxes the land a house is built on but not the house itself, would go a long way to taxing the rich. Let's face it, rural land isn't worth much. Individual lots in suburban neighborhoods only have value if they're hooked up to municipal water and power. It's the people who have large holdings of urban land or massive estates that would end up paying most of this. That's a fair proxy for wealthy people, and would miss the poor completely. Because it's not a traditional property tax (which taxes the value of the house as well and the land) it would have a much smaller impact on farmers and retirees who own their own homes. Wealth taxes, where you just take X% of the money of rich people, would never generate long term wealth the same way as making them recognize all income as income and taxing the land they aren't using effectively. If you look at European examples of \"let's just tax rich people\" or \"let's just tax the stock market\" you see a long history of failure. Those are very poorly defined ideas that are basically impossible to implement in a functional way. If you want to improve social programs there's a simple way to do it. De-silo them. Instead of giving people tokens that can only be used on food and vouchers that can only be used on rent and a charge account that can only be used on health care, just give them straight cash. People are, generally speaking, smart. Given the information and raw cash they can more accurately allocate the aid given to them to match their needs than Congressmen who have never been poor, or are trying to give them what a hypothetical average person might need instead of what they need. You need far less fraud investigations, oversight, and bureaucracy this way. Because you don't care if this dollar is going to food or housing you don't need to arbitrarily enforce rules about what they \"should\" be spending money on. The needless pearl-clutching about how people on public assistance spend their money only bogs down everything and siphons billions of dollars already earmarked to addressing these issues into needless tail chasing. To be sure, we do need *some* enforcement and having good quality workers running a good quality infrastructure to ensure that no one is slipping through cracks or gaming the system unjustly, but we can cut the bullshit about people pouring out bottled water to convert food stamps into rent money at a rate of five cents on the dollar. Moreover, I *like* the idea that there is an alternative to the government when it comes to doing big projects. I don't like that it's a handful of rich folk who can do things or not on a whim, but I hate the idea that there would be only one possible way to address climate change or the risks posed by polio or whatever. Whenever there is only one individual or group who has complete control over something then they have outsized power. I don't like the idea of giving the government unlimited power over anything that costs more than a couple of middle class family pooling their rainy day funds could manage. Ideally we would have a bunch of nonprofits and community groups that exist for pooling large sums of wealth to do amazing thing to better reality for everyone. Rich folks are already an alternative already in place, largely by tradition and accident, so I don't want to destroy them and default to giving politicians complete and unquestioned dominion over everything yet, I want to see more pools of wealth that are more responsive to the needs and desires of people generally. It's a shame that the corporate structure has collapsed onto just the one default form. Having more employee owned (like Publix Supermarkets), customer owned (like REI), depositor owned (like credit unions), or dedicated to a purpose corporation would be wonderful. Those old-school subscription clubs where everyone would chip in a dollar to make community improvements and invest in everything from the Golden Gate Bridge to the USS Texas (a battleship) would be things that I would love to make a comeback. After all, if there were non-government solutions to problems that require a big ass pile of money then I would be much more eager to \"eat the rich\" as some others have posited.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Mike Bloomberg's campaign is proof that the ultra wealthy in the US can afford a higher tax rate with no ill effect on them Mike Bloomberg recently dropped out of the 2020 Presidential race after spending over $500 million dollars of his own money on his campaign. Even with this loss, he is still worth over $55 billion dollars. I believe that this effortless spending on Bloombergs part showcases the reality that is wealth inequality between the ultra rich and working class. While I do not believe the rich should give up their fortunes, I do believe that any arguments against taxing them more is simply propaganda from those who hold the wealth and higher power at this point. Certain media outlets claim that taxing the super wealthy is unfair and would be detrimental to those below them due to \"trickle down\" effects. There is also rhetoric that many self made billionaires worked hard for their fortunes, and that if we as Americans work hard, we might be rich ourselves one day. I believe that moving forward, we should push for much higher taxes on those earning/worth more than 1 billion USD. If the money Bloomberg spent on his campaign went to actual communities that need funding, actual change could have been possible. Social programs could benefit greatly from these funds, and maybe we could afford to better fund national programs such as healthcare or family leave.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "one dude voluntarily pissing away his money to stroke his ego is completely different than the gov't taking away money by force from all people who are \"rich\"",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,784 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Mike Bloomberg's campaign is proof that the ultra wealthy in the US can afford a higher tax rate with no ill effect on them Mike Bloomberg recently dropped out of the 2020 Presidential race after spending over $500 million dollars of his own money on his campaign. Even with this loss, he is still worth over $55 billion dollars. I believe that this effortless spending on Bloombergs part showcases the reality that is wealth inequality between the ultra rich and working class. While I do not believe the rich should give up their fortunes, I do believe that any arguments against taxing them more is simply propaganda from those who hold the wealth and higher power at this point. Certain media outlets claim that taxing the super wealthy is unfair and would be detrimental to those below them due to \"trickle down\" effects. There is also rhetoric that many self made billionaires worked hard for their fortunes, and that if we as Americans work hard, we might be rich ourselves one day. I believe that moving forward, we should push for much higher taxes on those earning/worth more than 1 billion USD. If the money Bloomberg spent on his campaign went to actual communities that need funding, actual change could have been possible. Social programs could benefit greatly from these funds, and maybe we could afford to better fund national programs such as healthcare or family leave.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "No one espouses \"trickle down\", the term was coined as a dig at Hoover's engineering degree. The joke being that he knows that water trickles down but he doesn't realize that money trickles up. The whole thing has been a dig for a century and doesn't really have theoretical defense since it is a straw man position designed and intended to be easily attacked. The big issues with taxes is that very often they do things that they aren't intended to do. Corporate taxes are a poster child for tax incidence. What is tax incidence? Well, it's who *really* ends up paying the tax. But, I hear you say, corporations pay the tax, they send in the check. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter who mails in the check it only matters who is out money. In the case of corporate taxes it is the consumer who is made to take the first bite of the shit sandwich. Companies who can get away with raising prices to account for the higher tax do so, yeah the company writes the check but it is the guy buying the stuff who is paying. If they can only raise prices so much or they are selling luxury goods and walk away if the price rises at all they turn around and make employees eat it. Sometimes it's obvious, like pay cuts or layoff, but it's usually something far more subtle like shifting to less expensive benefits or not hiring replacements when someone retires or quits. While companies usually have the power in these situations they don't have all the power, particularly when workers are highly skilled, hard to replace, or well organized. Then, and only then, do the shareholders have to eat what remains. Fifty years ago it was the Bloombergs of the world, but now an increasing proportion of that is workers again since the shift from pensions to 401(K) and other defined contribution schemes workers own ever larger proportions of publicly traded companies, which means that they're getting hosed twice. That \"getting hosed twice\" issue is why Capital Gains Taxes are a thing. Capital Gains are Income. I would like to see them taxed as Income. But, as long as Corporate taxes are a thing you have the money being taxed as profit for the company and then immediately taxed a second time as income for the shareholder. They argued that this was unfair, and set up a lower rate for capital gains. I would love to see Corporate Taxes done away with altogether and Capital Gains taxes as income. Not only would that only hit the Bloombergs (and also people with non-tax advantaged retirement savings), but corporate taxes are riddled with loopholes and accounting conventions and all sorts of ways to cheat that simply don't exist in income taxes. You'd be taxing the same money at a higher rate with fewer loopholes. I see that as an unqualified win in the way that adding entirely new taxes wouldn't necessarily be. I would love to see things streamlined. A VAT with the express purpose of raising money. VATs have a history of working well as designed and not changing behavior much. Luxury taxes or a tax intended to punish the rich for buying expensive toys or to keep people from buying things damaging to their health, never raise nearly enough money. The rich simply go and buy from overseas, which utterly destroyed the American yacht industry in the early 1990's. Ironically, it was Bush Senior who pushed for and passed it, but it is an object lesson that it would be good of us to not forget. The poor will simply turn to tax evasion to get their tax-stickerless cigarettes, which only feeds organized crime and cut into the revenue such schemes always claim but never deliver on. An additional Land Value Tax, something that taxes the land a house is built on but not the house itself, would go a long way to taxing the rich. Let's face it, rural land isn't worth much. Individual lots in suburban neighborhoods only have value if they're hooked up to municipal water and power. It's the people who have large holdings of urban land or massive estates that would end up paying most of this. That's a fair proxy for wealthy people, and would miss the poor completely. Because it's not a traditional property tax (which taxes the value of the house as well and the land) it would have a much smaller impact on farmers and retirees who own their own homes. Wealth taxes, where you just take X% of the money of rich people, would never generate long term wealth the same way as making them recognize all income as income and taxing the land they aren't using effectively. If you look at European examples of \"let's just tax rich people\" or \"let's just tax the stock market\" you see a long history of failure. Those are very poorly defined ideas that are basically impossible to implement in a functional way. If you want to improve social programs there's a simple way to do it. De-silo them. Instead of giving people tokens that can only be used on food and vouchers that can only be used on rent and a charge account that can only be used on health care, just give them straight cash. People are, generally speaking, smart. Given the information and raw cash they can more accurately allocate the aid given to them to match their needs than Congressmen who have never been poor, or are trying to give them what a hypothetical average person might need instead of what they need. You need far less fraud investigations, oversight, and bureaucracy this way. Because you don't care if this dollar is going to food or housing you don't need to arbitrarily enforce rules about what they \"should\" be spending money on. The needless pearl-clutching about how people on public assistance spend their money only bogs down everything and siphons billions of dollars already earmarked to addressing these issues into needless tail chasing. To be sure, we do need *some* enforcement and having good quality workers running a good quality infrastructure to ensure that no one is slipping through cracks or gaming the system unjustly, but we can cut the bullshit about people pouring out bottled water to convert food stamps into rent money at a rate of five cents on the dollar. Moreover, I *like* the idea that there is an alternative to the government when it comes to doing big projects. I don't like that it's a handful of rich folk who can do things or not on a whim, but I hate the idea that there would be only one possible way to address climate change or the risks posed by polio or whatever. Whenever there is only one individual or group who has complete control over something then they have outsized power. I don't like the idea of giving the government unlimited power over anything that costs more than a couple of middle class family pooling their rainy day funds could manage. Ideally we would have a bunch of nonprofits and community groups that exist for pooling large sums of wealth to do amazing thing to better reality for everyone. Rich folks are already an alternative already in place, largely by tradition and accident, so I don't want to destroy them and default to giving politicians complete and unquestioned dominion over everything yet, I want to see more pools of wealth that are more responsive to the needs and desires of people generally. It's a shame that the corporate structure has collapsed onto just the one default form. Having more employee owned (like Publix Supermarkets), customer owned (like REI), depositor owned (like credit unions), or dedicated to a purpose corporation would be wonderful. Those old-school subscription clubs where everyone would chip in a dollar to make community improvements and invest in everything from the Golden Gate Bridge to the USS Texas (a battleship) would be things that I would love to make a comeback. After all, if there were non-government solutions to problems that require a big ass pile of money then I would be much more eager to \"eat the rich\" as some others have posited.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Mike Bloomberg's campaign is proof that the ultra wealthy in the US can afford a higher tax rate with no ill effect on them Mike Bloomberg recently dropped out of the 2020 Presidential race after spending over $500 million dollars of his own money on his campaign. Even with this loss, he is still worth over $55 billion dollars. I believe that this effortless spending on Bloombergs part showcases the reality that is wealth inequality between the ultra rich and working class. While I do not believe the rich should give up their fortunes, I do believe that any arguments against taxing them more is simply propaganda from those who hold the wealth and higher power at this point. Certain media outlets claim that taxing the super wealthy is unfair and would be detrimental to those below them due to \"trickle down\" effects. There is also rhetoric that many self made billionaires worked hard for their fortunes, and that if we as Americans work hard, we might be rich ourselves one day. I believe that moving forward, we should push for much higher taxes on those earning/worth more than 1 billion USD. If the money Bloomberg spent on his campaign went to actual communities that need funding, actual change could have been possible. Social programs could benefit greatly from these funds, and maybe we could afford to better fund national programs such as healthcare or family leave.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "He's the 9th richest man on the planet. That's such an incredible outlier. He doesn't represent any particular group, very well, certainly not enough to extrapolate \"because of Bloomberg, then wealthy people could pay more in taxes\". Even those comfortably in the 1%, or even 0.01%, or even 0.00001%, could not have spent what Bloomberg spent. While I fully agree with tax reform, particularly on capital gains (I think income should be income, keep it simple), extrapolating anything from major outliers, is a large mistake. Secondarily, he was paying about 50% more to his campaign staff, and injected that $500M into the US economy. Economically, I'm always happier seeing someone spend their wealth, than funneling it through the government. Bloomberg bought exactly 0 bombs. He killed exactly 0 civilians on foreign soil. He paid well above standard wages for similar work in other campaigns, and he made it rain. Think about that for a second, if you give $1 extra to the government, some fraction of that dollar is buying the next Predator drone that will unleash a Salvo on some Yemeni farmer, and kill he and his family. No thanks.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,785 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Mike Bloomberg's campaign is proof that the ultra wealthy in the US can afford a higher tax rate with no ill effect on them Mike Bloomberg recently dropped out of the 2020 Presidential race after spending over $500 million dollars of his own money on his campaign. Even with this loss, he is still worth over $55 billion dollars. I believe that this effortless spending on Bloombergs part showcases the reality that is wealth inequality between the ultra rich and working class. While I do not believe the rich should give up their fortunes, I do believe that any arguments against taxing them more is simply propaganda from those who hold the wealth and higher power at this point. Certain media outlets claim that taxing the super wealthy is unfair and would be detrimental to those below them due to \"trickle down\" effects. There is also rhetoric that many self made billionaires worked hard for their fortunes, and that if we as Americans work hard, we might be rich ourselves one day. I believe that moving forward, we should push for much higher taxes on those earning/worth more than 1 billion USD. If the money Bloomberg spent on his campaign went to actual communities that need funding, actual change could have been possible. Social programs could benefit greatly from these funds, and maybe we could afford to better fund national programs such as healthcare or family leave.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "No one espouses \"trickle down\", the term was coined as a dig at Hoover's engineering degree. The joke being that he knows that water trickles down but he doesn't realize that money trickles up. The whole thing has been a dig for a century and doesn't really have theoretical defense since it is a straw man position designed and intended to be easily attacked. The big issues with taxes is that very often they do things that they aren't intended to do. Corporate taxes are a poster child for tax incidence. What is tax incidence? Well, it's who *really* ends up paying the tax. But, I hear you say, corporations pay the tax, they send in the check. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter who mails in the check it only matters who is out money. In the case of corporate taxes it is the consumer who is made to take the first bite of the shit sandwich. Companies who can get away with raising prices to account for the higher tax do so, yeah the company writes the check but it is the guy buying the stuff who is paying. If they can only raise prices so much or they are selling luxury goods and walk away if the price rises at all they turn around and make employees eat it. Sometimes it's obvious, like pay cuts or layoff, but it's usually something far more subtle like shifting to less expensive benefits or not hiring replacements when someone retires or quits. While companies usually have the power in these situations they don't have all the power, particularly when workers are highly skilled, hard to replace, or well organized. Then, and only then, do the shareholders have to eat what remains. Fifty years ago it was the Bloombergs of the world, but now an increasing proportion of that is workers again since the shift from pensions to 401(K) and other defined contribution schemes workers own ever larger proportions of publicly traded companies, which means that they're getting hosed twice. That \"getting hosed twice\" issue is why Capital Gains Taxes are a thing. Capital Gains are Income. I would like to see them taxed as Income. But, as long as Corporate taxes are a thing you have the money being taxed as profit for the company and then immediately taxed a second time as income for the shareholder. They argued that this was unfair, and set up a lower rate for capital gains. I would love to see Corporate Taxes done away with altogether and Capital Gains taxes as income. Not only would that only hit the Bloombergs (and also people with non-tax advantaged retirement savings), but corporate taxes are riddled with loopholes and accounting conventions and all sorts of ways to cheat that simply don't exist in income taxes. You'd be taxing the same money at a higher rate with fewer loopholes. I see that as an unqualified win in the way that adding entirely new taxes wouldn't necessarily be. I would love to see things streamlined. A VAT with the express purpose of raising money. VATs have a history of working well as designed and not changing behavior much. Luxury taxes or a tax intended to punish the rich for buying expensive toys or to keep people from buying things damaging to their health, never raise nearly enough money. The rich simply go and buy from overseas, which utterly destroyed the American yacht industry in the early 1990's. Ironically, it was Bush Senior who pushed for and passed it, but it is an object lesson that it would be good of us to not forget. The poor will simply turn to tax evasion to get their tax-stickerless cigarettes, which only feeds organized crime and cut into the revenue such schemes always claim but never deliver on. An additional Land Value Tax, something that taxes the land a house is built on but not the house itself, would go a long way to taxing the rich. Let's face it, rural land isn't worth much. Individual lots in suburban neighborhoods only have value if they're hooked up to municipal water and power. It's the people who have large holdings of urban land or massive estates that would end up paying most of this. That's a fair proxy for wealthy people, and would miss the poor completely. Because it's not a traditional property tax (which taxes the value of the house as well and the land) it would have a much smaller impact on farmers and retirees who own their own homes. Wealth taxes, where you just take X% of the money of rich people, would never generate long term wealth the same way as making them recognize all income as income and taxing the land they aren't using effectively. If you look at European examples of \"let's just tax rich people\" or \"let's just tax the stock market\" you see a long history of failure. Those are very poorly defined ideas that are basically impossible to implement in a functional way. If you want to improve social programs there's a simple way to do it. De-silo them. Instead of giving people tokens that can only be used on food and vouchers that can only be used on rent and a charge account that can only be used on health care, just give them straight cash. People are, generally speaking, smart. Given the information and raw cash they can more accurately allocate the aid given to them to match their needs than Congressmen who have never been poor, or are trying to give them what a hypothetical average person might need instead of what they need. You need far less fraud investigations, oversight, and bureaucracy this way. Because you don't care if this dollar is going to food or housing you don't need to arbitrarily enforce rules about what they \"should\" be spending money on. The needless pearl-clutching about how people on public assistance spend their money only bogs down everything and siphons billions of dollars already earmarked to addressing these issues into needless tail chasing. To be sure, we do need *some* enforcement and having good quality workers running a good quality infrastructure to ensure that no one is slipping through cracks or gaming the system unjustly, but we can cut the bullshit about people pouring out bottled water to convert food stamps into rent money at a rate of five cents on the dollar. Moreover, I *like* the idea that there is an alternative to the government when it comes to doing big projects. I don't like that it's a handful of rich folk who can do things or not on a whim, but I hate the idea that there would be only one possible way to address climate change or the risks posed by polio or whatever. Whenever there is only one individual or group who has complete control over something then they have outsized power. I don't like the idea of giving the government unlimited power over anything that costs more than a couple of middle class family pooling their rainy day funds could manage. Ideally we would have a bunch of nonprofits and community groups that exist for pooling large sums of wealth to do amazing thing to better reality for everyone. Rich folks are already an alternative already in place, largely by tradition and accident, so I don't want to destroy them and default to giving politicians complete and unquestioned dominion over everything yet, I want to see more pools of wealth that are more responsive to the needs and desires of people generally. It's a shame that the corporate structure has collapsed onto just the one default form. Having more employee owned (like Publix Supermarkets), customer owned (like REI), depositor owned (like credit unions), or dedicated to a purpose corporation would be wonderful. Those old-school subscription clubs where everyone would chip in a dollar to make community improvements and invest in everything from the Golden Gate Bridge to the USS Texas (a battleship) would be things that I would love to make a comeback. After all, if there were non-government solutions to problems that require a big ass pile of money then I would be much more eager to \"eat the rich\" as some others have posited.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Mike Bloomberg's campaign is proof that the ultra wealthy in the US can afford a higher tax rate with no ill effect on them Mike Bloomberg recently dropped out of the 2020 Presidential race after spending over $500 million dollars of his own money on his campaign. Even with this loss, he is still worth over $55 billion dollars. I believe that this effortless spending on Bloombergs part showcases the reality that is wealth inequality between the ultra rich and working class. While I do not believe the rich should give up their fortunes, I do believe that any arguments against taxing them more is simply propaganda from those who hold the wealth and higher power at this point. Certain media outlets claim that taxing the super wealthy is unfair and would be detrimental to those below them due to \"trickle down\" effects. There is also rhetoric that many self made billionaires worked hard for their fortunes, and that if we as Americans work hard, we might be rich ourselves one day. I believe that moving forward, we should push for much higher taxes on those earning/worth more than 1 billion USD. If the money Bloomberg spent on his campaign went to actual communities that need funding, actual change could have been possible. Social programs could benefit greatly from these funds, and maybe we could afford to better fund national programs such as healthcare or family leave.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Mike Bloomberg is exceptional even among billionaires. He is the 9th richest person in the world, and the 6th richest in the United States. The 18th-richest American has less than half of his wealth, the 37th-richest American has about 1/5th of his wealth, and almost everyone below that is a single-digit billionaire. Your argument that Bloomberg's \"effortless spending\" on the campaign means that all billionaires should have much higher taxes is suspect, because the vast, vast majority of the 607 U.S. billionaires have nowhere near his level of wealth. I don't mean to use these numbers to argue that taxation of the ultra-wealthy is unfair or bad policy, but rather to show that arguments for higher taxes on high-net-worth individuals should not be based on the behavior of Mike Bloomberg or any other ultra-ultra-wealthy person. All data comes from Forbes's Billionaires 2020 list (which is either super interesting or super depressing, depending on your perspective).",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,786 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Mike Bloomberg's campaign is proof that the ultra wealthy in the US can afford a higher tax rate with no ill effect on them Mike Bloomberg recently dropped out of the 2020 Presidential race after spending over $500 million dollars of his own money on his campaign. Even with this loss, he is still worth over $55 billion dollars. I believe that this effortless spending on Bloombergs part showcases the reality that is wealth inequality between the ultra rich and working class. While I do not believe the rich should give up their fortunes, I do believe that any arguments against taxing them more is simply propaganda from those who hold the wealth and higher power at this point. Certain media outlets claim that taxing the super wealthy is unfair and would be detrimental to those below them due to \"trickle down\" effects. There is also rhetoric that many self made billionaires worked hard for their fortunes, and that if we as Americans work hard, we might be rich ourselves one day. I believe that moving forward, we should push for much higher taxes on those earning/worth more than 1 billion USD. If the money Bloomberg spent on his campaign went to actual communities that need funding, actual change could have been possible. Social programs could benefit greatly from these funds, and maybe we could afford to better fund national programs such as healthcare or family leave.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "No one espouses \"trickle down\", the term was coined as a dig at Hoover's engineering degree. The joke being that he knows that water trickles down but he doesn't realize that money trickles up. The whole thing has been a dig for a century and doesn't really have theoretical defense since it is a straw man position designed and intended to be easily attacked. The big issues with taxes is that very often they do things that they aren't intended to do. Corporate taxes are a poster child for tax incidence. What is tax incidence? Well, it's who *really* ends up paying the tax. But, I hear you say, corporations pay the tax, they send in the check. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter who mails in the check it only matters who is out money. In the case of corporate taxes it is the consumer who is made to take the first bite of the shit sandwich. Companies who can get away with raising prices to account for the higher tax do so, yeah the company writes the check but it is the guy buying the stuff who is paying. If they can only raise prices so much or they are selling luxury goods and walk away if the price rises at all they turn around and make employees eat it. Sometimes it's obvious, like pay cuts or layoff, but it's usually something far more subtle like shifting to less expensive benefits or not hiring replacements when someone retires or quits. While companies usually have the power in these situations they don't have all the power, particularly when workers are highly skilled, hard to replace, or well organized. Then, and only then, do the shareholders have to eat what remains. Fifty years ago it was the Bloombergs of the world, but now an increasing proportion of that is workers again since the shift from pensions to 401(K) and other defined contribution schemes workers own ever larger proportions of publicly traded companies, which means that they're getting hosed twice. That \"getting hosed twice\" issue is why Capital Gains Taxes are a thing. Capital Gains are Income. I would like to see them taxed as Income. But, as long as Corporate taxes are a thing you have the money being taxed as profit for the company and then immediately taxed a second time as income for the shareholder. They argued that this was unfair, and set up a lower rate for capital gains. I would love to see Corporate Taxes done away with altogether and Capital Gains taxes as income. Not only would that only hit the Bloombergs (and also people with non-tax advantaged retirement savings), but corporate taxes are riddled with loopholes and accounting conventions and all sorts of ways to cheat that simply don't exist in income taxes. You'd be taxing the same money at a higher rate with fewer loopholes. I see that as an unqualified win in the way that adding entirely new taxes wouldn't necessarily be. I would love to see things streamlined. A VAT with the express purpose of raising money. VATs have a history of working well as designed and not changing behavior much. Luxury taxes or a tax intended to punish the rich for buying expensive toys or to keep people from buying things damaging to their health, never raise nearly enough money. The rich simply go and buy from overseas, which utterly destroyed the American yacht industry in the early 1990's. Ironically, it was Bush Senior who pushed for and passed it, but it is an object lesson that it would be good of us to not forget. The poor will simply turn to tax evasion to get their tax-stickerless cigarettes, which only feeds organized crime and cut into the revenue such schemes always claim but never deliver on. An additional Land Value Tax, something that taxes the land a house is built on but not the house itself, would go a long way to taxing the rich. Let's face it, rural land isn't worth much. Individual lots in suburban neighborhoods only have value if they're hooked up to municipal water and power. It's the people who have large holdings of urban land or massive estates that would end up paying most of this. That's a fair proxy for wealthy people, and would miss the poor completely. Because it's not a traditional property tax (which taxes the value of the house as well and the land) it would have a much smaller impact on farmers and retirees who own their own homes. Wealth taxes, where you just take X% of the money of rich people, would never generate long term wealth the same way as making them recognize all income as income and taxing the land they aren't using effectively. If you look at European examples of \"let's just tax rich people\" or \"let's just tax the stock market\" you see a long history of failure. Those are very poorly defined ideas that are basically impossible to implement in a functional way. If you want to improve social programs there's a simple way to do it. De-silo them. Instead of giving people tokens that can only be used on food and vouchers that can only be used on rent and a charge account that can only be used on health care, just give them straight cash. People are, generally speaking, smart. Given the information and raw cash they can more accurately allocate the aid given to them to match their needs than Congressmen who have never been poor, or are trying to give them what a hypothetical average person might need instead of what they need. You need far less fraud investigations, oversight, and bureaucracy this way. Because you don't care if this dollar is going to food or housing you don't need to arbitrarily enforce rules about what they \"should\" be spending money on. The needless pearl-clutching about how people on public assistance spend their money only bogs down everything and siphons billions of dollars already earmarked to addressing these issues into needless tail chasing. To be sure, we do need *some* enforcement and having good quality workers running a good quality infrastructure to ensure that no one is slipping through cracks or gaming the system unjustly, but we can cut the bullshit about people pouring out bottled water to convert food stamps into rent money at a rate of five cents on the dollar. Moreover, I *like* the idea that there is an alternative to the government when it comes to doing big projects. I don't like that it's a handful of rich folk who can do things or not on a whim, but I hate the idea that there would be only one possible way to address climate change or the risks posed by polio or whatever. Whenever there is only one individual or group who has complete control over something then they have outsized power. I don't like the idea of giving the government unlimited power over anything that costs more than a couple of middle class family pooling their rainy day funds could manage. Ideally we would have a bunch of nonprofits and community groups that exist for pooling large sums of wealth to do amazing thing to better reality for everyone. Rich folks are already an alternative already in place, largely by tradition and accident, so I don't want to destroy them and default to giving politicians complete and unquestioned dominion over everything yet, I want to see more pools of wealth that are more responsive to the needs and desires of people generally. It's a shame that the corporate structure has collapsed onto just the one default form. Having more employee owned (like Publix Supermarkets), customer owned (like REI), depositor owned (like credit unions), or dedicated to a purpose corporation would be wonderful. Those old-school subscription clubs where everyone would chip in a dollar to make community improvements and invest in everything from the Golden Gate Bridge to the USS Texas (a battleship) would be things that I would love to make a comeback. After all, if there were non-government solutions to problems that require a big ass pile of money then I would be much more eager to \"eat the rich\" as some others have posited.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Mike Bloomberg's campaign is proof that the ultra wealthy in the US can afford a higher tax rate with no ill effect on them Mike Bloomberg recently dropped out of the 2020 Presidential race after spending over $500 million dollars of his own money on his campaign. Even with this loss, he is still worth over $55 billion dollars. I believe that this effortless spending on Bloombergs part showcases the reality that is wealth inequality between the ultra rich and working class. While I do not believe the rich should give up their fortunes, I do believe that any arguments against taxing them more is simply propaganda from those who hold the wealth and higher power at this point. Certain media outlets claim that taxing the super wealthy is unfair and would be detrimental to those below them due to \"trickle down\" effects. There is also rhetoric that many self made billionaires worked hard for their fortunes, and that if we as Americans work hard, we might be rich ourselves one day. I believe that moving forward, we should push for much higher taxes on those earning/worth more than 1 billion USD. If the money Bloomberg spent on his campaign went to actual communities that need funding, actual change could have been possible. Social programs could benefit greatly from these funds, and maybe we could afford to better fund national programs such as healthcare or family leave.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Bloomberg has donated 8.2 billion through the Giving Pledge. So his money likely has gone to help communities, where his money can be focused for good causes. What do you think the government would do by taking more of his money? Maybe buy a few more F35's? Maybe give Ukraine a little more money? The problem isn't taxation in the US. The problem is spending.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,787 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Mike Bloomberg's campaign is proof that the ultra wealthy in the US can afford a higher tax rate with no ill effect on them Mike Bloomberg recently dropped out of the 2020 Presidential race after spending over $500 million dollars of his own money on his campaign. Even with this loss, he is still worth over $55 billion dollars. I believe that this effortless spending on Bloombergs part showcases the reality that is wealth inequality between the ultra rich and working class. While I do not believe the rich should give up their fortunes, I do believe that any arguments against taxing them more is simply propaganda from those who hold the wealth and higher power at this point. Certain media outlets claim that taxing the super wealthy is unfair and would be detrimental to those below them due to \"trickle down\" effects. There is also rhetoric that many self made billionaires worked hard for their fortunes, and that if we as Americans work hard, we might be rich ourselves one day. I believe that moving forward, we should push for much higher taxes on those earning/worth more than 1 billion USD. If the money Bloomberg spent on his campaign went to actual communities that need funding, actual change could have been possible. Social programs could benefit greatly from these funds, and maybe we could afford to better fund national programs such as healthcare or family leave.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "He's the 9th richest man on the planet. That's such an incredible outlier. He doesn't represent any particular group, very well, certainly not enough to extrapolate \"because of Bloomberg, then wealthy people could pay more in taxes\". Even those comfortably in the 1%, or even 0.01%, or even 0.00001%, could not have spent what Bloomberg spent. While I fully agree with tax reform, particularly on capital gains (I think income should be income, keep it simple), extrapolating anything from major outliers, is a large mistake. Secondarily, he was paying about 50% more to his campaign staff, and injected that $500M into the US economy. Economically, I'm always happier seeing someone spend their wealth, than funneling it through the government. Bloomberg bought exactly 0 bombs. He killed exactly 0 civilians on foreign soil. He paid well above standard wages for similar work in other campaigns, and he made it rain. Think about that for a second, if you give $1 extra to the government, some fraction of that dollar is buying the next Predator drone that will unleash a Salvo on some Yemeni farmer, and kill he and his family. No thanks.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Mike Bloomberg's campaign is proof that the ultra wealthy in the US can afford a higher tax rate with no ill effect on them Mike Bloomberg recently dropped out of the 2020 Presidential race after spending over $500 million dollars of his own money on his campaign. Even with this loss, he is still worth over $55 billion dollars. I believe that this effortless spending on Bloombergs part showcases the reality that is wealth inequality between the ultra rich and working class. While I do not believe the rich should give up their fortunes, I do believe that any arguments against taxing them more is simply propaganda from those who hold the wealth and higher power at this point. Certain media outlets claim that taxing the super wealthy is unfair and would be detrimental to those below them due to \"trickle down\" effects. There is also rhetoric that many self made billionaires worked hard for their fortunes, and that if we as Americans work hard, we might be rich ourselves one day. I believe that moving forward, we should push for much higher taxes on those earning/worth more than 1 billion USD. If the money Bloomberg spent on his campaign went to actual communities that need funding, actual change could have been possible. Social programs could benefit greatly from these funds, and maybe we could afford to better fund national programs such as healthcare or family leave.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Bloomberg has donated 8.2 billion through the Giving Pledge. So his money likely has gone to help communities, where his money can be focused for good causes. What do you think the government would do by taking more of his money? Maybe buy a few more F35's? Maybe give Ukraine a little more money? The problem isn't taxation in the US. The problem is spending.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,788 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Mike Bloomberg's campaign is proof that the ultra wealthy in the US can afford a higher tax rate with no ill effect on them Mike Bloomberg recently dropped out of the 2020 Presidential race after spending over $500 million dollars of his own money on his campaign. Even with this loss, he is still worth over $55 billion dollars. I believe that this effortless spending on Bloombergs part showcases the reality that is wealth inequality between the ultra rich and working class. While I do not believe the rich should give up their fortunes, I do believe that any arguments against taxing them more is simply propaganda from those who hold the wealth and higher power at this point. Certain media outlets claim that taxing the super wealthy is unfair and would be detrimental to those below them due to \"trickle down\" effects. There is also rhetoric that many self made billionaires worked hard for their fortunes, and that if we as Americans work hard, we might be rich ourselves one day. I believe that moving forward, we should push for much higher taxes on those earning/worth more than 1 billion USD. If the money Bloomberg spent on his campaign went to actual communities that need funding, actual change could have been possible. Social programs could benefit greatly from these funds, and maybe we could afford to better fund national programs such as healthcare or family leave.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Mike Bloomberg is exceptional even among billionaires. He is the 9th richest person in the world, and the 6th richest in the United States. The 18th-richest American has less than half of his wealth, the 37th-richest American has about 1/5th of his wealth, and almost everyone below that is a single-digit billionaire. Your argument that Bloomberg's \"effortless spending\" on the campaign means that all billionaires should have much higher taxes is suspect, because the vast, vast majority of the 607 U.S. billionaires have nowhere near his level of wealth. I don't mean to use these numbers to argue that taxation of the ultra-wealthy is unfair or bad policy, but rather to show that arguments for higher taxes on high-net-worth individuals should not be based on the behavior of Mike Bloomberg or any other ultra-ultra-wealthy person. All data comes from Forbes's Billionaires 2020 list (which is either super interesting or super depressing, depending on your perspective).",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Mike Bloomberg's campaign is proof that the ultra wealthy in the US can afford a higher tax rate with no ill effect on them Mike Bloomberg recently dropped out of the 2020 Presidential race after spending over $500 million dollars of his own money on his campaign. Even with this loss, he is still worth over $55 billion dollars. I believe that this effortless spending on Bloombergs part showcases the reality that is wealth inequality between the ultra rich and working class. While I do not believe the rich should give up their fortunes, I do believe that any arguments against taxing them more is simply propaganda from those who hold the wealth and higher power at this point. Certain media outlets claim that taxing the super wealthy is unfair and would be detrimental to those below them due to \"trickle down\" effects. There is also rhetoric that many self made billionaires worked hard for their fortunes, and that if we as Americans work hard, we might be rich ourselves one day. I believe that moving forward, we should push for much higher taxes on those earning/worth more than 1 billion USD. If the money Bloomberg spent on his campaign went to actual communities that need funding, actual change could have been possible. Social programs could benefit greatly from these funds, and maybe we could afford to better fund national programs such as healthcare or family leave.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Bloomberg has donated 8.2 billion through the Giving Pledge. So his money likely has gone to help communities, where his money can be focused for good causes. What do you think the government would do by taking more of his money? Maybe buy a few more F35's? Maybe give Ukraine a little more money? The problem isn't taxation in the US. The problem is spending.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,789 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Mike Bloomberg's campaign is proof that the ultra wealthy in the US can afford a higher tax rate with no ill effect on them Mike Bloomberg recently dropped out of the 2020 Presidential race after spending over $500 million dollars of his own money on his campaign. Even with this loss, he is still worth over $55 billion dollars. I believe that this effortless spending on Bloombergs part showcases the reality that is wealth inequality between the ultra rich and working class. While I do not believe the rich should give up their fortunes, I do believe that any arguments against taxing them more is simply propaganda from those who hold the wealth and higher power at this point. Certain media outlets claim that taxing the super wealthy is unfair and would be detrimental to those below them due to \"trickle down\" effects. There is also rhetoric that many self made billionaires worked hard for their fortunes, and that if we as Americans work hard, we might be rich ourselves one day. I believe that moving forward, we should push for much higher taxes on those earning/worth more than 1 billion USD. If the money Bloomberg spent on his campaign went to actual communities that need funding, actual change could have been possible. Social programs could benefit greatly from these funds, and maybe we could afford to better fund national programs such as healthcare or family leave.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The Laffer Curve is a loose economic theory that describes the relationship between tax rates and tax revenue. In short, both 0% and 100% tax rates would theoretically result in no tax revenue. At 0% you collect nothing, and at 100% there’d be nothing to collect since people would have no incentive to generate income if they can keep none of it. While this curve isn’t really something you can measure or predict, it does tell us two things: 1. Changing tax rates will affect the amount of taxable income. 2. At some point increasing the tax rate will actually cause a decrease in tax revenue. Mike Bloomberg decided to dump $500 million into the American economy to fund a short-lived presidential campaign. That decision led to an increase in tax revenue as most of that $500 million ended up paying the bills for the employees at any of the likely hundreds of marketing agencies, production companies, promotional material manufacturers, and Bloomberg campaign offices. People should be praising this type of spending. If it was the norm trickle-down economics might actually hold water. Now Mike Bloomberg could have also decided to say fuck it and move to Japan, taking all his wealth, spending power, and taxable assets with him. Anything could have prompted such a decision, like say an egregious tax hike on the fortune he earned for himself. In that case, an increase in tax rate would lead to an increase in tax revenue... for Japan! If you are going to tax the rich—*especially* if you are going to tax wealth—you better make sure the additional tax revenue you gain from the people who choose to keep their wealth in the country offsets the tax revenue you lose from the people who pull out. There’s a lot at stake when you’re talking about individuals who are paying hundreds of millions in taxes already. This is not to say that the tax rates should drop or even remain the same and no, the ultra wealthy would not experience truly ill effects from a tax increase. However, you can’t just say tax the ultra wealthy out of existence, because if you’re too aggressive the ultra wealthy would disappear before you could tax them, leading to *extremely* significant ill effects for the rest of us. Edit: for all of you calling me retard and bootlicker, let me be clear... Just because the Laffer curve is often erroneously used to argue for lower marginal tax rates does not mean we cannot learn something from it, and **we should raise marginal tax rates for higher income earners** because we are almost certainly tens of percentage points away from the “peak”. My point is that we can’t just blindly tax away in some quest to eliminate billionaires as quickly as possible. And for those who struggle with nuance I sincerely apologize.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Mike Bloomberg's campaign is proof that the ultra wealthy in the US can afford a higher tax rate with no ill effect on them Mike Bloomberg recently dropped out of the 2020 Presidential race after spending over $500 million dollars of his own money on his campaign. Even with this loss, he is still worth over $55 billion dollars. I believe that this effortless spending on Bloombergs part showcases the reality that is wealth inequality between the ultra rich and working class. While I do not believe the rich should give up their fortunes, I do believe that any arguments against taxing them more is simply propaganda from those who hold the wealth and higher power at this point. Certain media outlets claim that taxing the super wealthy is unfair and would be detrimental to those below them due to \"trickle down\" effects. There is also rhetoric that many self made billionaires worked hard for their fortunes, and that if we as Americans work hard, we might be rich ourselves one day. I believe that moving forward, we should push for much higher taxes on those earning/worth more than 1 billion USD. If the money Bloomberg spent on his campaign went to actual communities that need funding, actual change could have been possible. Social programs could benefit greatly from these funds, and maybe we could afford to better fund national programs such as healthcare or family leave.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Bloomberg has donated 8.2 billion through the Giving Pledge. So his money likely has gone to help communities, where his money can be focused for good causes. What do you think the government would do by taking more of his money? Maybe buy a few more F35's? Maybe give Ukraine a little more money? The problem isn't taxation in the US. The problem is spending.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,790 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Some politicians receive support from hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of individuals and organizations. Even if it's limited to major sponsors, there will still be thousands of them. There's just not enough room on the jumpsuit.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "From what I understand, the issue with FDOTUS is the Hatch Act. To prevent federal officials (not just politicians) from endorsing one product over another in their official capacity. That’s a big problem when you think about all of the federal officials you don’t see. These jumpsuits wouldn’t have any impact then. Imagine IRS agents endorsing a tax service over another. Or DoJ officials who endorse one defense attorney law firm over another. Or DMV agents endorsing a car manufacturer. The solution is not to make it transparent, but to make it illegal. We don’t want government officials to pick winners and losers based on bias.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,791 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The issue here being the false assumption that they are taking the money to influence their actions in office. Sure, there's some individual cases of corruption, but for the overwhelming majority of campaign finance, the donations given are because a candidate already supports the position which a donor wants to financially back. Put another way, donors don't go \"candidate shopping\" based off which ones they can pay the most money to change their mind, that happens to be difficult and expensive. Much easier and cheaper to support someone *that already thinks the same way and has the same ideas as you do.*",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "This problem has been solved elsewhere. It's currently an American problem, reduce the amount you can spend on a campaign to a small amount. Put in requirements to account for every penny, cannot take donations over 1000 dollars from anyone or any company etc. All sponsors are available on line. If you win, or get a high percentage of the vote you get back a bunch of the money you put in. Worls well everywhere else.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,792 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The issue here being the false assumption that they are taking the money to influence their actions in office. Sure, there's some individual cases of corruption, but for the overwhelming majority of campaign finance, the donations given are because a candidate already supports the position which a donor wants to financially back. Put another way, donors don't go \"candidate shopping\" based off which ones they can pay the most money to change their mind, that happens to be difficult and expensive. Much easier and cheaper to support someone *that already thinks the same way and has the same ideas as you do.*",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "/u/laborfriendly (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/hsb854/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_politicians_should_be/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,793 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The issue here being the false assumption that they are taking the money to influence their actions in office. Sure, there's some individual cases of corruption, but for the overwhelming majority of campaign finance, the donations given are because a candidate already supports the position which a donor wants to financially back. Put another way, donors don't go \"candidate shopping\" based off which ones they can pay the most money to change their mind, that happens to be difficult and expensive. Much easier and cheaper to support someone *that already thinks the same way and has the same ideas as you do.*",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Okay first off: this is fucking hilarious. BUT: allegiances and having business with someone doesn't mean you support everything they do. Companies which donate to a political candidate may align with the candidate's views, but the opposite might not be true. I will use the show The good place to illustrate my point: in it, people get afterlife points depending on every single action during their time on Earth. However, it gets to a point where it is impossible for anyone to gain positive points because every action has ramifications that extend far beyond a person's ability to analyze it. Maybe you are buying a tomato, from a locally sourced vegetable shop, and then this seller turns out to be using some pesticide that has a ties with a human trafficking ring or something. It's a weird example, but I'm trying to explain that it's impossible for anyone to control the complete impact of every action, much less at the level of politician's campaigns, and any tie with anything shady, however loose, would be used to diminish them.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,794 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The issue here being the false assumption that they are taking the money to influence their actions in office. Sure, there's some individual cases of corruption, but for the overwhelming majority of campaign finance, the donations given are because a candidate already supports the position which a donor wants to financially back. Put another way, donors don't go \"candidate shopping\" based off which ones they can pay the most money to change their mind, that happens to be difficult and expensive. Much easier and cheaper to support someone *that already thinks the same way and has the same ideas as you do.*",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Individual contributions have a limit to donate to the politicians, that sweet SuperPAC money on the other hand is wide open. I support your idea, but the politician has to disclose their major donors from their PAC’s as well. Currently they don’t have to.... and that’s a bunch of BS. No point in pretending your funded “by the people” with small size font printed all over your suit, when you took millions from special interest and you don’t have to add that.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,795 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The issue here being the false assumption that they are taking the money to influence their actions in office. Sure, there's some individual cases of corruption, but for the overwhelming majority of campaign finance, the donations given are because a candidate already supports the position which a donor wants to financially back. Put another way, donors don't go \"candidate shopping\" based off which ones they can pay the most money to change their mind, that happens to be difficult and expensive. Much easier and cheaper to support someone *that already thinks the same way and has the same ideas as you do.*",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "so that the mods don't delete my, \"written up vote\", here is a perfunctory argument to change your view, not that i disagree, but that you haven't gone far enough w/ this brilliance. the jumpsuits should not stop at nascar style, they should add the full glitz of the vegas strip. each speech should be interrupted by youtube style ads from their sponsors. the \"white house\" should be auctioned off for naming rights. etc. etc. etc.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,796 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The issue here being the false assumption that they are taking the money to influence their actions in office. Sure, there's some individual cases of corruption, but for the overwhelming majority of campaign finance, the donations given are because a candidate already supports the position which a donor wants to financially back. Put another way, donors don't go \"candidate shopping\" based off which ones they can pay the most money to change their mind, that happens to be difficult and expensive. Much easier and cheaper to support someone *that already thinks the same way and has the same ideas as you do.*",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Politicians shouldn't be sponsored at all. They are representatives of the voters, not companies. Lobbying is anti-democratic, since not everyone is equal; those with more money have more power. While it doesn't stop backhand deals and preferential treatment, banning lobbying aligns the motives of politicians closer to their voters, and limits the overt corruption, which is an overwhelming net benefit. Corporate sponsorship of politicians is at its core, corruption. It is using money to influence policy, rather than grassroots support.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,797 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "This problem has been solved elsewhere. It's currently an American problem, reduce the amount you can spend on a campaign to a small amount. Put in requirements to account for every penny, cannot take donations over 1000 dollars from anyone or any company etc. All sponsors are available on line. If you win, or get a high percentage of the vote you get back a bunch of the money you put in. Worls well everywhere else.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Okay first off: this is fucking hilarious. BUT: allegiances and having business with someone doesn't mean you support everything they do. Companies which donate to a political candidate may align with the candidate's views, but the opposite might not be true. I will use the show The good place to illustrate my point: in it, people get afterlife points depending on every single action during their time on Earth. However, it gets to a point where it is impossible for anyone to gain positive points because every action has ramifications that extend far beyond a person's ability to analyze it. Maybe you are buying a tomato, from a locally sourced vegetable shop, and then this seller turns out to be using some pesticide that has a ties with a human trafficking ring or something. It's a weird example, but I'm trying to explain that it's impossible for anyone to control the complete impact of every action, much less at the level of politician's campaigns, and any tie with anything shady, however loose, would be used to diminish them.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,798 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "/u/laborfriendly (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/hsb854/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_politicians_should_be/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Okay first off: this is fucking hilarious. BUT: allegiances and having business with someone doesn't mean you support everything they do. Companies which donate to a political candidate may align with the candidate's views, but the opposite might not be true. I will use the show The good place to illustrate my point: in it, people get afterlife points depending on every single action during their time on Earth. However, it gets to a point where it is impossible for anyone to gain positive points because every action has ramifications that extend far beyond a person's ability to analyze it. Maybe you are buying a tomato, from a locally sourced vegetable shop, and then this seller turns out to be using some pesticide that has a ties with a human trafficking ring or something. It's a weird example, but I'm trying to explain that it's impossible for anyone to control the complete impact of every action, much less at the level of politician's campaigns, and any tie with anything shady, however loose, would be used to diminish them.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,799 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "/u/laborfriendly (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/hsb854/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_politicians_should_be/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Individual contributions have a limit to donate to the politicians, that sweet SuperPAC money on the other hand is wide open. I support your idea, but the politician has to disclose their major donors from their PAC’s as well. Currently they don’t have to.... and that’s a bunch of BS. No point in pretending your funded “by the people” with small size font printed all over your suit, when you took millions from special interest and you don’t have to add that.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,800 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "/u/laborfriendly (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/hsb854/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_politicians_should_be/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "so that the mods don't delete my, \"written up vote\", here is a perfunctory argument to change your view, not that i disagree, but that you haven't gone far enough w/ this brilliance. the jumpsuits should not stop at nascar style, they should add the full glitz of the vegas strip. each speech should be interrupted by youtube style ads from their sponsors. the \"white house\" should be auctioned off for naming rights. etc. etc. etc.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,801 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "/u/laborfriendly (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/hsb854/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_politicians_should_be/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Politicians shouldn't be sponsored at all. They are representatives of the voters, not companies. Lobbying is anti-democratic, since not everyone is equal; those with more money have more power. While it doesn't stop backhand deals and preferential treatment, banning lobbying aligns the motives of politicians closer to their voters, and limits the overt corruption, which is an overwhelming net benefit. Corporate sponsorship of politicians is at its core, corruption. It is using money to influence policy, rather than grassroots support.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,802 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "At least give some credit to Robin Williams for coming up with this joke. Its the least you can do.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Individual contributions have a limit to donate to the politicians, that sweet SuperPAC money on the other hand is wide open. I support your idea, but the politician has to disclose their major donors from their PAC’s as well. Currently they don’t have to.... and that’s a bunch of BS. No point in pretending your funded “by the people” with small size font printed all over your suit, when you took millions from special interest and you don’t have to add that.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,803 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "At least give some credit to Robin Williams for coming up with this joke. Its the least you can do.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The logistics are impractical. Ok, make them wear those suits. * When? 24 hours a day, or just while they're working? Or just while they're campaigning? * Who? Do candidates need to wear this before they actually get elected in? When a local college professor runs for public office for the first time, does he need to wear the jumpsuit to class while he works his day job? * Whose names? What kinds of donations count? Formal campaign donations? What about volunteers? Favorable media reporting from journalists? Good PR from pre-political careers (e.g., an athlete or actor who runs for office)? Air time or newspaper column inches for your surrogates writing op eds? Do self funded candidates need to plaster their own name on things? * Whose names? What about when a candidate gets a favorable ad run by a group like Planned Parenthood or the NRA? Do we get to see the underlying donors, or do we stick with just the last step in the chain? Because the vast majority of political organizations have very non-descriptive names like \"Americans for Prosperity\" or \"Priorities USA\" or \"The Rent is Too Damn High Party\" or \"Emily's List.\" * What threshold? Do donors have to be disclosed for small donations? * What about multiple candidate organizations, like the DCCC or Texas GOP? Do the donors to each of those organizations have to get listed on all the candidates that organization supports? * How long? If I donate to a state representative in 2020, do they still keep my name on when they run for state Senate in 2024, for governor in 2030, for president in 2040? The current rules already require disclosure on lists, for people to do what they'd like with the data. Forcing them to display that data in a non-interactive format in meatspace is probably counterproductive compared to letting people generate interesting data visualizations online.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,804 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "At least give some credit to Robin Williams for coming up with this joke. Its the least you can do.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "so that the mods don't delete my, \"written up vote\", here is a perfunctory argument to change your view, not that i disagree, but that you haven't gone far enough w/ this brilliance. the jumpsuits should not stop at nascar style, they should add the full glitz of the vegas strip. each speech should be interrupted by youtube style ads from their sponsors. the \"white house\" should be auctioned off for naming rights. etc. etc. etc.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,805 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "At least give some credit to Robin Williams for coming up with this joke. Its the least you can do.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: politicians should be required to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits showing all their major sponsors. In recent days some have decried the POTUS and FDOTUS brazenly ignoring federal ethics laws by posing with a certain company's bean products. But I welcome it. The ethics rules really just obscure behind a thin veneer the truth of American politics: namely, many politicians are just in it for their friends and donors. We shouldn't hide it anymore. Make these allegiances visible, front-and-center. We should make it mandatory for politicians appearing in public to wear NASCAR-style jumpsuits with their major sponsors emblazoned across their bodies. Then we'll more readily know who they're beholden to and which companies we may want to boycott or patronize. Change my view.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Politicians shouldn't be sponsored at all. They are representatives of the voters, not companies. Lobbying is anti-democratic, since not everyone is equal; those with more money have more power. While it doesn't stop backhand deals and preferential treatment, banning lobbying aligns the motives of politicians closer to their voters, and limits the overt corruption, which is an overwhelming net benefit. Corporate sponsorship of politicians is at its core, corruption. It is using money to influence policy, rather than grassroots support.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,806 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Gonna go from a different angle since I agree that \"left wing\" media is more controlled and \"truthful\" but it's obvious all MSM has a serious problem, and that problem is profit. It's not just why 5 people died last week, it's also why Princess Diana died and why people think Spiderman is a bad guy. Media has taken the phrase \"studies show\" to meme status and present it as fact for example. They want headlines because headlines = $$$$$. And what produces the most $$$ per day? Running 24 hours with only 4 hours devoted to news and 20 hours devoted to opinions which may or may not be based in fact or even probability. We're all at fault. I don't care how many puppies got adopted last year. Don't lie, neither do you. I do care about a horrible trainwreck and what exactly happened between Aniston, Pitt, and Jolie. They sell what people are buying. And people have increasingly been buying partisan politics. The reason Fox News does so well is they filled a market void. They did the same thing with network television. Fox is the most liberal channel in television history behind Comedy Central. The Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad, King of the Hill, The X Files, In Living Color, and especially Married with Children. It's how they broke into the market - edgy, often liberal humor at a time when the other 5 channels on television were very conservative. There is no easy answer. So far we've been getting by on the fact that the almighty $$$$ often outweighs any personal liberties they want to take with the truth. Fox News would show footage of Mitch McConnell slipping on a banana peel because they value $$$$ more than any perceived bias. They are also having to increasingly compete with the internet. Best thing I can think of off the top of my head is an academic focused journalism institute with clear, peer reviewed public funding and stipends to journalists.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Are there any media sources/outlets that both sides currently agree on?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,807 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Gonna go from a different angle since I agree that \"left wing\" media is more controlled and \"truthful\" but it's obvious all MSM has a serious problem, and that problem is profit. It's not just why 5 people died last week, it's also why Princess Diana died and why people think Spiderman is a bad guy. Media has taken the phrase \"studies show\" to meme status and present it as fact for example. They want headlines because headlines = $$$$$. And what produces the most $$$ per day? Running 24 hours with only 4 hours devoted to news and 20 hours devoted to opinions which may or may not be based in fact or even probability. We're all at fault. I don't care how many puppies got adopted last year. Don't lie, neither do you. I do care about a horrible trainwreck and what exactly happened between Aniston, Pitt, and Jolie. They sell what people are buying. And people have increasingly been buying partisan politics. The reason Fox News does so well is they filled a market void. They did the same thing with network television. Fox is the most liberal channel in television history behind Comedy Central. The Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad, King of the Hill, The X Files, In Living Color, and especially Married with Children. It's how they broke into the market - edgy, often liberal humor at a time when the other 5 channels on television were very conservative. There is no easy answer. So far we've been getting by on the fact that the almighty $$$$ often outweighs any personal liberties they want to take with the truth. Fox News would show footage of Mitch McConnell slipping on a banana peel because they value $$$$ more than any perceived bias. They are also having to increasingly compete with the internet. Best thing I can think of off the top of my head is an academic focused journalism institute with clear, peer reviewed public funding and stipends to journalists.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Liberal media was just as sensationalist as conservative media. They repeated lies from people like Adam schiff. Rachel Maddow was banging the russia collusion drum forever and she was dead wrong. The left wing media will lie and lie and lie and liberals eat it up. The whole “fine people on both sides” being used as an excuse to say trump called nazis fine people was a left wing lie that was easily debunked and liberals *still* use that line. I did not see this type of rabid hate when Obama was president. I did not see anyone on Fox News say black men are the biggest threat to our safety (don lemon called white men that). These realities are created by media and yes, both sides are just as guilty of creating them. You see these downvotes and replies that are incorrect? This just proves my point.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,808 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Gonna go from a different angle since I agree that \"left wing\" media is more controlled and \"truthful\" but it's obvious all MSM has a serious problem, and that problem is profit. It's not just why 5 people died last week, it's also why Princess Diana died and why people think Spiderman is a bad guy. Media has taken the phrase \"studies show\" to meme status and present it as fact for example. They want headlines because headlines = $$$$$. And what produces the most $$$ per day? Running 24 hours with only 4 hours devoted to news and 20 hours devoted to opinions which may or may not be based in fact or even probability. We're all at fault. I don't care how many puppies got adopted last year. Don't lie, neither do you. I do care about a horrible trainwreck and what exactly happened between Aniston, Pitt, and Jolie. They sell what people are buying. And people have increasingly been buying partisan politics. The reason Fox News does so well is they filled a market void. They did the same thing with network television. Fox is the most liberal channel in television history behind Comedy Central. The Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad, King of the Hill, The X Files, In Living Color, and especially Married with Children. It's how they broke into the market - edgy, often liberal humor at a time when the other 5 channels on television were very conservative. There is no easy answer. So far we've been getting by on the fact that the almighty $$$$ often outweighs any personal liberties they want to take with the truth. Fox News would show footage of Mitch McConnell slipping on a banana peel because they value $$$$ more than any perceived bias. They are also having to increasingly compete with the internet. Best thing I can think of off the top of my head is an academic focused journalism institute with clear, peer reviewed public funding and stipends to journalists.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "So to summarize your post \"We need to end the division, and conservatives bad! no left wing outlet radicalizes people!\"",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,809 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Gonna go from a different angle since I agree that \"left wing\" media is more controlled and \"truthful\" but it's obvious all MSM has a serious problem, and that problem is profit. It's not just why 5 people died last week, it's also why Princess Diana died and why people think Spiderman is a bad guy. Media has taken the phrase \"studies show\" to meme status and present it as fact for example. They want headlines because headlines = $$$$$. And what produces the most $$$ per day? Running 24 hours with only 4 hours devoted to news and 20 hours devoted to opinions which may or may not be based in fact or even probability. We're all at fault. I don't care how many puppies got adopted last year. Don't lie, neither do you. I do care about a horrible trainwreck and what exactly happened between Aniston, Pitt, and Jolie. They sell what people are buying. And people have increasingly been buying partisan politics. The reason Fox News does so well is they filled a market void. They did the same thing with network television. Fox is the most liberal channel in television history behind Comedy Central. The Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad, King of the Hill, The X Files, In Living Color, and especially Married with Children. It's how they broke into the market - edgy, often liberal humor at a time when the other 5 channels on television were very conservative. There is no easy answer. So far we've been getting by on the fact that the almighty $$$$ often outweighs any personal liberties they want to take with the truth. Fox News would show footage of Mitch McConnell slipping on a banana peel because they value $$$$ more than any perceived bias. They are also having to increasingly compete with the internet. Best thing I can think of off the top of my head is an academic focused journalism institute with clear, peer reviewed public funding and stipends to journalists.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "While I agree with most of what you said, I do want to address one point. You say that \"most Americans want \\[...\\] some agreement and compromise\". As somebody on the left of the political spectrum, I have mixed feelings on the question. Every time we get into power, everybody calls for agreement, compromise and bipartisanship. Whenever Republicans are in power, it's all about ramming through whatever they can do. If Republicans are willing to play fair for a change, I'm happy to have them along for the ride. I don't think that we should change our policies to suit them, though, when they flatly refuse to extend us the same courtesy. This opinion is shared by the vast majority of my friends on the left of the aisle that I know.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,810 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I would argue that, while news sources do help add to the divide, the bigger factor here is actually that Democrats and Republicans actually physically live in different realities. Living in a city today compared to living in a rural or suburban area has never seemed more different. And the way people vote reflects this. If you think about some of the biggest wedge issues - healthcare, education, policing, etc. these issues impact people very differently in cities compares to more rural areas. It’s much easier to be self-reliant in a rural area, whereas in a bit city, you more heavily rely on publicly funded services and SEE people that rely on these services every day. This influences how you consume news - you are drawn to things that you can relate to. When right wing media goes on about small government and how the government is incompetent and shouldn’t have a big role in our lives, that really speaks to a rural area person who can very easily understand that concept and it doesn’t impact their day to day much. The idea of less government to someone who lives in a city is probably scary, because it’s evident how important a role the local governments are to the functionality of the city. So, when you hear things like increasing education and healthcare and public transportation funding via taxes, you can easily see how those things will improve your day to day and the day to day of the people you see in the city. This is how we end up with a 2020 Election Result with such a massive divide along urban/rural lines.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "This isn't really a CMV, but I feel like it's important to say anyhow. Your title says that democrats and Republicans are living in different realities. However, your post said that democrats are sane and Republicans are not. If the post is what you meant, change your title. If the title is what you meant, change your post",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,811 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I would argue that, while news sources do help add to the divide, the bigger factor here is actually that Democrats and Republicans actually physically live in different realities. Living in a city today compared to living in a rural or suburban area has never seemed more different. And the way people vote reflects this. If you think about some of the biggest wedge issues - healthcare, education, policing, etc. these issues impact people very differently in cities compares to more rural areas. It’s much easier to be self-reliant in a rural area, whereas in a bit city, you more heavily rely on publicly funded services and SEE people that rely on these services every day. This influences how you consume news - you are drawn to things that you can relate to. When right wing media goes on about small government and how the government is incompetent and shouldn’t have a big role in our lives, that really speaks to a rural area person who can very easily understand that concept and it doesn’t impact their day to day much. The idea of less government to someone who lives in a city is probably scary, because it’s evident how important a role the local governments are to the functionality of the city. So, when you hear things like increasing education and healthcare and public transportation funding via taxes, you can easily see how those things will improve your day to day and the day to day of the people you see in the city. This is how we end up with a 2020 Election Result with such a massive divide along urban/rural lines.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Are there any media sources/outlets that both sides currently agree on?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,812 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I would argue that, while news sources do help add to the divide, the bigger factor here is actually that Democrats and Republicans actually physically live in different realities. Living in a city today compared to living in a rural or suburban area has never seemed more different. And the way people vote reflects this. If you think about some of the biggest wedge issues - healthcare, education, policing, etc. these issues impact people very differently in cities compares to more rural areas. It’s much easier to be self-reliant in a rural area, whereas in a bit city, you more heavily rely on publicly funded services and SEE people that rely on these services every day. This influences how you consume news - you are drawn to things that you can relate to. When right wing media goes on about small government and how the government is incompetent and shouldn’t have a big role in our lives, that really speaks to a rural area person who can very easily understand that concept and it doesn’t impact their day to day much. The idea of less government to someone who lives in a city is probably scary, because it’s evident how important a role the local governments are to the functionality of the city. So, when you hear things like increasing education and healthcare and public transportation funding via taxes, you can easily see how those things will improve your day to day and the day to day of the people you see in the city. This is how we end up with a 2020 Election Result with such a massive divide along urban/rural lines.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Liberal media was just as sensationalist as conservative media. They repeated lies from people like Adam schiff. Rachel Maddow was banging the russia collusion drum forever and she was dead wrong. The left wing media will lie and lie and lie and liberals eat it up. The whole “fine people on both sides” being used as an excuse to say trump called nazis fine people was a left wing lie that was easily debunked and liberals *still* use that line. I did not see this type of rabid hate when Obama was president. I did not see anyone on Fox News say black men are the biggest threat to our safety (don lemon called white men that). These realities are created by media and yes, both sides are just as guilty of creating them. You see these downvotes and replies that are incorrect? This just proves my point.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,813 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I would argue that, while news sources do help add to the divide, the bigger factor here is actually that Democrats and Republicans actually physically live in different realities. Living in a city today compared to living in a rural or suburban area has never seemed more different. And the way people vote reflects this. If you think about some of the biggest wedge issues - healthcare, education, policing, etc. these issues impact people very differently in cities compares to more rural areas. It’s much easier to be self-reliant in a rural area, whereas in a bit city, you more heavily rely on publicly funded services and SEE people that rely on these services every day. This influences how you consume news - you are drawn to things that you can relate to. When right wing media goes on about small government and how the government is incompetent and shouldn’t have a big role in our lives, that really speaks to a rural area person who can very easily understand that concept and it doesn’t impact their day to day much. The idea of less government to someone who lives in a city is probably scary, because it’s evident how important a role the local governments are to the functionality of the city. So, when you hear things like increasing education and healthcare and public transportation funding via taxes, you can easily see how those things will improve your day to day and the day to day of the people you see in the city. This is how we end up with a 2020 Election Result with such a massive divide along urban/rural lines.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "So to summarize your post \"We need to end the division, and conservatives bad! no left wing outlet radicalizes people!\"",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,814 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I would argue that, while news sources do help add to the divide, the bigger factor here is actually that Democrats and Republicans actually physically live in different realities. Living in a city today compared to living in a rural or suburban area has never seemed more different. And the way people vote reflects this. If you think about some of the biggest wedge issues - healthcare, education, policing, etc. these issues impact people very differently in cities compares to more rural areas. It’s much easier to be self-reliant in a rural area, whereas in a bit city, you more heavily rely on publicly funded services and SEE people that rely on these services every day. This influences how you consume news - you are drawn to things that you can relate to. When right wing media goes on about small government and how the government is incompetent and shouldn’t have a big role in our lives, that really speaks to a rural area person who can very easily understand that concept and it doesn’t impact their day to day much. The idea of less government to someone who lives in a city is probably scary, because it’s evident how important a role the local governments are to the functionality of the city. So, when you hear things like increasing education and healthcare and public transportation funding via taxes, you can easily see how those things will improve your day to day and the day to day of the people you see in the city. This is how we end up with a 2020 Election Result with such a massive divide along urban/rural lines.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I used to be a hardcore democrat. Mainly because I am an atheist. I was under the impression that Republicans want borderline theocratic rule which goes completely against my belief system. When the BLM riots started this year I felt something was off. It didn't make sense to me. Why are black people so upset because some drug addict who lived a life of crime died. Meanwhile tons of completely innocent black people are victimized by people like George Floyd. If you're going to riot, shouldn't you be rioting to protect them first? I lived in Gainesville Florida my whole life. I have very close friends who are black. Regardless the whole BLM thing just felt completely off to me. So I started watching conservative media. For the first time in my life. Up to that point it was just \"those guys are full of shit no point in even hearing them out\". But because for the first time in my life I was actually agreeing with them I started listening. I think it's because of the cognitive dissonance I felt towards the BLM movement. So let's talk about facts and liberal media. According to you the level of liary (word I made up) is not comparable. Right media lies far more frequently. Breonna Taylor case. What was the initial report. A) She was sleeping in her home. B) Cops had the wrong house. C) Cops had a no knock warrant and barged in. D) Cops shot her dead in her bed. How much of that is true? Basically none of it. A & C & D) She wasn't sleeping because the cops knocked loudly which woke her up. She died in her hallway. She was shot after her boyfriend shot at the cops. If anything them knocking is partially why she died. They should have just busted in. B) The cops were at the exact house that the warrant was written for. Even her name was on the warrant. There may be disagreement on whether the cops should have gone after the warrant. Whether they fucked up the raid. etc etc. But there is absolutely no truth to statements A B C D. It's understandable that some facts about the case may be misrepresented when the story initially breaks. That's normal, that's ok. But the liberal media is pushing the ABCD shit to this day. TO THIS DAY. Months after all of this has come out to be false. Being honest and telling the truth just doesn't seem to matter. You just pick a sound byte and keep repeating it. And that's just one example. There are many like it. The media as a whole both Right and Left are more interested in views and ad revenue. Actually informing the public has taken a backseat. It's basically no longer their role. They are just there to entertain. This is where the division comes from.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,815 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I would argue that, while news sources do help add to the divide, the bigger factor here is actually that Democrats and Republicans actually physically live in different realities. Living in a city today compared to living in a rural or suburban area has never seemed more different. And the way people vote reflects this. If you think about some of the biggest wedge issues - healthcare, education, policing, etc. these issues impact people very differently in cities compares to more rural areas. It’s much easier to be self-reliant in a rural area, whereas in a bit city, you more heavily rely on publicly funded services and SEE people that rely on these services every day. This influences how you consume news - you are drawn to things that you can relate to. When right wing media goes on about small government and how the government is incompetent and shouldn’t have a big role in our lives, that really speaks to a rural area person who can very easily understand that concept and it doesn’t impact their day to day much. The idea of less government to someone who lives in a city is probably scary, because it’s evident how important a role the local governments are to the functionality of the city. So, when you hear things like increasing education and healthcare and public transportation funding via taxes, you can easily see how those things will improve your day to day and the day to day of the people you see in the city. This is how we end up with a 2020 Election Result with such a massive divide along urban/rural lines.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "While I agree with most of what you said, I do want to address one point. You say that \"most Americans want \\[...\\] some agreement and compromise\". As somebody on the left of the political spectrum, I have mixed feelings on the question. Every time we get into power, everybody calls for agreement, compromise and bipartisanship. Whenever Republicans are in power, it's all about ramming through whatever they can do. If Republicans are willing to play fair for a change, I'm happy to have them along for the ride. I don't think that we should change our policies to suit them, though, when they flatly refuse to extend us the same courtesy. This opinion is shared by the vast majority of my friends on the left of the aisle that I know.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,816 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "This isn't really a CMV, but I feel like it's important to say anyhow. Your title says that democrats and Republicans are living in different realities. However, your post said that democrats are sane and Republicans are not. If the post is what you meant, change your title. If the title is what you meant, change your post",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Are there any media sources/outlets that both sides currently agree on?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,817 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "This isn't really a CMV, but I feel like it's important to say anyhow. Your title says that democrats and Republicans are living in different realities. However, your post said that democrats are sane and Republicans are not. If the post is what you meant, change your title. If the title is what you meant, change your post",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Liberal media was just as sensationalist as conservative media. They repeated lies from people like Adam schiff. Rachel Maddow was banging the russia collusion drum forever and she was dead wrong. The left wing media will lie and lie and lie and liberals eat it up. The whole “fine people on both sides” being used as an excuse to say trump called nazis fine people was a left wing lie that was easily debunked and liberals *still* use that line. I did not see this type of rabid hate when Obama was president. I did not see anyone on Fox News say black men are the biggest threat to our safety (don lemon called white men that). These realities are created by media and yes, both sides are just as guilty of creating them. You see these downvotes and replies that are incorrect? This just proves my point.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,818 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "This isn't really a CMV, but I feel like it's important to say anyhow. Your title says that democrats and Republicans are living in different realities. However, your post said that democrats are sane and Republicans are not. If the post is what you meant, change your title. If the title is what you meant, change your post",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "So to summarize your post \"We need to end the division, and conservatives bad! no left wing outlet radicalizes people!\"",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,819 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "This isn't really a CMV, but I feel like it's important to say anyhow. Your title says that democrats and Republicans are living in different realities. However, your post said that democrats are sane and Republicans are not. If the post is what you meant, change your title. If the title is what you meant, change your post",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "While I agree with most of what you said, I do want to address one point. You say that \"most Americans want \\[...\\] some agreement and compromise\". As somebody on the left of the political spectrum, I have mixed feelings on the question. Every time we get into power, everybody calls for agreement, compromise and bipartisanship. Whenever Republicans are in power, it's all about ramming through whatever they can do. If Republicans are willing to play fair for a change, I'm happy to have them along for the ride. I don't think that we should change our policies to suit them, though, when they flatly refuse to extend us the same courtesy. This opinion is shared by the vast majority of my friends on the left of the aisle that I know.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,820 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Are there any media sources/outlets that both sides currently agree on?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Liberal media was just as sensationalist as conservative media. They repeated lies from people like Adam schiff. Rachel Maddow was banging the russia collusion drum forever and she was dead wrong. The left wing media will lie and lie and lie and liberals eat it up. The whole “fine people on both sides” being used as an excuse to say trump called nazis fine people was a left wing lie that was easily debunked and liberals *still* use that line. I did not see this type of rabid hate when Obama was president. I did not see anyone on Fox News say black men are the biggest threat to our safety (don lemon called white men that). These realities are created by media and yes, both sides are just as guilty of creating them. You see these downvotes and replies that are incorrect? This just proves my point.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,821 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Are there any media sources/outlets that both sides currently agree on?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "So to summarize your post \"We need to end the division, and conservatives bad! no left wing outlet radicalizes people!\"",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,822 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Are there any media sources/outlets that both sides currently agree on?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "While I agree with most of what you said, I do want to address one point. You say that \"most Americans want \\[...\\] some agreement and compromise\". As somebody on the left of the political spectrum, I have mixed feelings on the question. Every time we get into power, everybody calls for agreement, compromise and bipartisanship. Whenever Republicans are in power, it's all about ramming through whatever they can do. If Republicans are willing to play fair for a change, I'm happy to have them along for the ride. I don't think that we should change our policies to suit them, though, when they flatly refuse to extend us the same courtesy. This opinion is shared by the vast majority of my friends on the left of the aisle that I know.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,823 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Liberal media was just as sensationalist as conservative media. They repeated lies from people like Adam schiff. Rachel Maddow was banging the russia collusion drum forever and she was dead wrong. The left wing media will lie and lie and lie and liberals eat it up. The whole “fine people on both sides” being used as an excuse to say trump called nazis fine people was a left wing lie that was easily debunked and liberals *still* use that line. I did not see this type of rabid hate when Obama was president. I did not see anyone on Fox News say black men are the biggest threat to our safety (don lemon called white men that). These realities are created by media and yes, both sides are just as guilty of creating them. You see these downvotes and replies that are incorrect? This just proves my point.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "So to summarize your post \"We need to end the division, and conservatives bad! no left wing outlet radicalizes people!\"",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,824 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I used to be a hardcore democrat. Mainly because I am an atheist. I was under the impression that Republicans want borderline theocratic rule which goes completely against my belief system. When the BLM riots started this year I felt something was off. It didn't make sense to me. Why are black people so upset because some drug addict who lived a life of crime died. Meanwhile tons of completely innocent black people are victimized by people like George Floyd. If you're going to riot, shouldn't you be rioting to protect them first? I lived in Gainesville Florida my whole life. I have very close friends who are black. Regardless the whole BLM thing just felt completely off to me. So I started watching conservative media. For the first time in my life. Up to that point it was just \"those guys are full of shit no point in even hearing them out\". But because for the first time in my life I was actually agreeing with them I started listening. I think it's because of the cognitive dissonance I felt towards the BLM movement. So let's talk about facts and liberal media. According to you the level of liary (word I made up) is not comparable. Right media lies far more frequently. Breonna Taylor case. What was the initial report. A) She was sleeping in her home. B) Cops had the wrong house. C) Cops had a no knock warrant and barged in. D) Cops shot her dead in her bed. How much of that is true? Basically none of it. A & C & D) She wasn't sleeping because the cops knocked loudly which woke her up. She died in her hallway. She was shot after her boyfriend shot at the cops. If anything them knocking is partially why she died. They should have just busted in. B) The cops were at the exact house that the warrant was written for. Even her name was on the warrant. There may be disagreement on whether the cops should have gone after the warrant. Whether they fucked up the raid. etc etc. But there is absolutely no truth to statements A B C D. It's understandable that some facts about the case may be misrepresented when the story initially breaks. That's normal, that's ok. But the liberal media is pushing the ABCD shit to this day. TO THIS DAY. Months after all of this has come out to be false. Being honest and telling the truth just doesn't seem to matter. You just pick a sound byte and keep repeating it. And that's just one example. There are many like it. The media as a whole both Right and Left are more interested in views and ad revenue. Actually informing the public has taken a backseat. It's basically no longer their role. They are just there to entertain. This is where the division comes from.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Democrats and Republicans live in completely different realities and it is destroying our country. I would guess that a typical Democrat gets their news from CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, NYT, etc. And the average conservative gets his news from Fox News, Talk Radio, OAN, Breitbart, The Daily Caller, YouTubers like Stephen Crowder and Ben Shapiro, etc. If you go more into the fringes of the right they probably get their news from QAnon and other conspiracy Facebook groups. This disparity in where both sides of the political aisle gets their news from is what I believe is causing the massive division and polarization we see. We can't agree on basic facts of reality like whether the 2020 election was fair. I think one clear measure we can take is enforcing anti-trust laws on broadcast and media companies. The fact that the conservative leaning Sinclair Broadcast Group covers 40% of American households, disproportionately in rural areas, is what is leading to the brainwashing of these rural conservatives. Another thing we can do is stop with this \"both sides\" meme. Both sides aren't just as bad when it comes to sensational media and disinformation. There is no left equivalent in terms of disinformation to QAnon. Like, we literally have QAnon supporters as congress people (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene). MSNBC or CNN never engaged in sensationalism on the level of the birther movement that Fox News engaged in. Sure, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post do attack Trump a lot, but they do it on issues that Trump should be attacked on. In contrast, remember when Fox News had a whole media cycle dedicated to Obama ordering a burger with Dijon mustard? At the end of the day, I think it's safe to say that most Americans want less division, less polarization, some agreement and compromise so we can get things done (fixing poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, healthcare reform, immigration reform, etc.). But we can't accomplish any of that if we don't fix the vast disparity in our media and news consumption.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "While I agree with most of what you said, I do want to address one point. You say that \"most Americans want \\[...\\] some agreement and compromise\". As somebody on the left of the political spectrum, I have mixed feelings on the question. Every time we get into power, everybody calls for agreement, compromise and bipartisanship. Whenever Republicans are in power, it's all about ramming through whatever they can do. If Republicans are willing to play fair for a change, I'm happy to have them along for the ride. I don't think that we should change our policies to suit them, though, when they flatly refuse to extend us the same courtesy. This opinion is shared by the vast majority of my friends on the left of the aisle that I know.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,825 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: As an anti-Trump voter, all the nitpicking at President Trump's little shortcomings (e.g. held a Bible the wrong way, overweight, how he gave money wrong at church) is extremely counterproductive, distracts from the real issues, and feeds the narrative that he's treated unfairly. I saw a video today of President Trump giving some money at church in Las Vegas. The entire article was about how he fanned the money out in a showy display. Full disclosure: I think President Trump is an embarassment and a destructive force who NEEDS to be voted out of office for the sake of the USA and the world at large. But I watched the video and thought: he did nothing wrong here. He MIGHT have intended to \"show off\" the \\~$60 he put in the plate...but he could have just been checking how much was in his hand or fidgeting as anyone else would do. He certainly could afford to give more, but many people don't give as much money as normal (or any at all--which is fine!) when they are visiting a church. Nothing he did in the video was objectionable, and yet the article took a bunch of shots at him based on how he held his money, how little he gave, what may have been going on in his mind--a bunch of cheap shots, but more importantly, all regarding something pretty insignificant. The problem with this kind of cheap piling on (and I could give a hundred examples) is that it's unfair and mean, and so it very much justifies the President's supporters pointing out unfair treatment, which leads to further entrenching their support of him. Furthermore, it dilutes out and de-emphasizes all of his horrible behavior, lapses in ethics, and the terrible amount of REAL damage he's done. If we really want to change minds and vote him out of office--instead of having another Democrat popular vote win and a \"too close to call\" electoral college victory (for one side or the other)--we should focus on the much more significant and real damage he has done. This would help by (1) enabling much broader agreement on a set of facts; (2) avoid causing supporters of the President to dig in defensively for no reason; (3) focus on the real issues.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It's clearly not a solid political argument, but these sorts of criticisms still serve a purpose. Many voters do not know or care about policy, they just vote based on a gut feeling or general impression of the candidates. Therefore, implying that a candidate is breaking social norms or is embarrassing in some way does make a difference to their support. This is why, when people were attacking Trump for liking well done steak, a bunch of conservatives came out and said well done steak is actually good, and totally normal to like. It's about perception. Same reason people made the same sort of dumb criticisms of Obama, it works. It does change some people's minds. Might not be the best people to have on your side, but when you are getting votes they all count the same. Quick edit: I'm not saying this is a good strategy, either for getting people to change their minds on Trump or for political discourse in general, I was just explaining what I saw as a reason for this type of rhetoric. I personally think it's dumb but what can you do",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: As an anti-Trump voter, all the nitpicking at President Trump's little shortcomings (e.g. held a Bible the wrong way, overweight, how he gave money wrong at church) is extremely counterproductive, distracts from the real issues, and feeds the narrative that he's treated unfairly. I saw a video today of President Trump giving some money at church in Las Vegas. The entire article was about how he fanned the money out in a showy display. Full disclosure: I think President Trump is an embarassment and a destructive force who NEEDS to be voted out of office for the sake of the USA and the world at large. But I watched the video and thought: he did nothing wrong here. He MIGHT have intended to \"show off\" the \\~$60 he put in the plate...but he could have just been checking how much was in his hand or fidgeting as anyone else would do. He certainly could afford to give more, but many people don't give as much money as normal (or any at all--which is fine!) when they are visiting a church. Nothing he did in the video was objectionable, and yet the article took a bunch of shots at him based on how he held his money, how little he gave, what may have been going on in his mind--a bunch of cheap shots, but more importantly, all regarding something pretty insignificant. The problem with this kind of cheap piling on (and I could give a hundred examples) is that it's unfair and mean, and so it very much justifies the President's supporters pointing out unfair treatment, which leads to further entrenching their support of him. Furthermore, it dilutes out and de-emphasizes all of his horrible behavior, lapses in ethics, and the terrible amount of REAL damage he's done. If we really want to change minds and vote him out of office--instead of having another Democrat popular vote win and a \"too close to call\" electoral college victory (for one side or the other)--we should focus on the much more significant and real damage he has done. This would help by (1) enabling much broader agreement on a set of facts; (2) avoid causing supporters of the President to dig in defensively for no reason; (3) focus on the real issues.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "We can walk and chew gum at the same time. It isn’t an either or thing and frankly, it’s about time Republicans take a bit of their own medicine. How many ridiculous news stories did Fox do because Obama wore a tan suit or put mustard on his hamburger? Trump is a self obsessed narcissistic clown. There is nothing wrong with pointing it out.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,826 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: As an anti-Trump voter, all the nitpicking at President Trump's little shortcomings (e.g. held a Bible the wrong way, overweight, how he gave money wrong at church) is extremely counterproductive, distracts from the real issues, and feeds the narrative that he's treated unfairly. I saw a video today of President Trump giving some money at church in Las Vegas. The entire article was about how he fanned the money out in a showy display. Full disclosure: I think President Trump is an embarassment and a destructive force who NEEDS to be voted out of office for the sake of the USA and the world at large. But I watched the video and thought: he did nothing wrong here. He MIGHT have intended to \"show off\" the \\~$60 he put in the plate...but he could have just been checking how much was in his hand or fidgeting as anyone else would do. He certainly could afford to give more, but many people don't give as much money as normal (or any at all--which is fine!) when they are visiting a church. Nothing he did in the video was objectionable, and yet the article took a bunch of shots at him based on how he held his money, how little he gave, what may have been going on in his mind--a bunch of cheap shots, but more importantly, all regarding something pretty insignificant. The problem with this kind of cheap piling on (and I could give a hundred examples) is that it's unfair and mean, and so it very much justifies the President's supporters pointing out unfair treatment, which leads to further entrenching their support of him. Furthermore, it dilutes out and de-emphasizes all of his horrible behavior, lapses in ethics, and the terrible amount of REAL damage he's done. If we really want to change minds and vote him out of office--instead of having another Democrat popular vote win and a \"too close to call\" electoral college victory (for one side or the other)--we should focus on the much more significant and real damage he has done. This would help by (1) enabling much broader agreement on a set of facts; (2) avoid causing supporters of the President to dig in defensively for no reason; (3) focus on the real issues.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It's clearly not a solid political argument, but these sorts of criticisms still serve a purpose. Many voters do not know or care about policy, they just vote based on a gut feeling or general impression of the candidates. Therefore, implying that a candidate is breaking social norms or is embarrassing in some way does make a difference to their support. This is why, when people were attacking Trump for liking well done steak, a bunch of conservatives came out and said well done steak is actually good, and totally normal to like. It's about perception. Same reason people made the same sort of dumb criticisms of Obama, it works. It does change some people's minds. Might not be the best people to have on your side, but when you are getting votes they all count the same. Quick edit: I'm not saying this is a good strategy, either for getting people to change their minds on Trump or for political discourse in general, I was just explaining what I saw as a reason for this type of rhetoric. I personally think it's dumb but what can you do",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: As an anti-Trump voter, all the nitpicking at President Trump's little shortcomings (e.g. held a Bible the wrong way, overweight, how he gave money wrong at church) is extremely counterproductive, distracts from the real issues, and feeds the narrative that he's treated unfairly. I saw a video today of President Trump giving some money at church in Las Vegas. The entire article was about how he fanned the money out in a showy display. Full disclosure: I think President Trump is an embarassment and a destructive force who NEEDS to be voted out of office for the sake of the USA and the world at large. But I watched the video and thought: he did nothing wrong here. He MIGHT have intended to \"show off\" the \\~$60 he put in the plate...but he could have just been checking how much was in his hand or fidgeting as anyone else would do. He certainly could afford to give more, but many people don't give as much money as normal (or any at all--which is fine!) when they are visiting a church. Nothing he did in the video was objectionable, and yet the article took a bunch of shots at him based on how he held his money, how little he gave, what may have been going on in his mind--a bunch of cheap shots, but more importantly, all regarding something pretty insignificant. The problem with this kind of cheap piling on (and I could give a hundred examples) is that it's unfair and mean, and so it very much justifies the President's supporters pointing out unfair treatment, which leads to further entrenching their support of him. Furthermore, it dilutes out and de-emphasizes all of his horrible behavior, lapses in ethics, and the terrible amount of REAL damage he's done. If we really want to change minds and vote him out of office--instead of having another Democrat popular vote win and a \"too close to call\" electoral college victory (for one side or the other)--we should focus on the much more significant and real damage he has done. This would help by (1) enabling much broader agreement on a set of facts; (2) avoid causing supporters of the President to dig in defensively for no reason; (3) focus on the real issues.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The point in criticisms like this is to appeal to a very specific type of voter who may support Trump - the evangelical voter. There is a fairly decent shot that Trump isn't a Christian at all - can you think of any time where he really said our did anything Christian in his life? Trump's Christianity is a play to try and court his Christian base, and have them support a Christian candidate. Given, this, it is fair to look at his outward acts of Christianity for what they are - publicity stunts to attempt to court a portion of his voter base. The decision to go to St. Johns for a bible photo op was a _deliberate_ decision to try and make him appear more Christian, so it is fair to point out to the people that it was meant to appeal to what a hollow act it was. His decision to attend church in Las Vegas was a _deliberate_ decision to try to make him appear more Christian, so it is fair to point out that his donation was more a publicity stunt than a real tithe (the POTUS rarely carries money, so the $60 he had was expressly for the donation). It isn't so much that is distracts from the 'real' issues, and more that it is a targeted criticism aimed at a powerful part of his base. The point of calling it out is to say to them, \"Look, he isn't what he claims to be. He is lying about his faith to try and con you. Don't fall for it.\"",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,827 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: As an anti-Trump voter, all the nitpicking at President Trump's little shortcomings (e.g. held a Bible the wrong way, overweight, how he gave money wrong at church) is extremely counterproductive, distracts from the real issues, and feeds the narrative that he's treated unfairly. I saw a video today of President Trump giving some money at church in Las Vegas. The entire article was about how he fanned the money out in a showy display. Full disclosure: I think President Trump is an embarassment and a destructive force who NEEDS to be voted out of office for the sake of the USA and the world at large. But I watched the video and thought: he did nothing wrong here. He MIGHT have intended to \"show off\" the \\~$60 he put in the plate...but he could have just been checking how much was in his hand or fidgeting as anyone else would do. He certainly could afford to give more, but many people don't give as much money as normal (or any at all--which is fine!) when they are visiting a church. Nothing he did in the video was objectionable, and yet the article took a bunch of shots at him based on how he held his money, how little he gave, what may have been going on in his mind--a bunch of cheap shots, but more importantly, all regarding something pretty insignificant. The problem with this kind of cheap piling on (and I could give a hundred examples) is that it's unfair and mean, and so it very much justifies the President's supporters pointing out unfair treatment, which leads to further entrenching their support of him. Furthermore, it dilutes out and de-emphasizes all of his horrible behavior, lapses in ethics, and the terrible amount of REAL damage he's done. If we really want to change minds and vote him out of office--instead of having another Democrat popular vote win and a \"too close to call\" electoral college victory (for one side or the other)--we should focus on the much more significant and real damage he has done. This would help by (1) enabling much broader agreement on a set of facts; (2) avoid causing supporters of the President to dig in defensively for no reason; (3) focus on the real issues.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Let's say a huge chunk of Trump's voters were Star Trek fans. Let's say Trump has been cultivating this base for years, claiming to be one of them and claiming he is the only candidate who will protect the interests of Star Trek fans. Now let's say he also shows up at a Star Trek convention claiming that he's like the Captain of the Enterprise, Dr Spock. (Spock wasn't the captain nor a doctor.) You may very well have a point, to non-Christians how Trump bungles their religion probably has little to do with how good of a president he will be next term if re-elected, same as his knowledge of Star Trek characters. However, I think you can see why people who oppose him want to highlight things he does that seem to spit in the eye of his voting base. Fact of the matter is that there are some Christians who don't care that he used public funds to extort a foreign nation to interfere with the election, but do care that Jesus said to give money one way and Trump does the exact opposite.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: As an anti-Trump voter, all the nitpicking at President Trump's little shortcomings (e.g. held a Bible the wrong way, overweight, how he gave money wrong at church) is extremely counterproductive, distracts from the real issues, and feeds the narrative that he's treated unfairly. I saw a video today of President Trump giving some money at church in Las Vegas. The entire article was about how he fanned the money out in a showy display. Full disclosure: I think President Trump is an embarassment and a destructive force who NEEDS to be voted out of office for the sake of the USA and the world at large. But I watched the video and thought: he did nothing wrong here. He MIGHT have intended to \"show off\" the \\~$60 he put in the plate...but he could have just been checking how much was in his hand or fidgeting as anyone else would do. He certainly could afford to give more, but many people don't give as much money as normal (or any at all--which is fine!) when they are visiting a church. Nothing he did in the video was objectionable, and yet the article took a bunch of shots at him based on how he held his money, how little he gave, what may have been going on in his mind--a bunch of cheap shots, but more importantly, all regarding something pretty insignificant. The problem with this kind of cheap piling on (and I could give a hundred examples) is that it's unfair and mean, and so it very much justifies the President's supporters pointing out unfair treatment, which leads to further entrenching their support of him. Furthermore, it dilutes out and de-emphasizes all of his horrible behavior, lapses in ethics, and the terrible amount of REAL damage he's done. If we really want to change minds and vote him out of office--instead of having another Democrat popular vote win and a \"too close to call\" electoral college victory (for one side or the other)--we should focus on the much more significant and real damage he has done. This would help by (1) enabling much broader agreement on a set of facts; (2) avoid causing supporters of the President to dig in defensively for no reason; (3) focus on the real issues.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The bible thing, and his weight, etc, are focused on because we can laugh at those things. Low hanging fruit. We can't laugh at how he tear gassed a priest for the bible photo. We can't laugh at the tanked economy, unemployment, or all the Americans dead from Covid. Laughter diffuses anger, so we make jokes. It's necessary.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,828 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: As an anti-Trump voter, all the nitpicking at President Trump's little shortcomings (e.g. held a Bible the wrong way, overweight, how he gave money wrong at church) is extremely counterproductive, distracts from the real issues, and feeds the narrative that he's treated unfairly. I saw a video today of President Trump giving some money at church in Las Vegas. The entire article was about how he fanned the money out in a showy display. Full disclosure: I think President Trump is an embarassment and a destructive force who NEEDS to be voted out of office for the sake of the USA and the world at large. But I watched the video and thought: he did nothing wrong here. He MIGHT have intended to \"show off\" the \\~$60 he put in the plate...but he could have just been checking how much was in his hand or fidgeting as anyone else would do. He certainly could afford to give more, but many people don't give as much money as normal (or any at all--which is fine!) when they are visiting a church. Nothing he did in the video was objectionable, and yet the article took a bunch of shots at him based on how he held his money, how little he gave, what may have been going on in his mind--a bunch of cheap shots, but more importantly, all regarding something pretty insignificant. The problem with this kind of cheap piling on (and I could give a hundred examples) is that it's unfair and mean, and so it very much justifies the President's supporters pointing out unfair treatment, which leads to further entrenching their support of him. Furthermore, it dilutes out and de-emphasizes all of his horrible behavior, lapses in ethics, and the terrible amount of REAL damage he's done. If we really want to change minds and vote him out of office--instead of having another Democrat popular vote win and a \"too close to call\" electoral college victory (for one side or the other)--we should focus on the much more significant and real damage he has done. This would help by (1) enabling much broader agreement on a set of facts; (2) avoid causing supporters of the President to dig in defensively for no reason; (3) focus on the real issues.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Let's say a huge chunk of Trump's voters were Star Trek fans. Let's say Trump has been cultivating this base for years, claiming to be one of them and claiming he is the only candidate who will protect the interests of Star Trek fans. Now let's say he also shows up at a Star Trek convention claiming that he's like the Captain of the Enterprise, Dr Spock. (Spock wasn't the captain nor a doctor.) You may very well have a point, to non-Christians how Trump bungles their religion probably has little to do with how good of a president he will be next term if re-elected, same as his knowledge of Star Trek characters. However, I think you can see why people who oppose him want to highlight things he does that seem to spit in the eye of his voting base. Fact of the matter is that there are some Christians who don't care that he used public funds to extort a foreign nation to interfere with the election, but do care that Jesus said to give money one way and Trump does the exact opposite.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: As an anti-Trump voter, all the nitpicking at President Trump's little shortcomings (e.g. held a Bible the wrong way, overweight, how he gave money wrong at church) is extremely counterproductive, distracts from the real issues, and feeds the narrative that he's treated unfairly. I saw a video today of President Trump giving some money at church in Las Vegas. The entire article was about how he fanned the money out in a showy display. Full disclosure: I think President Trump is an embarassment and a destructive force who NEEDS to be voted out of office for the sake of the USA and the world at large. But I watched the video and thought: he did nothing wrong here. He MIGHT have intended to \"show off\" the \\~$60 he put in the plate...but he could have just been checking how much was in his hand or fidgeting as anyone else would do. He certainly could afford to give more, but many people don't give as much money as normal (or any at all--which is fine!) when they are visiting a church. Nothing he did in the video was objectionable, and yet the article took a bunch of shots at him based on how he held his money, how little he gave, what may have been going on in his mind--a bunch of cheap shots, but more importantly, all regarding something pretty insignificant. The problem with this kind of cheap piling on (and I could give a hundred examples) is that it's unfair and mean, and so it very much justifies the President's supporters pointing out unfair treatment, which leads to further entrenching their support of him. Furthermore, it dilutes out and de-emphasizes all of his horrible behavior, lapses in ethics, and the terrible amount of REAL damage he's done. If we really want to change minds and vote him out of office--instead of having another Democrat popular vote win and a \"too close to call\" electoral college victory (for one side or the other)--we should focus on the much more significant and real damage he has done. This would help by (1) enabling much broader agreement on a set of facts; (2) avoid causing supporters of the President to dig in defensively for no reason; (3) focus on the real issues.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The point in criticisms like this is to appeal to a very specific type of voter who may support Trump - the evangelical voter. There is a fairly decent shot that Trump isn't a Christian at all - can you think of any time where he really said our did anything Christian in his life? Trump's Christianity is a play to try and court his Christian base, and have them support a Christian candidate. Given, this, it is fair to look at his outward acts of Christianity for what they are - publicity stunts to attempt to court a portion of his voter base. The decision to go to St. Johns for a bible photo op was a _deliberate_ decision to try and make him appear more Christian, so it is fair to point out to the people that it was meant to appeal to what a hollow act it was. His decision to attend church in Las Vegas was a _deliberate_ decision to try to make him appear more Christian, so it is fair to point out that his donation was more a publicity stunt than a real tithe (the POTUS rarely carries money, so the $60 he had was expressly for the donation). It isn't so much that is distracts from the 'real' issues, and more that it is a targeted criticism aimed at a powerful part of his base. The point of calling it out is to say to them, \"Look, he isn't what he claims to be. He is lying about his faith to try and con you. Don't fall for it.\"",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,829 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: As an anti-Trump voter, all the nitpicking at President Trump's little shortcomings (e.g. held a Bible the wrong way, overweight, how he gave money wrong at church) is extremely counterproductive, distracts from the real issues, and feeds the narrative that he's treated unfairly. I saw a video today of President Trump giving some money at church in Las Vegas. The entire article was about how he fanned the money out in a showy display. Full disclosure: I think President Trump is an embarassment and a destructive force who NEEDS to be voted out of office for the sake of the USA and the world at large. But I watched the video and thought: he did nothing wrong here. He MIGHT have intended to \"show off\" the \\~$60 he put in the plate...but he could have just been checking how much was in his hand or fidgeting as anyone else would do. He certainly could afford to give more, but many people don't give as much money as normal (or any at all--which is fine!) when they are visiting a church. Nothing he did in the video was objectionable, and yet the article took a bunch of shots at him based on how he held his money, how little he gave, what may have been going on in his mind--a bunch of cheap shots, but more importantly, all regarding something pretty insignificant. The problem with this kind of cheap piling on (and I could give a hundred examples) is that it's unfair and mean, and so it very much justifies the President's supporters pointing out unfair treatment, which leads to further entrenching their support of him. Furthermore, it dilutes out and de-emphasizes all of his horrible behavior, lapses in ethics, and the terrible amount of REAL damage he's done. If we really want to change minds and vote him out of office--instead of having another Democrat popular vote win and a \"too close to call\" electoral college victory (for one side or the other)--we should focus on the much more significant and real damage he has done. This would help by (1) enabling much broader agreement on a set of facts; (2) avoid causing supporters of the President to dig in defensively for no reason; (3) focus on the real issues.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The bible thing, and his weight, etc, are focused on because we can laugh at those things. Low hanging fruit. We can't laugh at how he tear gassed a priest for the bible photo. We can't laugh at the tanked economy, unemployment, or all the Americans dead from Covid. Laughter diffuses anger, so we make jokes. It's necessary.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: As an anti-Trump voter, all the nitpicking at President Trump's little shortcomings (e.g. held a Bible the wrong way, overweight, how he gave money wrong at church) is extremely counterproductive, distracts from the real issues, and feeds the narrative that he's treated unfairly. I saw a video today of President Trump giving some money at church in Las Vegas. The entire article was about how he fanned the money out in a showy display. Full disclosure: I think President Trump is an embarassment and a destructive force who NEEDS to be voted out of office for the sake of the USA and the world at large. But I watched the video and thought: he did nothing wrong here. He MIGHT have intended to \"show off\" the \\~$60 he put in the plate...but he could have just been checking how much was in his hand or fidgeting as anyone else would do. He certainly could afford to give more, but many people don't give as much money as normal (or any at all--which is fine!) when they are visiting a church. Nothing he did in the video was objectionable, and yet the article took a bunch of shots at him based on how he held his money, how little he gave, what may have been going on in his mind--a bunch of cheap shots, but more importantly, all regarding something pretty insignificant. The problem with this kind of cheap piling on (and I could give a hundred examples) is that it's unfair and mean, and so it very much justifies the President's supporters pointing out unfair treatment, which leads to further entrenching their support of him. Furthermore, it dilutes out and de-emphasizes all of his horrible behavior, lapses in ethics, and the terrible amount of REAL damage he's done. If we really want to change minds and vote him out of office--instead of having another Democrat popular vote win and a \"too close to call\" electoral college victory (for one side or the other)--we should focus on the much more significant and real damage he has done. This would help by (1) enabling much broader agreement on a set of facts; (2) avoid causing supporters of the President to dig in defensively for no reason; (3) focus on the real issues.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The point in criticisms like this is to appeal to a very specific type of voter who may support Trump - the evangelical voter. There is a fairly decent shot that Trump isn't a Christian at all - can you think of any time where he really said our did anything Christian in his life? Trump's Christianity is a play to try and court his Christian base, and have them support a Christian candidate. Given, this, it is fair to look at his outward acts of Christianity for what they are - publicity stunts to attempt to court a portion of his voter base. The decision to go to St. Johns for a bible photo op was a _deliberate_ decision to try and make him appear more Christian, so it is fair to point out to the people that it was meant to appeal to what a hollow act it was. His decision to attend church in Las Vegas was a _deliberate_ decision to try to make him appear more Christian, so it is fair to point out that his donation was more a publicity stunt than a real tithe (the POTUS rarely carries money, so the $60 he had was expressly for the donation). It isn't so much that is distracts from the 'real' issues, and more that it is a targeted criticism aimed at a powerful part of his base. The point of calling it out is to say to them, \"Look, he isn't what he claims to be. He is lying about his faith to try and con you. Don't fall for it.\"",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,830 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Republicans will hate Biden no matter what he does... I believe Republicans will hate Biden no matter what. Even if he doesn't take away their guns, even if he establishes rural broadband (which would disproportionately help them), even if he implements universal healthcare without raising taxes on the middle/lower class,,... Republicans will find something to hate about him. The reason I believe this is because it seems like Trump supporters are genuinely part of a cult. Even when Trump does something against their own principles, like a bum stock ban or raising the deficit significantly for example, he doesn't face even an iota of criticism from his own side. Recently, Trump supporters are even calling to abandon Fox News and move on to more right-wing networks like OAN, or get Trump and Tucker Carlson their own shows. This is all because Fox News refuses to irresponsibly platform election disinformation. It seems like they never cared about being politically informed or wanting what's best for this country, they just want to be fed what they want to hear, and they just want their side to win and trigger the other side.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "If you're in a heated argument with someone, ask them if there is any circumstance where they will change their mind. If they say no, disengage for your own sanity.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Republicans will hate Biden no matter what he does... I believe Republicans will hate Biden no matter what. Even if he doesn't take away their guns, even if he establishes rural broadband (which would disproportionately help them), even if he implements universal healthcare without raising taxes on the middle/lower class,,... Republicans will find something to hate about him. The reason I believe this is because it seems like Trump supporters are genuinely part of a cult. Even when Trump does something against their own principles, like a bum stock ban or raising the deficit significantly for example, he doesn't face even an iota of criticism from his own side. Recently, Trump supporters are even calling to abandon Fox News and move on to more right-wing networks like OAN, or get Trump and Tucker Carlson their own shows. This is all because Fox News refuses to irresponsibly platform election disinformation. It seems like they never cared about being politically informed or wanting what's best for this country, they just want to be fed what they want to hear, and they just want their side to win and trigger the other side.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I do believe that he may be able to work with Collins, Murkowski, Sasse and Romney. People who are looking to build back their reputation. And even to a degree Graham",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,831 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It's a thing. We know it's a thing (and not really a secret), so it's not a great topic for CMV. However, one related thing you're missing: > Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. It's very simple. It's also generally very, very illegal. Part of the reason you don't see it more often is that it generally falls under market manipulation. The definition usually has 4 steps: (1) That the accused had the ability to influence market prices; (2) that the accused specifically intended to create or effect a price or price trend that does not reflect legitimate forces of supply and demand; (3) that artificial prices existed; (4) that the accused caused the artificial prices. The idea is not new. Doing it legally (or not getting caught) however, can be tricky. (Borrowed from Matt Levine. would also recommend reading for examples, or just a fun read on what's going on) It also generally only works if you can get other people to buy in (buying up shares to drive the price up, but eventually it's going to go back down. You need to offload those shares eventually, and burning short sellers alone usually won't cover it). WSB is very special in that doing it for the lolz, they don't care about the eventual loss. They're basically just subsidizing the loss because they think it's fun. Hedge funds, do care. There aren't many hedge funds doing trades for the lolz. edit: This blew up a bit, but I think it's worth clarifying that i'm not stating what WSB is doing is necessarily illegal. That is not the point being made here.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "A hedge fund is a fund that 'hedges' its position in such a way as to minimize risk and maximize profit. What happened is sort of a 'pump and dump' but where nothing actually illegal has occured because nobody was misled and (assumedly) nobody inside the company was in on the plan. It also isn't as easy as it might seem given this one instance, there is still risk with entering the 'scheme' at any point and a lot of redditors will have lost money.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,832 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Hold on you are missing one *very* important piece in your post here. This isn't something r/wallstreetbets could do to just any stock. The funds got waaaaay too greedy and got caught with their dick in the cookie jar. What you are seeing is a feedback loop of \"short squeezes\" and \"gamma squeezes\" because these funds are short *more shares than actually exist to buy*. The point being, they put themselves in a position of infinite risk, and r/wallstreetbets cornered them with no way out. They were already manipulating GME into the ground with their outlandish shorting. There is no other way to put it, they just got beat at their own game. Not at all to disagree with your opinion on it. We just need to make sure it is understood they put themselves in this position. I say this because it is in the news and they are being VERY CAREFUL to take advantage of people who don't understand this stuff... as they point fingers and blame reddit - they are hoping the average person doesn't understand why or how its possible they now owe more shares than exist. They fucked up and may go bankrupt for it. Of course they are going to kick and scream all they can to save face.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "There is no collusion on WSB. People post due diligence on stocks and then individuals make their own decisions about if to invest, when, and how much. There is zero planning or agreement about what will happen. In the case of GME, it was public knowledge for a long time that GME was heavily over shorted. A bunch of investors discussing this opportunity and individually deciding to act on it is neither collusion nor market manipulation, which I think are both illegal. I also think WSB does not collectively have enough money to do that. What most likely happened is institutional investors saw the same opportunity and they are the real money driving prices so high. If you want something historical to compare to, look at the VW short squeeze. It was not considered collusion or market manipulation. Martin the pharma bro also created a short squeeze with some other investors. Again, perfectly legal and not what he went to jail for. Please look up what market manipulation is. Prices skyrocketing because of a short squeeze is not manipulation. Also please look up what collusion is. What happens on wsb is not in secret, nor is there any agreement about what to do.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,833 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Hold on you are missing one *very* important piece in your post here. This isn't something r/wallstreetbets could do to just any stock. The funds got waaaaay too greedy and got caught with their dick in the cookie jar. What you are seeing is a feedback loop of \"short squeezes\" and \"gamma squeezes\" because these funds are short *more shares than actually exist to buy*. The point being, they put themselves in a position of infinite risk, and r/wallstreetbets cornered them with no way out. They were already manipulating GME into the ground with their outlandish shorting. There is no other way to put it, they just got beat at their own game. Not at all to disagree with your opinion on it. We just need to make sure it is understood they put themselves in this position. I say this because it is in the news and they are being VERY CAREFUL to take advantage of people who don't understand this stuff... as they point fingers and blame reddit - they are hoping the average person doesn't understand why or how its possible they now owe more shares than exist. They fucked up and may go bankrupt for it. Of course they are going to kick and scream all they can to save face.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I see a lot of finger pointing at WSB. However it was not them who shorted a stock 139% you have to be a moron to do that (to quote from Jim Cramer). The hedge funds that are hurting are all due to their own doing. They’re just upset that someone saw the opportunity and beat them at their own game, plus GME has Ryan Cohen at the helm and new vision. For a hedge fund they didn’t do a lot of hedging.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,834 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Hold on you are missing one *very* important piece in your post here. This isn't something r/wallstreetbets could do to just any stock. The funds got waaaaay too greedy and got caught with their dick in the cookie jar. What you are seeing is a feedback loop of \"short squeezes\" and \"gamma squeezes\" because these funds are short *more shares than actually exist to buy*. The point being, they put themselves in a position of infinite risk, and r/wallstreetbets cornered them with no way out. They were already manipulating GME into the ground with their outlandish shorting. There is no other way to put it, they just got beat at their own game. Not at all to disagree with your opinion on it. We just need to make sure it is understood they put themselves in this position. I say this because it is in the news and they are being VERY CAREFUL to take advantage of people who don't understand this stuff... as they point fingers and blame reddit - they are hoping the average person doesn't understand why or how its possible they now owe more shares than exist. They fucked up and may go bankrupt for it. Of course they are going to kick and scream all they can to save face.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You are very uninformed about whats happening with Gamestop stock. Its not a fucking meme, lmao. There were plenty of signs that Gamestop was gonna blow up. Do you really think its pure coincidence that Micheal Burry, the guy who predicted the 2008 crash, bought Gamestop stocks a year ago? Its honestly the reverse of what you think happened. All the big investment firms thought Gamestop was going to die, so they shorted Gamestop. Because they were all shorting Gamestop, the price of the stock was low. People just now realized \"hey wait a minute gamestop isnt dying and some dudes currently are betting billions of dollars that they will die. I am going to bet against those guys and take their money\"",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,835 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Hold on you are missing one *very* important piece in your post here. This isn't something r/wallstreetbets could do to just any stock. The funds got waaaaay too greedy and got caught with their dick in the cookie jar. What you are seeing is a feedback loop of \"short squeezes\" and \"gamma squeezes\" because these funds are short *more shares than actually exist to buy*. The point being, they put themselves in a position of infinite risk, and r/wallstreetbets cornered them with no way out. They were already manipulating GME into the ground with their outlandish shorting. There is no other way to put it, they just got beat at their own game. Not at all to disagree with your opinion on it. We just need to make sure it is understood they put themselves in this position. I say this because it is in the news and they are being VERY CAREFUL to take advantage of people who don't understand this stuff... as they point fingers and blame reddit - they are hoping the average person doesn't understand why or how its possible they now owe more shares than exist. They fucked up and may go bankrupt for it. Of course they are going to kick and scream all they can to save face.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": ">In other words, they’re a hedge fund. I would take issue with your definition of a hedge fund here, there is not a management structure on WSB like there is in a hedge fund - even though WSB ostensibly has mods with more power than the average users there, they don't have the power to make financial decisions for their users like a hedge fund manager would. I would also point out the difference in investors - a hedge fund is required by the SEC to have a majority of its investors be accredited, with >$1 million in net worth, whereas anyone with a reddit account can join WSB and post/comment/upvote/downvote there regardless of NW, accreditation status or what shares and positions they personally hold The compensation of the fund management structure is also different - hedge fund managers compensation is directly tied to the performance of the fund, whereas a WSB user who has no financial incentive or disincentive to make a thread on WSB or comment on someone else's thread can, and though I would expect that WSB mods do have some financial stake in some of the stocks being discussed there, they are not rigidly tied to the performance of the stocks held by all members of WSB.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,836 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Hold on you are missing one *very* important piece in your post here. This isn't something r/wallstreetbets could do to just any stock. The funds got waaaaay too greedy and got caught with their dick in the cookie jar. What you are seeing is a feedback loop of \"short squeezes\" and \"gamma squeezes\" because these funds are short *more shares than actually exist to buy*. The point being, they put themselves in a position of infinite risk, and r/wallstreetbets cornered them with no way out. They were already manipulating GME into the ground with their outlandish shorting. There is no other way to put it, they just got beat at their own game. Not at all to disagree with your opinion on it. We just need to make sure it is understood they put themselves in this position. I say this because it is in the news and they are being VERY CAREFUL to take advantage of people who don't understand this stuff... as they point fingers and blame reddit - they are hoping the average person doesn't understand why or how its possible they now owe more shares than exist. They fucked up and may go bankrupt for it. Of course they are going to kick and scream all they can to save face.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Your premise is flawed, though that’s not necessarily all your fault. What is actually happening is the financial press is sensationalizing a story because it’s easier to agent’s more eyeballs than to attempt to explain it - if they even have the ability to understand it. It's not all r/WSB or even mainly them. The stock was considered undervalued by other institutional investors. The fact a short squeeze occurred is newsworthy, however, the finance press is hyping it up, because it’s much more sensational to blame r/WSB than actually attempt to explain the situation that goes back at least a year. In short, there are reasons to think GME was undervalued. A couple hedge fund guys decided it was overvalued and got greedy. Rather than minimize risk, they shorted without buying protection. Now, they will have to buy stock at whatever price exists in a certain timeframe. Everyone knows this and it pushes the price higher - a short squeeze. One of the hedge fund guys has CNBC connections and decided to blame r/WSB since that is easier to do than admit he was an idiot (investors don’t like hearing the guy managing their money might be stupid). Again, the press love it because a real explanation is difficult and a lot more boring. In reality, even if r/WSB was coordinating, they wouldn’t move the needle a whole lot especially not to this level. Meanwhile, it’s actually rather difficult for even institutional investors to coordinate as most stocks are tied up in things like mutual funds and pension plans which have their own objectives and rules. Another, good basic explanation with some more details is here: https://paranoidenough.com/2021/01/25/The-Battle-of-Gamestop.html",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,837 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Hold on you are missing one *very* important piece in your post here. This isn't something r/wallstreetbets could do to just any stock. The funds got waaaaay too greedy and got caught with their dick in the cookie jar. What you are seeing is a feedback loop of \"short squeezes\" and \"gamma squeezes\" because these funds are short *more shares than actually exist to buy*. The point being, they put themselves in a position of infinite risk, and r/wallstreetbets cornered them with no way out. They were already manipulating GME into the ground with their outlandish shorting. There is no other way to put it, they just got beat at their own game. Not at all to disagree with your opinion on it. We just need to make sure it is understood they put themselves in this position. I say this because it is in the news and they are being VERY CAREFUL to take advantage of people who don't understand this stuff... as they point fingers and blame reddit - they are hoping the average person doesn't understand why or how its possible they now owe more shares than exist. They fucked up and may go bankrupt for it. Of course they are going to kick and scream all they can to save face.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It's not market manipulation since WSB is a forum shitposting on stocks they like. This might create a herd mentality pushing up stocks they like but that's not collusion. The reason why hedge funds don't get away with this generally is because the SEC focuses in on hedge funds to ensure this doesn't happen. The SEC however is not gonna spend time chasing millions of retail traders, even if what they were doing was market manipulation.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,838 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Hold on you are missing one *very* important piece in your post here. This isn't something r/wallstreetbets could do to just any stock. The funds got waaaaay too greedy and got caught with their dick in the cookie jar. What you are seeing is a feedback loop of \"short squeezes\" and \"gamma squeezes\" because these funds are short *more shares than actually exist to buy*. The point being, they put themselves in a position of infinite risk, and r/wallstreetbets cornered them with no way out. They were already manipulating GME into the ground with their outlandish shorting. There is no other way to put it, they just got beat at their own game. Not at all to disagree with your opinion on it. We just need to make sure it is understood they put themselves in this position. I say this because it is in the news and they are being VERY CAREFUL to take advantage of people who don't understand this stuff... as they point fingers and blame reddit - they are hoping the average person doesn't understand why or how its possible they now owe more shares than exist. They fucked up and may go bankrupt for it. Of course they are going to kick and scream all they can to save face.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "??? Where did you get the idea that WSB is full of people who are colluding? It's normally full of gay bears and bulls, but because of the recent GME shenanigans it's been mostly bulls, since the bears are all fuked. WSB isn't a singular entity in any way, and even in the case of GME, they don't have enough assets together to make it go all the way up to it's current price. There are clearly other players and tons of people outside of WSB are participating. You are very very misinformed as well; it doesn't seem like you know much about the stock market at all based on this post.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,839 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Hold on you are missing one *very* important piece in your post here. This isn't something r/wallstreetbets could do to just any stock. The funds got waaaaay too greedy and got caught with their dick in the cookie jar. What you are seeing is a feedback loop of \"short squeezes\" and \"gamma squeezes\" because these funds are short *more shares than actually exist to buy*. The point being, they put themselves in a position of infinite risk, and r/wallstreetbets cornered them with no way out. They were already manipulating GME into the ground with their outlandish shorting. There is no other way to put it, they just got beat at their own game. Not at all to disagree with your opinion on it. We just need to make sure it is understood they put themselves in this position. I say this because it is in the news and they are being VERY CAREFUL to take advantage of people who don't understand this stuff... as they point fingers and blame reddit - they are hoping the average person doesn't understand why or how its possible they now owe more shares than exist. They fucked up and may go bankrupt for it. Of course they are going to kick and scream all they can to save face.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "For the record, r/wallstreetbets didn’t do anything wrong. This whole thing was caused by the abusive and illegal naked short selling done by institutions. Had they not done so, the price never would’ve been so undervalued in the first place. Also, you’re going to have a hell of a time proving 2 million people coordinated an attack and that they did so to artificially drive the price up rather than the fact that “WE LIKE THE STOCK”. Finally, WSB collectively owns less than 5% of gme so it wasn’t all them lmao",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,840 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Hold on you are missing one *very* important piece in your post here. This isn't something r/wallstreetbets could do to just any stock. The funds got waaaaay too greedy and got caught with their dick in the cookie jar. What you are seeing is a feedback loop of \"short squeezes\" and \"gamma squeezes\" because these funds are short *more shares than actually exist to buy*. The point being, they put themselves in a position of infinite risk, and r/wallstreetbets cornered them with no way out. They were already manipulating GME into the ground with their outlandish shorting. There is no other way to put it, they just got beat at their own game. Not at all to disagree with your opinion on it. We just need to make sure it is understood they put themselves in this position. I say this because it is in the news and they are being VERY CAREFUL to take advantage of people who don't understand this stuff... as they point fingers and blame reddit - they are hoping the average person doesn't understand why or how its possible they now owe more shares than exist. They fucked up and may go bankrupt for it. Of course they are going to kick and scream all they can to save face.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "A hedge fund is a fund that 'hedges' its position in such a way as to minimize risk and maximize profit. What happened is sort of a 'pump and dump' but where nothing actually illegal has occured because nobody was misled and (assumedly) nobody inside the company was in on the plan. It also isn't as easy as it might seem given this one instance, there is still risk with entering the 'scheme' at any point and a lot of redditors will have lost money.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,841 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "There is no collusion on WSB. People post due diligence on stocks and then individuals make their own decisions about if to invest, when, and how much. There is zero planning or agreement about what will happen. In the case of GME, it was public knowledge for a long time that GME was heavily over shorted. A bunch of investors discussing this opportunity and individually deciding to act on it is neither collusion nor market manipulation, which I think are both illegal. I also think WSB does not collectively have enough money to do that. What most likely happened is institutional investors saw the same opportunity and they are the real money driving prices so high. If you want something historical to compare to, look at the VW short squeeze. It was not considered collusion or market manipulation. Martin the pharma bro also created a short squeeze with some other investors. Again, perfectly legal and not what he went to jail for. Please look up what market manipulation is. Prices skyrocketing because of a short squeeze is not manipulation. Also please look up what collusion is. What happens on wsb is not in secret, nor is there any agreement about what to do.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It's not market manipulation since WSB is a forum shitposting on stocks they like. This might create a herd mentality pushing up stocks they like but that's not collusion. The reason why hedge funds don't get away with this generally is because the SEC focuses in on hedge funds to ensure this doesn't happen. The SEC however is not gonna spend time chasing millions of retail traders, even if what they were doing was market manipulation.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,842 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "There is no collusion on WSB. People post due diligence on stocks and then individuals make their own decisions about if to invest, when, and how much. There is zero planning or agreement about what will happen. In the case of GME, it was public knowledge for a long time that GME was heavily over shorted. A bunch of investors discussing this opportunity and individually deciding to act on it is neither collusion nor market manipulation, which I think are both illegal. I also think WSB does not collectively have enough money to do that. What most likely happened is institutional investors saw the same opportunity and they are the real money driving prices so high. If you want something historical to compare to, look at the VW short squeeze. It was not considered collusion or market manipulation. Martin the pharma bro also created a short squeeze with some other investors. Again, perfectly legal and not what he went to jail for. Please look up what market manipulation is. Prices skyrocketing because of a short squeeze is not manipulation. Also please look up what collusion is. What happens on wsb is not in secret, nor is there any agreement about what to do.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "A hedge fund is a fund that 'hedges' its position in such a way as to minimize risk and maximize profit. What happened is sort of a 'pump and dump' but where nothing actually illegal has occured because nobody was misled and (assumedly) nobody inside the company was in on the plan. It also isn't as easy as it might seem given this one instance, there is still risk with entering the 'scheme' at any point and a lot of redditors will have lost money.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,843 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I see a lot of finger pointing at WSB. However it was not them who shorted a stock 139% you have to be a moron to do that (to quote from Jim Cramer). The hedge funds that are hurting are all due to their own doing. They’re just upset that someone saw the opportunity and beat them at their own game, plus GME has Ryan Cohen at the helm and new vision. For a hedge fund they didn’t do a lot of hedging.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It's not market manipulation since WSB is a forum shitposting on stocks they like. This might create a herd mentality pushing up stocks they like but that's not collusion. The reason why hedge funds don't get away with this generally is because the SEC focuses in on hedge funds to ensure this doesn't happen. The SEC however is not gonna spend time chasing millions of retail traders, even if what they were doing was market manipulation.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,844 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I see a lot of finger pointing at WSB. However it was not them who shorted a stock 139% you have to be a moron to do that (to quote from Jim Cramer). The hedge funds that are hurting are all due to their own doing. They’re just upset that someone saw the opportunity and beat them at their own game, plus GME has Ryan Cohen at the helm and new vision. For a hedge fund they didn’t do a lot of hedging.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "??? Where did you get the idea that WSB is full of people who are colluding? It's normally full of gay bears and bulls, but because of the recent GME shenanigans it's been mostly bulls, since the bears are all fuked. WSB isn't a singular entity in any way, and even in the case of GME, they don't have enough assets together to make it go all the way up to it's current price. There are clearly other players and tons of people outside of WSB are participating. You are very very misinformed as well; it doesn't seem like you know much about the stock market at all based on this post.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,845 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I see a lot of finger pointing at WSB. However it was not them who shorted a stock 139% you have to be a moron to do that (to quote from Jim Cramer). The hedge funds that are hurting are all due to their own doing. They’re just upset that someone saw the opportunity and beat them at their own game, plus GME has Ryan Cohen at the helm and new vision. For a hedge fund they didn’t do a lot of hedging.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "A hedge fund is a fund that 'hedges' its position in such a way as to minimize risk and maximize profit. What happened is sort of a 'pump and dump' but where nothing actually illegal has occured because nobody was misled and (assumedly) nobody inside the company was in on the plan. It also isn't as easy as it might seem given this one instance, there is still risk with entering the 'scheme' at any point and a lot of redditors will have lost money.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,846 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You are very uninformed about whats happening with Gamestop stock. Its not a fucking meme, lmao. There were plenty of signs that Gamestop was gonna blow up. Do you really think its pure coincidence that Micheal Burry, the guy who predicted the 2008 crash, bought Gamestop stocks a year ago? Its honestly the reverse of what you think happened. All the big investment firms thought Gamestop was going to die, so they shorted Gamestop. Because they were all shorting Gamestop, the price of the stock was low. People just now realized \"hey wait a minute gamestop isnt dying and some dudes currently are betting billions of dollars that they will die. I am going to bet against those guys and take their money\"",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": ">In other words, they’re a hedge fund. I would take issue with your definition of a hedge fund here, there is not a management structure on WSB like there is in a hedge fund - even though WSB ostensibly has mods with more power than the average users there, they don't have the power to make financial decisions for their users like a hedge fund manager would. I would also point out the difference in investors - a hedge fund is required by the SEC to have a majority of its investors be accredited, with >$1 million in net worth, whereas anyone with a reddit account can join WSB and post/comment/upvote/downvote there regardless of NW, accreditation status or what shares and positions they personally hold The compensation of the fund management structure is also different - hedge fund managers compensation is directly tied to the performance of the fund, whereas a WSB user who has no financial incentive or disincentive to make a thread on WSB or comment on someone else's thread can, and though I would expect that WSB mods do have some financial stake in some of the stocks being discussed there, they are not rigidly tied to the performance of the stocks held by all members of WSB.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,847 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You are very uninformed about whats happening with Gamestop stock. Its not a fucking meme, lmao. There were plenty of signs that Gamestop was gonna blow up. Do you really think its pure coincidence that Micheal Burry, the guy who predicted the 2008 crash, bought Gamestop stocks a year ago? Its honestly the reverse of what you think happened. All the big investment firms thought Gamestop was going to die, so they shorted Gamestop. Because they were all shorting Gamestop, the price of the stock was low. People just now realized \"hey wait a minute gamestop isnt dying and some dudes currently are betting billions of dollars that they will die. I am going to bet against those guys and take their money\"",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It's not market manipulation since WSB is a forum shitposting on stocks they like. This might create a herd mentality pushing up stocks they like but that's not collusion. The reason why hedge funds don't get away with this generally is because the SEC focuses in on hedge funds to ensure this doesn't happen. The SEC however is not gonna spend time chasing millions of retail traders, even if what they were doing was market manipulation.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,848 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You are very uninformed about whats happening with Gamestop stock. Its not a fucking meme, lmao. There were plenty of signs that Gamestop was gonna blow up. Do you really think its pure coincidence that Micheal Burry, the guy who predicted the 2008 crash, bought Gamestop stocks a year ago? Its honestly the reverse of what you think happened. All the big investment firms thought Gamestop was going to die, so they shorted Gamestop. Because they were all shorting Gamestop, the price of the stock was low. People just now realized \"hey wait a minute gamestop isnt dying and some dudes currently are betting billions of dollars that they will die. I am going to bet against those guys and take their money\"",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "??? Where did you get the idea that WSB is full of people who are colluding? It's normally full of gay bears and bulls, but because of the recent GME shenanigans it's been mostly bulls, since the bears are all fuked. WSB isn't a singular entity in any way, and even in the case of GME, they don't have enough assets together to make it go all the way up to it's current price. There are clearly other players and tons of people outside of WSB are participating. You are very very misinformed as well; it doesn't seem like you know much about the stock market at all based on this post.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,849 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You are very uninformed about whats happening with Gamestop stock. Its not a fucking meme, lmao. There were plenty of signs that Gamestop was gonna blow up. Do you really think its pure coincidence that Micheal Burry, the guy who predicted the 2008 crash, bought Gamestop stocks a year ago? Its honestly the reverse of what you think happened. All the big investment firms thought Gamestop was going to die, so they shorted Gamestop. Because they were all shorting Gamestop, the price of the stock was low. People just now realized \"hey wait a minute gamestop isnt dying and some dudes currently are betting billions of dollars that they will die. I am going to bet against those guys and take their money\"",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "For the record, r/wallstreetbets didn’t do anything wrong. This whole thing was caused by the abusive and illegal naked short selling done by institutions. Had they not done so, the price never would’ve been so undervalued in the first place. Also, you’re going to have a hell of a time proving 2 million people coordinated an attack and that they did so to artificially drive the price up rather than the fact that “WE LIKE THE STOCK”. Finally, WSB collectively owns less than 5% of gme so it wasn’t all them lmao",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,850 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You are very uninformed about whats happening with Gamestop stock. Its not a fucking meme, lmao. There were plenty of signs that Gamestop was gonna blow up. Do you really think its pure coincidence that Micheal Burry, the guy who predicted the 2008 crash, bought Gamestop stocks a year ago? Its honestly the reverse of what you think happened. All the big investment firms thought Gamestop was going to die, so they shorted Gamestop. Because they were all shorting Gamestop, the price of the stock was low. People just now realized \"hey wait a minute gamestop isnt dying and some dudes currently are betting billions of dollars that they will die. I am going to bet against those guys and take their money\"",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "A hedge fund is a fund that 'hedges' its position in such a way as to minimize risk and maximize profit. What happened is sort of a 'pump and dump' but where nothing actually illegal has occured because nobody was misled and (assumedly) nobody inside the company was in on the plan. It also isn't as easy as it might seem given this one instance, there is still risk with entering the 'scheme' at any point and a lot of redditors will have lost money.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,851 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Your premise is flawed, though that’s not necessarily all your fault. What is actually happening is the financial press is sensationalizing a story because it’s easier to agent’s more eyeballs than to attempt to explain it - if they even have the ability to understand it. It's not all r/WSB or even mainly them. The stock was considered undervalued by other institutional investors. The fact a short squeeze occurred is newsworthy, however, the finance press is hyping it up, because it’s much more sensational to blame r/WSB than actually attempt to explain the situation that goes back at least a year. In short, there are reasons to think GME was undervalued. A couple hedge fund guys decided it was overvalued and got greedy. Rather than minimize risk, they shorted without buying protection. Now, they will have to buy stock at whatever price exists in a certain timeframe. Everyone knows this and it pushes the price higher - a short squeeze. One of the hedge fund guys has CNBC connections and decided to blame r/WSB since that is easier to do than admit he was an idiot (investors don’t like hearing the guy managing their money might be stupid). Again, the press love it because a real explanation is difficult and a lot more boring. In reality, even if r/WSB was coordinating, they wouldn’t move the needle a whole lot especially not to this level. Meanwhile, it’s actually rather difficult for even institutional investors to coordinate as most stocks are tied up in things like mutual funds and pension plans which have their own objectives and rules. Another, good basic explanation with some more details is here: https://paranoidenough.com/2021/01/25/The-Battle-of-Gamestop.html",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": ">In other words, they’re a hedge fund. I would take issue with your definition of a hedge fund here, there is not a management structure on WSB like there is in a hedge fund - even though WSB ostensibly has mods with more power than the average users there, they don't have the power to make financial decisions for their users like a hedge fund manager would. I would also point out the difference in investors - a hedge fund is required by the SEC to have a majority of its investors be accredited, with >$1 million in net worth, whereas anyone with a reddit account can join WSB and post/comment/upvote/downvote there regardless of NW, accreditation status or what shares and positions they personally hold The compensation of the fund management structure is also different - hedge fund managers compensation is directly tied to the performance of the fund, whereas a WSB user who has no financial incentive or disincentive to make a thread on WSB or comment on someone else's thread can, and though I would expect that WSB mods do have some financial stake in some of the stocks being discussed there, they are not rigidly tied to the performance of the stocks held by all members of WSB.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,852 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": ">In other words, they’re a hedge fund. I would take issue with your definition of a hedge fund here, there is not a management structure on WSB like there is in a hedge fund - even though WSB ostensibly has mods with more power than the average users there, they don't have the power to make financial decisions for their users like a hedge fund manager would. I would also point out the difference in investors - a hedge fund is required by the SEC to have a majority of its investors be accredited, with >$1 million in net worth, whereas anyone with a reddit account can join WSB and post/comment/upvote/downvote there regardless of NW, accreditation status or what shares and positions they personally hold The compensation of the fund management structure is also different - hedge fund managers compensation is directly tied to the performance of the fund, whereas a WSB user who has no financial incentive or disincentive to make a thread on WSB or comment on someone else's thread can, and though I would expect that WSB mods do have some financial stake in some of the stocks being discussed there, they are not rigidly tied to the performance of the stocks held by all members of WSB.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It's not market manipulation since WSB is a forum shitposting on stocks they like. This might create a herd mentality pushing up stocks they like but that's not collusion. The reason why hedge funds don't get away with this generally is because the SEC focuses in on hedge funds to ensure this doesn't happen. The SEC however is not gonna spend time chasing millions of retail traders, even if what they were doing was market manipulation.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,853 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": ">In other words, they’re a hedge fund. I would take issue with your definition of a hedge fund here, there is not a management structure on WSB like there is in a hedge fund - even though WSB ostensibly has mods with more power than the average users there, they don't have the power to make financial decisions for their users like a hedge fund manager would. I would also point out the difference in investors - a hedge fund is required by the SEC to have a majority of its investors be accredited, with >$1 million in net worth, whereas anyone with a reddit account can join WSB and post/comment/upvote/downvote there regardless of NW, accreditation status or what shares and positions they personally hold The compensation of the fund management structure is also different - hedge fund managers compensation is directly tied to the performance of the fund, whereas a WSB user who has no financial incentive or disincentive to make a thread on WSB or comment on someone else's thread can, and though I would expect that WSB mods do have some financial stake in some of the stocks being discussed there, they are not rigidly tied to the performance of the stocks held by all members of WSB.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "??? Where did you get the idea that WSB is full of people who are colluding? It's normally full of gay bears and bulls, but because of the recent GME shenanigans it's been mostly bulls, since the bears are all fuked. WSB isn't a singular entity in any way, and even in the case of GME, they don't have enough assets together to make it go all the way up to it's current price. There are clearly other players and tons of people outside of WSB are participating. You are very very misinformed as well; it doesn't seem like you know much about the stock market at all based on this post.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,854 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": ">In other words, they’re a hedge fund. I would take issue with your definition of a hedge fund here, there is not a management structure on WSB like there is in a hedge fund - even though WSB ostensibly has mods with more power than the average users there, they don't have the power to make financial decisions for their users like a hedge fund manager would. I would also point out the difference in investors - a hedge fund is required by the SEC to have a majority of its investors be accredited, with >$1 million in net worth, whereas anyone with a reddit account can join WSB and post/comment/upvote/downvote there regardless of NW, accreditation status or what shares and positions they personally hold The compensation of the fund management structure is also different - hedge fund managers compensation is directly tied to the performance of the fund, whereas a WSB user who has no financial incentive or disincentive to make a thread on WSB or comment on someone else's thread can, and though I would expect that WSB mods do have some financial stake in some of the stocks being discussed there, they are not rigidly tied to the performance of the stocks held by all members of WSB.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "A hedge fund is a fund that 'hedges' its position in such a way as to minimize risk and maximize profit. What happened is sort of a 'pump and dump' but where nothing actually illegal has occured because nobody was misled and (assumedly) nobody inside the company was in on the plan. It also isn't as easy as it might seem given this one instance, there is still risk with entering the 'scheme' at any point and a lot of redditors will have lost money.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,855 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Your premise is flawed, though that’s not necessarily all your fault. What is actually happening is the financial press is sensationalizing a story because it’s easier to agent’s more eyeballs than to attempt to explain it - if they even have the ability to understand it. It's not all r/WSB or even mainly them. The stock was considered undervalued by other institutional investors. The fact a short squeeze occurred is newsworthy, however, the finance press is hyping it up, because it’s much more sensational to blame r/WSB than actually attempt to explain the situation that goes back at least a year. In short, there are reasons to think GME was undervalued. A couple hedge fund guys decided it was overvalued and got greedy. Rather than minimize risk, they shorted without buying protection. Now, they will have to buy stock at whatever price exists in a certain timeframe. Everyone knows this and it pushes the price higher - a short squeeze. One of the hedge fund guys has CNBC connections and decided to blame r/WSB since that is easier to do than admit he was an idiot (investors don’t like hearing the guy managing their money might be stupid). Again, the press love it because a real explanation is difficult and a lot more boring. In reality, even if r/WSB was coordinating, they wouldn’t move the needle a whole lot especially not to this level. Meanwhile, it’s actually rather difficult for even institutional investors to coordinate as most stocks are tied up in things like mutual funds and pension plans which have their own objectives and rules. Another, good basic explanation with some more details is here: https://paranoidenough.com/2021/01/25/The-Battle-of-Gamestop.html",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It's not market manipulation since WSB is a forum shitposting on stocks they like. This might create a herd mentality pushing up stocks they like but that's not collusion. The reason why hedge funds don't get away with this generally is because the SEC focuses in on hedge funds to ensure this doesn't happen. The SEC however is not gonna spend time chasing millions of retail traders, even if what they were doing was market manipulation.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,856 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Your premise is flawed, though that’s not necessarily all your fault. What is actually happening is the financial press is sensationalizing a story because it’s easier to agent’s more eyeballs than to attempt to explain it - if they even have the ability to understand it. It's not all r/WSB or even mainly them. The stock was considered undervalued by other institutional investors. The fact a short squeeze occurred is newsworthy, however, the finance press is hyping it up, because it’s much more sensational to blame r/WSB than actually attempt to explain the situation that goes back at least a year. In short, there are reasons to think GME was undervalued. A couple hedge fund guys decided it was overvalued and got greedy. Rather than minimize risk, they shorted without buying protection. Now, they will have to buy stock at whatever price exists in a certain timeframe. Everyone knows this and it pushes the price higher - a short squeeze. One of the hedge fund guys has CNBC connections and decided to blame r/WSB since that is easier to do than admit he was an idiot (investors don’t like hearing the guy managing their money might be stupid). Again, the press love it because a real explanation is difficult and a lot more boring. In reality, even if r/WSB was coordinating, they wouldn’t move the needle a whole lot especially not to this level. Meanwhile, it’s actually rather difficult for even institutional investors to coordinate as most stocks are tied up in things like mutual funds and pension plans which have their own objectives and rules. Another, good basic explanation with some more details is here: https://paranoidenough.com/2021/01/25/The-Battle-of-Gamestop.html",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "??? Where did you get the idea that WSB is full of people who are colluding? It's normally full of gay bears and bulls, but because of the recent GME shenanigans it's been mostly bulls, since the bears are all fuked. WSB isn't a singular entity in any way, and even in the case of GME, they don't have enough assets together to make it go all the way up to it's current price. There are clearly other players and tons of people outside of WSB are participating. You are very very misinformed as well; it doesn't seem like you know much about the stock market at all based on this post.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,857 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Your premise is flawed, though that’s not necessarily all your fault. What is actually happening is the financial press is sensationalizing a story because it’s easier to agent’s more eyeballs than to attempt to explain it - if they even have the ability to understand it. It's not all r/WSB or even mainly them. The stock was considered undervalued by other institutional investors. The fact a short squeeze occurred is newsworthy, however, the finance press is hyping it up, because it’s much more sensational to blame r/WSB than actually attempt to explain the situation that goes back at least a year. In short, there are reasons to think GME was undervalued. A couple hedge fund guys decided it was overvalued and got greedy. Rather than minimize risk, they shorted without buying protection. Now, they will have to buy stock at whatever price exists in a certain timeframe. Everyone knows this and it pushes the price higher - a short squeeze. One of the hedge fund guys has CNBC connections and decided to blame r/WSB since that is easier to do than admit he was an idiot (investors don’t like hearing the guy managing their money might be stupid). Again, the press love it because a real explanation is difficult and a lot more boring. In reality, even if r/WSB was coordinating, they wouldn’t move the needle a whole lot especially not to this level. Meanwhile, it’s actually rather difficult for even institutional investors to coordinate as most stocks are tied up in things like mutual funds and pension plans which have their own objectives and rules. Another, good basic explanation with some more details is here: https://paranoidenough.com/2021/01/25/The-Battle-of-Gamestop.html",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "For the record, r/wallstreetbets didn’t do anything wrong. This whole thing was caused by the abusive and illegal naked short selling done by institutions. Had they not done so, the price never would’ve been so undervalued in the first place. Also, you’re going to have a hell of a time proving 2 million people coordinated an attack and that they did so to artificially drive the price up rather than the fact that “WE LIKE THE STOCK”. Finally, WSB collectively owns less than 5% of gme so it wasn’t all them lmao",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,858 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Your premise is flawed, though that’s not necessarily all your fault. What is actually happening is the financial press is sensationalizing a story because it’s easier to agent’s more eyeballs than to attempt to explain it - if they even have the ability to understand it. It's not all r/WSB or even mainly them. The stock was considered undervalued by other institutional investors. The fact a short squeeze occurred is newsworthy, however, the finance press is hyping it up, because it’s much more sensational to blame r/WSB than actually attempt to explain the situation that goes back at least a year. In short, there are reasons to think GME was undervalued. A couple hedge fund guys decided it was overvalued and got greedy. Rather than minimize risk, they shorted without buying protection. Now, they will have to buy stock at whatever price exists in a certain timeframe. Everyone knows this and it pushes the price higher - a short squeeze. One of the hedge fund guys has CNBC connections and decided to blame r/WSB since that is easier to do than admit he was an idiot (investors don’t like hearing the guy managing their money might be stupid). Again, the press love it because a real explanation is difficult and a lot more boring. In reality, even if r/WSB was coordinating, they wouldn’t move the needle a whole lot especially not to this level. Meanwhile, it’s actually rather difficult for even institutional investors to coordinate as most stocks are tied up in things like mutual funds and pension plans which have their own objectives and rules. Another, good basic explanation with some more details is here: https://paranoidenough.com/2021/01/25/The-Battle-of-Gamestop.html",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "A hedge fund is a fund that 'hedges' its position in such a way as to minimize risk and maximize profit. What happened is sort of a 'pump and dump' but where nothing actually illegal has occured because nobody was misled and (assumedly) nobody inside the company was in on the plan. It also isn't as easy as it might seem given this one instance, there is still risk with entering the 'scheme' at any point and a lot of redditors will have lost money.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,859 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It's not market manipulation since WSB is a forum shitposting on stocks they like. This might create a herd mentality pushing up stocks they like but that's not collusion. The reason why hedge funds don't get away with this generally is because the SEC focuses in on hedge funds to ensure this doesn't happen. The SEC however is not gonna spend time chasing millions of retail traders, even if what they were doing was market manipulation.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "A hedge fund is a fund that 'hedges' its position in such a way as to minimize risk and maximize profit. What happened is sort of a 'pump and dump' but where nothing actually illegal has occured because nobody was misled and (assumedly) nobody inside the company was in on the plan. It also isn't as easy as it might seem given this one instance, there is still risk with entering the 'scheme' at any point and a lot of redditors will have lost money.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,860 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "??? Where did you get the idea that WSB is full of people who are colluding? It's normally full of gay bears and bulls, but because of the recent GME shenanigans it's been mostly bulls, since the bears are all fuked. WSB isn't a singular entity in any way, and even in the case of GME, they don't have enough assets together to make it go all the way up to it's current price. There are clearly other players and tons of people outside of WSB are participating. You are very very misinformed as well; it doesn't seem like you know much about the stock market at all based on this post.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "A hedge fund is a fund that 'hedges' its position in such a way as to minimize risk and maximize profit. What happened is sort of a 'pump and dump' but where nothing actually illegal has occured because nobody was misled and (assumedly) nobody inside the company was in on the plan. It also isn't as easy as it might seem given this one instance, there is still risk with entering the 'scheme' at any point and a lot of redditors will have lost money.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,861 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "For the record, r/wallstreetbets didn’t do anything wrong. This whole thing was caused by the abusive and illegal naked short selling done by institutions. Had they not done so, the price never would’ve been so undervalued in the first place. Also, you’re going to have a hell of a time proving 2 million people coordinated an attack and that they did so to artificially drive the price up rather than the fact that “WE LIKE THE STOCK”. Finally, WSB collectively owns less than 5% of gme so it wasn’t all them lmao",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: If the people at r/wallstreetbets can manipulate the GameStop stock for a meme, then hedge funds that control portfolios worth billions of dollars have been doing it for decades The good people of r/wallstreetbets are, at the best of times, a group of people colluding to invest their money in ways that maximize profits to everyone in the group. In other words, they’re a hedge fund. Between them, they realized that they have control of enough assets to make a meaningful change in a stock price, and they used that to artificially raise the stock price for GameStop, costing people who bought put options billions of dollars. What they did is almost comically simple. Now something tells me that, throughout all of stock market history, this scheme wasn’t thought of for the first time in the past few months. If a bunch of disorganized Reddit accounts can manipulate GameStop’s stock and make money in the process because they think it’s a funny meme, then certainly hedge funds (which are essentially more organized versions of r/wallstreetbets) have been doing it for years.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "A hedge fund is a fund that 'hedges' its position in such a way as to minimize risk and maximize profit. What happened is sort of a 'pump and dump' but where nothing actually illegal has occured because nobody was misled and (assumedly) nobody inside the company was in on the plan. It also isn't as easy as it might seem given this one instance, there is still risk with entering the 'scheme' at any point and a lot of redditors will have lost money.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,862 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Bernie Sanders would've been a better democratic nominee than Joe Biden If you go back into Bernie Sander's past, you won't find many horrible fuck-ups. Sure, he did party and honeymoon in the soviet union but that's really it - and that's not even very horrible. Joe Biden sided with segregationists back in the day and is constantly proving that he is not the greatest choice for president. Bernie Sanders isn't making fuck-ups this bad. Bernie seems more mentally stable than Joe Biden. Also, the radical left and the BLM movement seems to be aiming toward socialism. And with Bernie being a progressive, this would have been a strength given how popular BLM is. Not to mention that Bernie is a BLM activist.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "When you pick a 'moderate' like Biden, there is at least a chance to win over voters in the middle or even to the Republican side. When you pick a far left candidate like Sanders, you are more likely to alienate moderate voters and there's no chance to pick up voters on the Republican side. If people believed Sanders would have been a better candidate, they would have showed up for him during the primaries. But they didn't.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Bernie Sanders would've been a better democratic nominee than Joe Biden If you go back into Bernie Sander's past, you won't find many horrible fuck-ups. Sure, he did party and honeymoon in the soviet union but that's really it - and that's not even very horrible. Joe Biden sided with segregationists back in the day and is constantly proving that he is not the greatest choice for president. Bernie Sanders isn't making fuck-ups this bad. Bernie seems more mentally stable than Joe Biden. Also, the radical left and the BLM movement seems to be aiming toward socialism. And with Bernie being a progressive, this would have been a strength given how popular BLM is. Not to mention that Bernie is a BLM activist.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Wouldn't picking the candidate that lost the primary votes by a large margin be a worse pick?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,863 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Bernie Sanders would've been a better democratic nominee than Joe Biden If you go back into Bernie Sander's past, you won't find many horrible fuck-ups. Sure, he did party and honeymoon in the soviet union but that's really it - and that's not even very horrible. Joe Biden sided with segregationists back in the day and is constantly proving that he is not the greatest choice for president. Bernie Sanders isn't making fuck-ups this bad. Bernie seems more mentally stable than Joe Biden. Also, the radical left and the BLM movement seems to be aiming toward socialism. And with Bernie being a progressive, this would have been a strength given how popular BLM is. Not to mention that Bernie is a BLM activist.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Bernie asserted he could turnout previously unmotivated voters with his brand of progressivism, expanding the Democratic electorate. Virginia is an open primary state, which means you don't register by party, and therefore anyone can participate. As such, it serves as a good case study to test Bernie's claim. Virginia saw a significant increase in turnout over 2016, growing by a staggering 70%. But Bernie improved on his 2016 total by only a modest 30k votes. Biden, on the other hand, improved on Hillary's win by a whopping 200k. It seems Biden motivated the bulk of that new turnout, not Bernie. What's more, most of that new turnout seemed to have come from Congressional districts that flipped from Republican to Democrat in 2018, meaning traditional GOP voters had flipped sides, and we're going for Biden. This boosts Biden's argument that he can appeal to moderates, and mount a broad coalition for November. Now, let's jump to Michigan. Hillary barely lost the state to Trump in the general election, ensuring his victory. We arguably saw the warning light blinking months earlier, when Bernie defied the polls, and eked out a win in the Michigan primary over Hillary. He did it in part by winning 73 of the 83 counties. But in 2020, Before lost *every single one* to Biden. Bernie's vote total *decreased* by 22k, while Biden improved on Hillary by 260k. So Bernie's tenuous grip on the vital state has decisively slipped away. Looking at the larger picture, Bernie's prospects become grimmer. After the Michigan primary, FiveThirtyEight took an account of the primary states that had voted so far, and what did they find? Biden had won 83% (!!!) of the counties that Bernie carried in 2016. That is quite simply a gargantuan collapse of support for Sanders. He nonetheless stuck around for a few weeks longer, and lost more states he had won in 2016, including the pivotal swing state of Wisconsin. He soon dropped out, two months earlier than he had in 2016. Simply put, the writing was on the wall. So Bernie failed to deliver on his promise to drive up new turnout, and then saw his support collapse both across the board, but also in crucial must-win states like Michigan and Wisconsin. It's difficult to make the case for Bernie when his candidacy has become significantly weaker over the last four years, while Biden has not only made gains on Hillary, but also pulled support away from Bernie, and expanded the Democratic electorate with moderates who are disenchanted with the Republican party. It is a true broad-tent coalition, one that can win. Bernie Sanders should be proud that some of his policy goals have gained real traction thanks to his activism, but alas, the presidency is not his fate.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Bernie Sanders would've been a better democratic nominee than Joe Biden If you go back into Bernie Sander's past, you won't find many horrible fuck-ups. Sure, he did party and honeymoon in the soviet union but that's really it - and that's not even very horrible. Joe Biden sided with segregationists back in the day and is constantly proving that he is not the greatest choice for president. Bernie Sanders isn't making fuck-ups this bad. Bernie seems more mentally stable than Joe Biden. Also, the radical left and the BLM movement seems to be aiming toward socialism. And with Bernie being a progressive, this would have been a strength given how popular BLM is. Not to mention that Bernie is a BLM activist.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Wouldn't picking the candidate that lost the primary votes by a large margin be a worse pick?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,864 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Bernie Sanders would've been a better democratic nominee than Joe Biden If you go back into Bernie Sander's past, you won't find many horrible fuck-ups. Sure, he did party and honeymoon in the soviet union but that's really it - and that's not even very horrible. Joe Biden sided with segregationists back in the day and is constantly proving that he is not the greatest choice for president. Bernie Sanders isn't making fuck-ups this bad. Bernie seems more mentally stable than Joe Biden. Also, the radical left and the BLM movement seems to be aiming toward socialism. And with Bernie being a progressive, this would have been a strength given how popular BLM is. Not to mention that Bernie is a BLM activist.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Bernie asserted he could turnout previously unmotivated voters with his brand of progressivism, expanding the Democratic electorate. Virginia is an open primary state, which means you don't register by party, and therefore anyone can participate. As such, it serves as a good case study to test Bernie's claim. Virginia saw a significant increase in turnout over 2016, growing by a staggering 70%. But Bernie improved on his 2016 total by only a modest 30k votes. Biden, on the other hand, improved on Hillary's win by a whopping 200k. It seems Biden motivated the bulk of that new turnout, not Bernie. What's more, most of that new turnout seemed to have come from Congressional districts that flipped from Republican to Democrat in 2018, meaning traditional GOP voters had flipped sides, and we're going for Biden. This boosts Biden's argument that he can appeal to moderates, and mount a broad coalition for November. Now, let's jump to Michigan. Hillary barely lost the state to Trump in the general election, ensuring his victory. We arguably saw the warning light blinking months earlier, when Bernie defied the polls, and eked out a win in the Michigan primary over Hillary. He did it in part by winning 73 of the 83 counties. But in 2020, Before lost *every single one* to Biden. Bernie's vote total *decreased* by 22k, while Biden improved on Hillary by 260k. So Bernie's tenuous grip on the vital state has decisively slipped away. Looking at the larger picture, Bernie's prospects become grimmer. After the Michigan primary, FiveThirtyEight took an account of the primary states that had voted so far, and what did they find? Biden had won 83% (!!!) of the counties that Bernie carried in 2016. That is quite simply a gargantuan collapse of support for Sanders. He nonetheless stuck around for a few weeks longer, and lost more states he had won in 2016, including the pivotal swing state of Wisconsin. He soon dropped out, two months earlier than he had in 2016. Simply put, the writing was on the wall. So Bernie failed to deliver on his promise to drive up new turnout, and then saw his support collapse both across the board, but also in crucial must-win states like Michigan and Wisconsin. It's difficult to make the case for Bernie when his candidacy has become significantly weaker over the last four years, while Biden has not only made gains on Hillary, but also pulled support away from Bernie, and expanded the Democratic electorate with moderates who are disenchanted with the Republican party. It is a true broad-tent coalition, one that can win. Bernie Sanders should be proud that some of his policy goals have gained real traction thanks to his activism, but alas, the presidency is not his fate.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Bernie Sanders would've been a better democratic nominee than Joe Biden If you go back into Bernie Sander's past, you won't find many horrible fuck-ups. Sure, he did party and honeymoon in the soviet union but that's really it - and that's not even very horrible. Joe Biden sided with segregationists back in the day and is constantly proving that he is not the greatest choice for president. Bernie Sanders isn't making fuck-ups this bad. Bernie seems more mentally stable than Joe Biden. Also, the radical left and the BLM movement seems to be aiming toward socialism. And with Bernie being a progressive, this would have been a strength given how popular BLM is. Not to mention that Bernie is a BLM activist.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The biggest advantage that Biden has right now is that he isn't scary. When you're faced with an opponent like Trump, who is a big character, and who, as a result, can scare people off, playing the safe person is very easy. In times of chaos, like with a global pandemic for example, you want stability. Trump does not offer that in spades, which makes him a decent choice for when things are fine, but you want to try something new. That new thing might be good or bad, but what was before wasn't working. It's why he was a good choice in 2016. The right felt like their candidates were all basically part of the establishment, talking up change, and then not giving any. Trump was a reaction to that, and it worked well for him. Bernie is the same. I will agree that he makes less gaffes than Biden, but he is, at his core, a change candidate. A non stable one. He would offer to break what is currently there, not unlike Trump. So in stable times, he might have a chance. But in unstable times, he is at a disadvantage, because if both are big characters, then the American people will dance with the one who brought them. Incumbency has strength, and Bernie would lose to it, because he doesn't feel safer than Trump.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,865 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Bernie Sanders would've been a better democratic nominee than Joe Biden If you go back into Bernie Sander's past, you won't find many horrible fuck-ups. Sure, he did party and honeymoon in the soviet union but that's really it - and that's not even very horrible. Joe Biden sided with segregationists back in the day and is constantly proving that he is not the greatest choice for president. Bernie Sanders isn't making fuck-ups this bad. Bernie seems more mentally stable than Joe Biden. Also, the radical left and the BLM movement seems to be aiming toward socialism. And with Bernie being a progressive, this would have been a strength given how popular BLM is. Not to mention that Bernie is a BLM activist.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Bernie asserted he could turnout previously unmotivated voters with his brand of progressivism, expanding the Democratic electorate. Virginia is an open primary state, which means you don't register by party, and therefore anyone can participate. As such, it serves as a good case study to test Bernie's claim. Virginia saw a significant increase in turnout over 2016, growing by a staggering 70%. But Bernie improved on his 2016 total by only a modest 30k votes. Biden, on the other hand, improved on Hillary's win by a whopping 200k. It seems Biden motivated the bulk of that new turnout, not Bernie. What's more, most of that new turnout seemed to have come from Congressional districts that flipped from Republican to Democrat in 2018, meaning traditional GOP voters had flipped sides, and we're going for Biden. This boosts Biden's argument that he can appeal to moderates, and mount a broad coalition for November. Now, let's jump to Michigan. Hillary barely lost the state to Trump in the general election, ensuring his victory. We arguably saw the warning light blinking months earlier, when Bernie defied the polls, and eked out a win in the Michigan primary over Hillary. He did it in part by winning 73 of the 83 counties. But in 2020, Before lost *every single one* to Biden. Bernie's vote total *decreased* by 22k, while Biden improved on Hillary by 260k. So Bernie's tenuous grip on the vital state has decisively slipped away. Looking at the larger picture, Bernie's prospects become grimmer. After the Michigan primary, FiveThirtyEight took an account of the primary states that had voted so far, and what did they find? Biden had won 83% (!!!) of the counties that Bernie carried in 2016. That is quite simply a gargantuan collapse of support for Sanders. He nonetheless stuck around for a few weeks longer, and lost more states he had won in 2016, including the pivotal swing state of Wisconsin. He soon dropped out, two months earlier than he had in 2016. Simply put, the writing was on the wall. So Bernie failed to deliver on his promise to drive up new turnout, and then saw his support collapse both across the board, but also in crucial must-win states like Michigan and Wisconsin. It's difficult to make the case for Bernie when his candidacy has become significantly weaker over the last four years, while Biden has not only made gains on Hillary, but also pulled support away from Bernie, and expanded the Democratic electorate with moderates who are disenchanted with the Republican party. It is a true broad-tent coalition, one that can win. Bernie Sanders should be proud that some of his policy goals have gained real traction thanks to his activism, but alas, the presidency is not his fate.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Bernie Sanders would've been a better democratic nominee than Joe Biden If you go back into Bernie Sander's past, you won't find many horrible fuck-ups. Sure, he did party and honeymoon in the soviet union but that's really it - and that's not even very horrible. Joe Biden sided with segregationists back in the day and is constantly proving that he is not the greatest choice for president. Bernie Sanders isn't making fuck-ups this bad. Bernie seems more mentally stable than Joe Biden. Also, the radical left and the BLM movement seems to be aiming toward socialism. And with Bernie being a progressive, this would have been a strength given how popular BLM is. Not to mention that Bernie is a BLM activist.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I think Biden’s current sizable lead over Trump is a darn good indication that he’s a strong candidate. My fear with Bernie would be that right now Trump and the conservative media would be freaking out about “socialism” round the clock. It would be ugly and unfair, but just like the “emails” bullshit with Hillary, it would occupy a lot of the news cycle and chip away at Bernie. Currently, no one has figured out how to effectively attack Biden. He may have some weaknesses in areas liberals care about, but it’s not clear if he has any significant weaknesses in areas independents care about. Plus, the media likes Biden and doesn’t particularly love Bernie. That’s also unfair, but it matters. Time will tell if Joe can get liberals to turn out to vote, but I’d guess that voting against Trump is plenty motivation.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,866 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Bernie Sanders would've been a better democratic nominee than Joe Biden If you go back into Bernie Sander's past, you won't find many horrible fuck-ups. Sure, he did party and honeymoon in the soviet union but that's really it - and that's not even very horrible. Joe Biden sided with segregationists back in the day and is constantly proving that he is not the greatest choice for president. Bernie Sanders isn't making fuck-ups this bad. Bernie seems more mentally stable than Joe Biden. Also, the radical left and the BLM movement seems to be aiming toward socialism. And with Bernie being a progressive, this would have been a strength given how popular BLM is. Not to mention that Bernie is a BLM activist.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Bernie asserted he could turnout previously unmotivated voters with his brand of progressivism, expanding the Democratic electorate. Virginia is an open primary state, which means you don't register by party, and therefore anyone can participate. As such, it serves as a good case study to test Bernie's claim. Virginia saw a significant increase in turnout over 2016, growing by a staggering 70%. But Bernie improved on his 2016 total by only a modest 30k votes. Biden, on the other hand, improved on Hillary's win by a whopping 200k. It seems Biden motivated the bulk of that new turnout, not Bernie. What's more, most of that new turnout seemed to have come from Congressional districts that flipped from Republican to Democrat in 2018, meaning traditional GOP voters had flipped sides, and we're going for Biden. This boosts Biden's argument that he can appeal to moderates, and mount a broad coalition for November. Now, let's jump to Michigan. Hillary barely lost the state to Trump in the general election, ensuring his victory. We arguably saw the warning light blinking months earlier, when Bernie defied the polls, and eked out a win in the Michigan primary over Hillary. He did it in part by winning 73 of the 83 counties. But in 2020, Before lost *every single one* to Biden. Bernie's vote total *decreased* by 22k, while Biden improved on Hillary by 260k. So Bernie's tenuous grip on the vital state has decisively slipped away. Looking at the larger picture, Bernie's prospects become grimmer. After the Michigan primary, FiveThirtyEight took an account of the primary states that had voted so far, and what did they find? Biden had won 83% (!!!) of the counties that Bernie carried in 2016. That is quite simply a gargantuan collapse of support for Sanders. He nonetheless stuck around for a few weeks longer, and lost more states he had won in 2016, including the pivotal swing state of Wisconsin. He soon dropped out, two months earlier than he had in 2016. Simply put, the writing was on the wall. So Bernie failed to deliver on his promise to drive up new turnout, and then saw his support collapse both across the board, but also in crucial must-win states like Michigan and Wisconsin. It's difficult to make the case for Bernie when his candidacy has become significantly weaker over the last four years, while Biden has not only made gains on Hillary, but also pulled support away from Bernie, and expanded the Democratic electorate with moderates who are disenchanted with the Republican party. It is a true broad-tent coalition, one that can win. Bernie Sanders should be proud that some of his policy goals have gained real traction thanks to his activism, but alas, the presidency is not his fate.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Bernie Sanders would've been a better democratic nominee than Joe Biden If you go back into Bernie Sander's past, you won't find many horrible fuck-ups. Sure, he did party and honeymoon in the soviet union but that's really it - and that's not even very horrible. Joe Biden sided with segregationists back in the day and is constantly proving that he is not the greatest choice for president. Bernie Sanders isn't making fuck-ups this bad. Bernie seems more mentally stable than Joe Biden. Also, the radical left and the BLM movement seems to be aiming toward socialism. And with Bernie being a progressive, this would have been a strength given how popular BLM is. Not to mention that Bernie is a BLM activist.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "For Bernie to win against Trump in the general election he would have to retake some of the midwest (Ohio Michigan Wisconsin parts of Pennsylvania) ~~~~ Bernies Midwest \"Very Favorable' Score: 17% Trump \"Very Favorable' score: 34% ~~~~ Bernies \"Somewhat Favorable\" score: 17% Trumps \"Somewhat Favorable\" score: 19% ~~~~ Bernies \"Somewhat Unfavorable\" score: 20% Trumps \"Somewhat Unfavorable\" score: 10% ~~~~ Bernies \"Very Unfavorable\" score: 40% Trumps \"Very Unfavorable\" score: 39% He'd get smashed in the Midwest and lose the election",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,867 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Bernie Sanders would've been a better democratic nominee than Joe Biden If you go back into Bernie Sander's past, you won't find many horrible fuck-ups. Sure, he did party and honeymoon in the soviet union but that's really it - and that's not even very horrible. Joe Biden sided with segregationists back in the day and is constantly proving that he is not the greatest choice for president. Bernie Sanders isn't making fuck-ups this bad. Bernie seems more mentally stable than Joe Biden. Also, the radical left and the BLM movement seems to be aiming toward socialism. And with Bernie being a progressive, this would have been a strength given how popular BLM is. Not to mention that Bernie is a BLM activist.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Let me address the claims about Biden's record on black issues. Biden's position on bussing was a lot more nuanced than progressives who see everything as black and white claim they were. During the 1970s, Biden opposed **forced** bussing, meaning that black children had no choice but to go to a school on the opposite side of the city, but supported **voluntary** bussing, where black parents could choose where to send their children. This is important, as the black community was deeply divided over whether or not they wanted it. >Black politicians, activists, parents, and students articulated a wide range of views regarding “busing.” Black nationalists like Roy Innis, director of the Congress of Racial Equality, opposed “busing” in favor of providing the black community with greater control of their schools; U.S. congresswoman Shirley Chisholm, activist Jesse Jackson, and the NAACP offered vocal criticism of racism in “antibusing” protests and legislation, and more cautious support for “busing” as a policy; and black parents took up a range of positions, raising concerns about the quality of schools, the distance of bus rides, and the safety of black children bused to white neighborhoods. Likewise, when it came to the 1990's anti-crime bill, what progressives don't realize is that black people fed up with crime in their neighborhoods were the ones pushing for its passage. This paragraph from the Atlantic is especially illustrating. >Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina, who as House majority whip is the highest-ranking black member of Congress, voted for the crime bill, and he made the same point in vivid terms. In his first congressional race, in 1992, Clyburn once explained to an audience in the historic black enclave of Atlantic Beach that he opposed mandatory minimum prison sentences, which would become a feature of the 1994 legislation. “Those people darn near lynched me in that meeting, and there wasn’t a single white person in the room,” Clyburn told me. “The atmosphere back then—the scourge of crack cocaine and what it was doing in these African American communities—they were all for getting this out of their community.” In both of these cases, Biden did what he always does and *listened* to the black community and came up with a policy that addressed their concerns. Black people know this, and continue to flock to him. During the primary, Sander tried and failed to reach out to black voters. What makes you think he would do better now?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Bernie Sanders would've been a better democratic nominee than Joe Biden If you go back into Bernie Sander's past, you won't find many horrible fuck-ups. Sure, he did party and honeymoon in the soviet union but that's really it - and that's not even very horrible. Joe Biden sided with segregationists back in the day and is constantly proving that he is not the greatest choice for president. Bernie Sanders isn't making fuck-ups this bad. Bernie seems more mentally stable than Joe Biden. Also, the radical left and the BLM movement seems to be aiming toward socialism. And with Bernie being a progressive, this would have been a strength given how popular BLM is. Not to mention that Bernie is a BLM activist.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The biggest advantage that Biden has right now is that he isn't scary. When you're faced with an opponent like Trump, who is a big character, and who, as a result, can scare people off, playing the safe person is very easy. In times of chaos, like with a global pandemic for example, you want stability. Trump does not offer that in spades, which makes him a decent choice for when things are fine, but you want to try something new. That new thing might be good or bad, but what was before wasn't working. It's why he was a good choice in 2016. The right felt like their candidates were all basically part of the establishment, talking up change, and then not giving any. Trump was a reaction to that, and it worked well for him. Bernie is the same. I will agree that he makes less gaffes than Biden, but he is, at his core, a change candidate. A non stable one. He would offer to break what is currently there, not unlike Trump. So in stable times, he might have a chance. But in unstable times, he is at a disadvantage, because if both are big characters, then the American people will dance with the one who brought them. Incumbency has strength, and Bernie would lose to it, because he doesn't feel safer than Trump.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,868 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Bernie Sanders would've been a better democratic nominee than Joe Biden If you go back into Bernie Sander's past, you won't find many horrible fuck-ups. Sure, he did party and honeymoon in the soviet union but that's really it - and that's not even very horrible. Joe Biden sided with segregationists back in the day and is constantly proving that he is not the greatest choice for president. Bernie Sanders isn't making fuck-ups this bad. Bernie seems more mentally stable than Joe Biden. Also, the radical left and the BLM movement seems to be aiming toward socialism. And with Bernie being a progressive, this would have been a strength given how popular BLM is. Not to mention that Bernie is a BLM activist.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Let me address the claims about Biden's record on black issues. Biden's position on bussing was a lot more nuanced than progressives who see everything as black and white claim they were. During the 1970s, Biden opposed **forced** bussing, meaning that black children had no choice but to go to a school on the opposite side of the city, but supported **voluntary** bussing, where black parents could choose where to send their children. This is important, as the black community was deeply divided over whether or not they wanted it. >Black politicians, activists, parents, and students articulated a wide range of views regarding “busing.” Black nationalists like Roy Innis, director of the Congress of Racial Equality, opposed “busing” in favor of providing the black community with greater control of their schools; U.S. congresswoman Shirley Chisholm, activist Jesse Jackson, and the NAACP offered vocal criticism of racism in “antibusing” protests and legislation, and more cautious support for “busing” as a policy; and black parents took up a range of positions, raising concerns about the quality of schools, the distance of bus rides, and the safety of black children bused to white neighborhoods. Likewise, when it came to the 1990's anti-crime bill, what progressives don't realize is that black people fed up with crime in their neighborhoods were the ones pushing for its passage. This paragraph from the Atlantic is especially illustrating. >Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina, who as House majority whip is the highest-ranking black member of Congress, voted for the crime bill, and he made the same point in vivid terms. In his first congressional race, in 1992, Clyburn once explained to an audience in the historic black enclave of Atlantic Beach that he opposed mandatory minimum prison sentences, which would become a feature of the 1994 legislation. “Those people darn near lynched me in that meeting, and there wasn’t a single white person in the room,” Clyburn told me. “The atmosphere back then—the scourge of crack cocaine and what it was doing in these African American communities—they were all for getting this out of their community.” In both of these cases, Biden did what he always does and *listened* to the black community and came up with a policy that addressed their concerns. Black people know this, and continue to flock to him. During the primary, Sander tried and failed to reach out to black voters. What makes you think he would do better now?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Bernie Sanders would've been a better democratic nominee than Joe Biden If you go back into Bernie Sander's past, you won't find many horrible fuck-ups. Sure, he did party and honeymoon in the soviet union but that's really it - and that's not even very horrible. Joe Biden sided with segregationists back in the day and is constantly proving that he is not the greatest choice for president. Bernie Sanders isn't making fuck-ups this bad. Bernie seems more mentally stable than Joe Biden. Also, the radical left and the BLM movement seems to be aiming toward socialism. And with Bernie being a progressive, this would have been a strength given how popular BLM is. Not to mention that Bernie is a BLM activist.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I think Biden’s current sizable lead over Trump is a darn good indication that he’s a strong candidate. My fear with Bernie would be that right now Trump and the conservative media would be freaking out about “socialism” round the clock. It would be ugly and unfair, but just like the “emails” bullshit with Hillary, it would occupy a lot of the news cycle and chip away at Bernie. Currently, no one has figured out how to effectively attack Biden. He may have some weaknesses in areas liberals care about, but it’s not clear if he has any significant weaknesses in areas independents care about. Plus, the media likes Biden and doesn’t particularly love Bernie. That’s also unfair, but it matters. Time will tell if Joe can get liberals to turn out to vote, but I’d guess that voting against Trump is plenty motivation.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,869 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Bernie Sanders would've been a better democratic nominee than Joe Biden If you go back into Bernie Sander's past, you won't find many horrible fuck-ups. Sure, he did party and honeymoon in the soviet union but that's really it - and that's not even very horrible. Joe Biden sided with segregationists back in the day and is constantly proving that he is not the greatest choice for president. Bernie Sanders isn't making fuck-ups this bad. Bernie seems more mentally stable than Joe Biden. Also, the radical left and the BLM movement seems to be aiming toward socialism. And with Bernie being a progressive, this would have been a strength given how popular BLM is. Not to mention that Bernie is a BLM activist.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Let me address the claims about Biden's record on black issues. Biden's position on bussing was a lot more nuanced than progressives who see everything as black and white claim they were. During the 1970s, Biden opposed **forced** bussing, meaning that black children had no choice but to go to a school on the opposite side of the city, but supported **voluntary** bussing, where black parents could choose where to send their children. This is important, as the black community was deeply divided over whether or not they wanted it. >Black politicians, activists, parents, and students articulated a wide range of views regarding “busing.” Black nationalists like Roy Innis, director of the Congress of Racial Equality, opposed “busing” in favor of providing the black community with greater control of their schools; U.S. congresswoman Shirley Chisholm, activist Jesse Jackson, and the NAACP offered vocal criticism of racism in “antibusing” protests and legislation, and more cautious support for “busing” as a policy; and black parents took up a range of positions, raising concerns about the quality of schools, the distance of bus rides, and the safety of black children bused to white neighborhoods. Likewise, when it came to the 1990's anti-crime bill, what progressives don't realize is that black people fed up with crime in their neighborhoods were the ones pushing for its passage. This paragraph from the Atlantic is especially illustrating. >Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina, who as House majority whip is the highest-ranking black member of Congress, voted for the crime bill, and he made the same point in vivid terms. In his first congressional race, in 1992, Clyburn once explained to an audience in the historic black enclave of Atlantic Beach that he opposed mandatory minimum prison sentences, which would become a feature of the 1994 legislation. “Those people darn near lynched me in that meeting, and there wasn’t a single white person in the room,” Clyburn told me. “The atmosphere back then—the scourge of crack cocaine and what it was doing in these African American communities—they were all for getting this out of their community.” In both of these cases, Biden did what he always does and *listened* to the black community and came up with a policy that addressed their concerns. Black people know this, and continue to flock to him. During the primary, Sander tried and failed to reach out to black voters. What makes you think he would do better now?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Bernie Sanders would've been a better democratic nominee than Joe Biden If you go back into Bernie Sander's past, you won't find many horrible fuck-ups. Sure, he did party and honeymoon in the soviet union but that's really it - and that's not even very horrible. Joe Biden sided with segregationists back in the day and is constantly proving that he is not the greatest choice for president. Bernie Sanders isn't making fuck-ups this bad. Bernie seems more mentally stable than Joe Biden. Also, the radical left and the BLM movement seems to be aiming toward socialism. And with Bernie being a progressive, this would have been a strength given how popular BLM is. Not to mention that Bernie is a BLM activist.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "For Bernie to win against Trump in the general election he would have to retake some of the midwest (Ohio Michigan Wisconsin parts of Pennsylvania) ~~~~ Bernies Midwest \"Very Favorable' Score: 17% Trump \"Very Favorable' score: 34% ~~~~ Bernies \"Somewhat Favorable\" score: 17% Trumps \"Somewhat Favorable\" score: 19% ~~~~ Bernies \"Somewhat Unfavorable\" score: 20% Trumps \"Somewhat Unfavorable\" score: 10% ~~~~ Bernies \"Very Unfavorable\" score: 40% Trumps \"Very Unfavorable\" score: 39% He'd get smashed in the Midwest and lose the election",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,870 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Bernie Sanders would've been a better democratic nominee than Joe Biden If you go back into Bernie Sander's past, you won't find many horrible fuck-ups. Sure, he did party and honeymoon in the soviet union but that's really it - and that's not even very horrible. Joe Biden sided with segregationists back in the day and is constantly proving that he is not the greatest choice for president. Bernie Sanders isn't making fuck-ups this bad. Bernie seems more mentally stable than Joe Biden. Also, the radical left and the BLM movement seems to be aiming toward socialism. And with Bernie being a progressive, this would have been a strength given how popular BLM is. Not to mention that Bernie is a BLM activist.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "This is going to get buried, but I want to chime in anyway. I like Bernie a lot. I like his policies. I like his character. He seems like a good man, with honest-to-goodness beliefs that would genuinely improve this country. BUT. A big part of being a good president is about being a good executive. It's about appointing the right people, being able to lead the legislature in order to get congresspeople in line with your overall goals. One way to see how well someone would do a this job is to look at how they run their campaign. And Bernie's campaign this time around was an absolute shit show. He surrounded himself with ideologues, refused to distance himself from the less-popular elements of his coalition (e.g., the \"dirtbag left,\" who legitimately believed that coordinated online harassment campaigns pushed people to join the campaign), and he refused to do the bare minimum of messaging to connect with key constituencies. Leadership is about building a broad coalition in support of your vision for the future, and Bernie utterly failed at that this time around. There's no way around it. As a relatively progressive person, I'm actually quite hopeful for a Biden presidency. Biden isn't an ideologue, but he does know how to make friends and keep them. If we're going to get universal health care in the US, we need a broad coalition to show up to support it, because making systemic changes like that will basically require a supermajority. We can't alienate anybody by calling it \"socialism\" (a word which lots of Latin American immigrant communities view *very* negatively), and we can't afford to alienate anybody by name-calling. We have to have someone who understands the horse trading, the \"you scratch my back and I scratch yours\" kind of favors-trading, and the power building within the party infrastructure. Biden can do that, because he's such a party guy. I don't know that Sanders has shown he can. At least, not with the team he brought into 2020 with him.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Bernie Sanders would've been a better democratic nominee than Joe Biden If you go back into Bernie Sander's past, you won't find many horrible fuck-ups. Sure, he did party and honeymoon in the soviet union but that's really it - and that's not even very horrible. Joe Biden sided with segregationists back in the day and is constantly proving that he is not the greatest choice for president. Bernie Sanders isn't making fuck-ups this bad. Bernie seems more mentally stable than Joe Biden. Also, the radical left and the BLM movement seems to be aiming toward socialism. And with Bernie being a progressive, this would have been a strength given how popular BLM is. Not to mention that Bernie is a BLM activist.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The biggest advantage that Biden has right now is that he isn't scary. When you're faced with an opponent like Trump, who is a big character, and who, as a result, can scare people off, playing the safe person is very easy. In times of chaos, like with a global pandemic for example, you want stability. Trump does not offer that in spades, which makes him a decent choice for when things are fine, but you want to try something new. That new thing might be good or bad, but what was before wasn't working. It's why he was a good choice in 2016. The right felt like their candidates were all basically part of the establishment, talking up change, and then not giving any. Trump was a reaction to that, and it worked well for him. Bernie is the same. I will agree that he makes less gaffes than Biden, but he is, at his core, a change candidate. A non stable one. He would offer to break what is currently there, not unlike Trump. So in stable times, he might have a chance. But in unstable times, he is at a disadvantage, because if both are big characters, then the American people will dance with the one who brought them. Incumbency has strength, and Bernie would lose to it, because he doesn't feel safer than Trump.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,871 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Bernie Sanders would've been a better democratic nominee than Joe Biden If you go back into Bernie Sander's past, you won't find many horrible fuck-ups. Sure, he did party and honeymoon in the soviet union but that's really it - and that's not even very horrible. Joe Biden sided with segregationists back in the day and is constantly proving that he is not the greatest choice for president. Bernie Sanders isn't making fuck-ups this bad. Bernie seems more mentally stable than Joe Biden. Also, the radical left and the BLM movement seems to be aiming toward socialism. And with Bernie being a progressive, this would have been a strength given how popular BLM is. Not to mention that Bernie is a BLM activist.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "This is going to get buried, but I want to chime in anyway. I like Bernie a lot. I like his policies. I like his character. He seems like a good man, with honest-to-goodness beliefs that would genuinely improve this country. BUT. A big part of being a good president is about being a good executive. It's about appointing the right people, being able to lead the legislature in order to get congresspeople in line with your overall goals. One way to see how well someone would do a this job is to look at how they run their campaign. And Bernie's campaign this time around was an absolute shit show. He surrounded himself with ideologues, refused to distance himself from the less-popular elements of his coalition (e.g., the \"dirtbag left,\" who legitimately believed that coordinated online harassment campaigns pushed people to join the campaign), and he refused to do the bare minimum of messaging to connect with key constituencies. Leadership is about building a broad coalition in support of your vision for the future, and Bernie utterly failed at that this time around. There's no way around it. As a relatively progressive person, I'm actually quite hopeful for a Biden presidency. Biden isn't an ideologue, but he does know how to make friends and keep them. If we're going to get universal health care in the US, we need a broad coalition to show up to support it, because making systemic changes like that will basically require a supermajority. We can't alienate anybody by calling it \"socialism\" (a word which lots of Latin American immigrant communities view *very* negatively), and we can't afford to alienate anybody by name-calling. We have to have someone who understands the horse trading, the \"you scratch my back and I scratch yours\" kind of favors-trading, and the power building within the party infrastructure. Biden can do that, because he's such a party guy. I don't know that Sanders has shown he can. At least, not with the team he brought into 2020 with him.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Bernie Sanders would've been a better democratic nominee than Joe Biden If you go back into Bernie Sander's past, you won't find many horrible fuck-ups. Sure, he did party and honeymoon in the soviet union but that's really it - and that's not even very horrible. Joe Biden sided with segregationists back in the day and is constantly proving that he is not the greatest choice for president. Bernie Sanders isn't making fuck-ups this bad. Bernie seems more mentally stable than Joe Biden. Also, the radical left and the BLM movement seems to be aiming toward socialism. And with Bernie being a progressive, this would have been a strength given how popular BLM is. Not to mention that Bernie is a BLM activist.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I think Biden’s current sizable lead over Trump is a darn good indication that he’s a strong candidate. My fear with Bernie would be that right now Trump and the conservative media would be freaking out about “socialism” round the clock. It would be ugly and unfair, but just like the “emails” bullshit with Hillary, it would occupy a lot of the news cycle and chip away at Bernie. Currently, no one has figured out how to effectively attack Biden. He may have some weaknesses in areas liberals care about, but it’s not clear if he has any significant weaknesses in areas independents care about. Plus, the media likes Biden and doesn’t particularly love Bernie. That’s also unfair, but it matters. Time will tell if Joe can get liberals to turn out to vote, but I’d guess that voting against Trump is plenty motivation.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,872 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Bernie Sanders would've been a better democratic nominee than Joe Biden If you go back into Bernie Sander's past, you won't find many horrible fuck-ups. Sure, he did party and honeymoon in the soviet union but that's really it - and that's not even very horrible. Joe Biden sided with segregationists back in the day and is constantly proving that he is not the greatest choice for president. Bernie Sanders isn't making fuck-ups this bad. Bernie seems more mentally stable than Joe Biden. Also, the radical left and the BLM movement seems to be aiming toward socialism. And with Bernie being a progressive, this would have been a strength given how popular BLM is. Not to mention that Bernie is a BLM activist.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "This is going to get buried, but I want to chime in anyway. I like Bernie a lot. I like his policies. I like his character. He seems like a good man, with honest-to-goodness beliefs that would genuinely improve this country. BUT. A big part of being a good president is about being a good executive. It's about appointing the right people, being able to lead the legislature in order to get congresspeople in line with your overall goals. One way to see how well someone would do a this job is to look at how they run their campaign. And Bernie's campaign this time around was an absolute shit show. He surrounded himself with ideologues, refused to distance himself from the less-popular elements of his coalition (e.g., the \"dirtbag left,\" who legitimately believed that coordinated online harassment campaigns pushed people to join the campaign), and he refused to do the bare minimum of messaging to connect with key constituencies. Leadership is about building a broad coalition in support of your vision for the future, and Bernie utterly failed at that this time around. There's no way around it. As a relatively progressive person, I'm actually quite hopeful for a Biden presidency. Biden isn't an ideologue, but he does know how to make friends and keep them. If we're going to get universal health care in the US, we need a broad coalition to show up to support it, because making systemic changes like that will basically require a supermajority. We can't alienate anybody by calling it \"socialism\" (a word which lots of Latin American immigrant communities view *very* negatively), and we can't afford to alienate anybody by name-calling. We have to have someone who understands the horse trading, the \"you scratch my back and I scratch yours\" kind of favors-trading, and the power building within the party infrastructure. Biden can do that, because he's such a party guy. I don't know that Sanders has shown he can. At least, not with the team he brought into 2020 with him.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Bernie Sanders would've been a better democratic nominee than Joe Biden If you go back into Bernie Sander's past, you won't find many horrible fuck-ups. Sure, he did party and honeymoon in the soviet union but that's really it - and that's not even very horrible. Joe Biden sided with segregationists back in the day and is constantly proving that he is not the greatest choice for president. Bernie Sanders isn't making fuck-ups this bad. Bernie seems more mentally stable than Joe Biden. Also, the radical left and the BLM movement seems to be aiming toward socialism. And with Bernie being a progressive, this would have been a strength given how popular BLM is. Not to mention that Bernie is a BLM activist.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "For Bernie to win against Trump in the general election he would have to retake some of the midwest (Ohio Michigan Wisconsin parts of Pennsylvania) ~~~~ Bernies Midwest \"Very Favorable' Score: 17% Trump \"Very Favorable' score: 34% ~~~~ Bernies \"Somewhat Favorable\" score: 17% Trumps \"Somewhat Favorable\" score: 19% ~~~~ Bernies \"Somewhat Unfavorable\" score: 20% Trumps \"Somewhat Unfavorable\" score: 10% ~~~~ Bernies \"Very Unfavorable\" score: 40% Trumps \"Very Unfavorable\" score: 39% He'd get smashed in the Midwest and lose the election",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,873 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Bernie Sanders would've been a better democratic nominee than Joe Biden If you go back into Bernie Sander's past, you won't find many horrible fuck-ups. Sure, he did party and honeymoon in the soviet union but that's really it - and that's not even very horrible. Joe Biden sided with segregationists back in the day and is constantly proving that he is not the greatest choice for president. Bernie Sanders isn't making fuck-ups this bad. Bernie seems more mentally stable than Joe Biden. Also, the radical left and the BLM movement seems to be aiming toward socialism. And with Bernie being a progressive, this would have been a strength given how popular BLM is. Not to mention that Bernie is a BLM activist.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "The biggest advantage that Biden has right now is that he isn't scary. When you're faced with an opponent like Trump, who is a big character, and who, as a result, can scare people off, playing the safe person is very easy. In times of chaos, like with a global pandemic for example, you want stability. Trump does not offer that in spades, which makes him a decent choice for when things are fine, but you want to try something new. That new thing might be good or bad, but what was before wasn't working. It's why he was a good choice in 2016. The right felt like their candidates were all basically part of the establishment, talking up change, and then not giving any. Trump was a reaction to that, and it worked well for him. Bernie is the same. I will agree that he makes less gaffes than Biden, but he is, at his core, a change candidate. A non stable one. He would offer to break what is currently there, not unlike Trump. So in stable times, he might have a chance. But in unstable times, he is at a disadvantage, because if both are big characters, then the American people will dance with the one who brought them. Incumbency has strength, and Bernie would lose to it, because he doesn't feel safer than Trump.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Bernie Sanders would've been a better democratic nominee than Joe Biden If you go back into Bernie Sander's past, you won't find many horrible fuck-ups. Sure, he did party and honeymoon in the soviet union but that's really it - and that's not even very horrible. Joe Biden sided with segregationists back in the day and is constantly proving that he is not the greatest choice for president. Bernie Sanders isn't making fuck-ups this bad. Bernie seems more mentally stable than Joe Biden. Also, the radical left and the BLM movement seems to be aiming toward socialism. And with Bernie being a progressive, this would have been a strength given how popular BLM is. Not to mention that Bernie is a BLM activist.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "For Bernie to win against Trump in the general election he would have to retake some of the midwest (Ohio Michigan Wisconsin parts of Pennsylvania) ~~~~ Bernies Midwest \"Very Favorable' Score: 17% Trump \"Very Favorable' score: 34% ~~~~ Bernies \"Somewhat Favorable\" score: 17% Trumps \"Somewhat Favorable\" score: 19% ~~~~ Bernies \"Somewhat Unfavorable\" score: 20% Trumps \"Somewhat Unfavorable\" score: 10% ~~~~ Bernies \"Very Unfavorable\" score: 40% Trumps \"Very Unfavorable\" score: 39% He'd get smashed in the Midwest and lose the election",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,874 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Bernie Sanders would've been a better democratic nominee than Joe Biden If you go back into Bernie Sander's past, you won't find many horrible fuck-ups. Sure, he did party and honeymoon in the soviet union but that's really it - and that's not even very horrible. Joe Biden sided with segregationists back in the day and is constantly proving that he is not the greatest choice for president. Bernie Sanders isn't making fuck-ups this bad. Bernie seems more mentally stable than Joe Biden. Also, the radical left and the BLM movement seems to be aiming toward socialism. And with Bernie being a progressive, this would have been a strength given how popular BLM is. Not to mention that Bernie is a BLM activist.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I've heard analysis that part of the reason Joe Biden is doing better than Hillary Clinton against Trump is that Biden is significantly harder to hate than Clinton. Not only has the Republican base not been primed to dislike Biden in the same visceral way, but Biden has a background which rightly or wrongly connects him to traditionally Republican voters - he's Scranton Joe after all. Sanders is a socialist. He hates red America. He defends the Castro regime. He wants to remake the fabric of the country to give more of your tax dollars to welfare queens and college communists. Is that true? No, not exactly. But these same attacks that Biden is able to shrug off would hang around Sanders's neck like an anchor. Part of that is Sanders's fault, partly because he does have some more left views than Biden and partly because he either can't or won't give more political answers. The campaign against Sanders would be looking a lot different than the campaign against now against Biden.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Bernie Sanders would've been a better democratic nominee than Joe Biden If you go back into Bernie Sander's past, you won't find many horrible fuck-ups. Sure, he did party and honeymoon in the soviet union but that's really it - and that's not even very horrible. Joe Biden sided with segregationists back in the day and is constantly proving that he is not the greatest choice for president. Bernie Sanders isn't making fuck-ups this bad. Bernie seems more mentally stable than Joe Biden. Also, the radical left and the BLM movement seems to be aiming toward socialism. And with Bernie being a progressive, this would have been a strength given how popular BLM is. Not to mention that Bernie is a BLM activist.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I think Biden’s current sizable lead over Trump is a darn good indication that he’s a strong candidate. My fear with Bernie would be that right now Trump and the conservative media would be freaking out about “socialism” round the clock. It would be ugly and unfair, but just like the “emails” bullshit with Hillary, it would occupy a lot of the news cycle and chip away at Bernie. Currently, no one has figured out how to effectively attack Biden. He may have some weaknesses in areas liberals care about, but it’s not clear if he has any significant weaknesses in areas independents care about. Plus, the media likes Biden and doesn’t particularly love Bernie. That’s also unfair, but it matters. Time will tell if Joe can get liberals to turn out to vote, but I’d guess that voting against Trump is plenty motivation.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,875 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Bernie Sanders would've been a better democratic nominee than Joe Biden If you go back into Bernie Sander's past, you won't find many horrible fuck-ups. Sure, he did party and honeymoon in the soviet union but that's really it - and that's not even very horrible. Joe Biden sided with segregationists back in the day and is constantly proving that he is not the greatest choice for president. Bernie Sanders isn't making fuck-ups this bad. Bernie seems more mentally stable than Joe Biden. Also, the radical left and the BLM movement seems to be aiming toward socialism. And with Bernie being a progressive, this would have been a strength given how popular BLM is. Not to mention that Bernie is a BLM activist.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I've heard analysis that part of the reason Joe Biden is doing better than Hillary Clinton against Trump is that Biden is significantly harder to hate than Clinton. Not only has the Republican base not been primed to dislike Biden in the same visceral way, but Biden has a background which rightly or wrongly connects him to traditionally Republican voters - he's Scranton Joe after all. Sanders is a socialist. He hates red America. He defends the Castro regime. He wants to remake the fabric of the country to give more of your tax dollars to welfare queens and college communists. Is that true? No, not exactly. But these same attacks that Biden is able to shrug off would hang around Sanders's neck like an anchor. Part of that is Sanders's fault, partly because he does have some more left views than Biden and partly because he either can't or won't give more political answers. The campaign against Sanders would be looking a lot different than the campaign against now against Biden.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Bernie Sanders would've been a better democratic nominee than Joe Biden If you go back into Bernie Sander's past, you won't find many horrible fuck-ups. Sure, he did party and honeymoon in the soviet union but that's really it - and that's not even very horrible. Joe Biden sided with segregationists back in the day and is constantly proving that he is not the greatest choice for president. Bernie Sanders isn't making fuck-ups this bad. Bernie seems more mentally stable than Joe Biden. Also, the radical left and the BLM movement seems to be aiming toward socialism. And with Bernie being a progressive, this would have been a strength given how popular BLM is. Not to mention that Bernie is a BLM activist.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "For Bernie to win against Trump in the general election he would have to retake some of the midwest (Ohio Michigan Wisconsin parts of Pennsylvania) ~~~~ Bernies Midwest \"Very Favorable' Score: 17% Trump \"Very Favorable' score: 34% ~~~~ Bernies \"Somewhat Favorable\" score: 17% Trumps \"Somewhat Favorable\" score: 19% ~~~~ Bernies \"Somewhat Unfavorable\" score: 20% Trumps \"Somewhat Unfavorable\" score: 10% ~~~~ Bernies \"Very Unfavorable\" score: 40% Trumps \"Very Unfavorable\" score: 39% He'd get smashed in the Midwest and lose the election",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,876 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Bernie Sanders would've been a better democratic nominee than Joe Biden If you go back into Bernie Sander's past, you won't find many horrible fuck-ups. Sure, he did party and honeymoon in the soviet union but that's really it - and that's not even very horrible. Joe Biden sided with segregationists back in the day and is constantly proving that he is not the greatest choice for president. Bernie Sanders isn't making fuck-ups this bad. Bernie seems more mentally stable than Joe Biden. Also, the radical left and the BLM movement seems to be aiming toward socialism. And with Bernie being a progressive, this would have been a strength given how popular BLM is. Not to mention that Bernie is a BLM activist.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "I think Biden’s current sizable lead over Trump is a darn good indication that he’s a strong candidate. My fear with Bernie would be that right now Trump and the conservative media would be freaking out about “socialism” round the clock. It would be ugly and unfair, but just like the “emails” bullshit with Hillary, it would occupy a lot of the news cycle and chip away at Bernie. Currently, no one has figured out how to effectively attack Biden. He may have some weaknesses in areas liberals care about, but it’s not clear if he has any significant weaknesses in areas independents care about. Plus, the media likes Biden and doesn’t particularly love Bernie. That’s also unfair, but it matters. Time will tell if Joe can get liberals to turn out to vote, but I’d guess that voting against Trump is plenty motivation.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Bernie Sanders would've been a better democratic nominee than Joe Biden If you go back into Bernie Sander's past, you won't find many horrible fuck-ups. Sure, he did party and honeymoon in the soviet union but that's really it - and that's not even very horrible. Joe Biden sided with segregationists back in the day and is constantly proving that he is not the greatest choice for president. Bernie Sanders isn't making fuck-ups this bad. Bernie seems more mentally stable than Joe Biden. Also, the radical left and the BLM movement seems to be aiming toward socialism. And with Bernie being a progressive, this would have been a strength given how popular BLM is. Not to mention that Bernie is a BLM activist.",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "For Bernie to win against Trump in the general election he would have to retake some of the midwest (Ohio Michigan Wisconsin parts of Pennsylvania) ~~~~ Bernies Midwest \"Very Favorable' Score: 17% Trump \"Very Favorable' score: 34% ~~~~ Bernies \"Somewhat Favorable\" score: 17% Trumps \"Somewhat Favorable\" score: 19% ~~~~ Bernies \"Somewhat Unfavorable\" score: 20% Trumps \"Somewhat Unfavorable\" score: 10% ~~~~ Bernies \"Very Unfavorable\" score: 40% Trumps \"Very Unfavorable\" score: 39% He'd get smashed in the Midwest and lose the election",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,877 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Lying to a sexual partner about being on birth control should be a punishable offense. If a man lies that he's had a vasectomy in order to have unprotected sex, he deserves to be punished. If a man removes a condom mid-sex without the knowledge (and/or approval) of his partner, that should be punished. If a woman lies about being on birth control and has sex with a man, she deserves to be punished. Same applies if she claims that she's already pregnant, when she isn't. If a woman has previously taken birth control pills and then decides to stop taking them, she should be legally obliged to tell her sexual partner(s) about it before having sex with them again, if she has previously told them that she's on birth control. Same applies for a man who decides to reverse his vasectomy. My opinion applies even if they don't result in a pregnancy or an STD. Of course it has to be **proven** that there was deception, because pregnancies can still happen even with birth control. I don't want to see people punished for defying the odds. Can you change my view?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Saying that people who lie about birth control deserve to be punished is not the same thing as saying they actually should be punished for it. I'd just ask you to consider if it's a wise or practical idea to have courts so heavily intervening in intimate moments of relationships. Do we want our courts clogged with interpersonal spats that may hinge entirely on a few words in the heat of passion? Can we even expect the courts to pick out who is the liar and who is not with any real accuracy? How much money and time is going to be wasted not just by participants but by the taxpayer and the courts to settle personal vendettas in a sloppy and inaccurate manner? Now some may point out that we already do this to some degree with rape cases, but I'd contend only out of absolute necessity. We cannot afford to have any tolerance for sexual assault, and the unfortunate reality is this absolutely horrible crime sometimes hinges on a few words or acts in intimate settings. But just because we have no choice but to have the courts involved in these cases doesn't mean we should open the courts to all kinds of petty lovers' quarrels. This is a big enough headache when it comes to sex that results in pregnancy. Both side may legitimately think they are telling the truth when in reality the birth control simply failed (none are 100%). But add in cases where it didn't result in pregnancy and there's no proof of anything. It's just a system when one emotionally hurt ex-lover can attempt to criminal punish the other. It's more likely to be used for extortion than anything positive. Then there's the problem of why should we stop there? Why not criminalize all lies that lead to sex, and given that two people in romantic buildup are rarely completely honest about their bad sides we can damn near make all intercourse criminal. We could have the government's blunt force applied to every hook up. The idea of government intervening heavily in interpersonal relationships sounds like a gigantic nightmare if you ask me. Single people looking for relationships or even one night stands have to make their own judgment calls. There's no amount of law that's going to change that. You need to be good at determine who is honest and who is a liar, or alternatively accept the consequences if you don't really care. Absolutely make sure you personally take care of birth control and don't leave that to the word of someone you do not absolutely trust. Your solution is worse than your problem.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Lying to a sexual partner about being on birth control should be a punishable offense. If a man lies that he's had a vasectomy in order to have unprotected sex, he deserves to be punished. If a man removes a condom mid-sex without the knowledge (and/or approval) of his partner, that should be punished. If a woman lies about being on birth control and has sex with a man, she deserves to be punished. Same applies if she claims that she's already pregnant, when she isn't. If a woman has previously taken birth control pills and then decides to stop taking them, she should be legally obliged to tell her sexual partner(s) about it before having sex with them again, if she has previously told them that she's on birth control. Same applies for a man who decides to reverse his vasectomy. My opinion applies even if they don't result in a pregnancy or an STD. Of course it has to be **proven** that there was deception, because pregnancies can still happen even with birth control. I don't want to see people punished for defying the odds. Can you change my view?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "In theory, I agree. But practical enforcement in a democracy is impossible. Practically, actually, physically, historically, humanly and philosophically, it is impossible to distance the act of sex from procreation dispite the existence of birth control. Think about the enormity of what you are suggesting. Since the dawn of time, every single sexual encounter ran the risk of pregnancy. The concept of consistantly reliable birth control was non-existent. This is a modern phenomena. And that doesn't exist 100%, either. Unless you had a written and enforceable signed contract before each encounter, and elected legislatures willing to pass laws written to specifically to enforce such sexual contracts, and SCOTUS judges willing to uphold such laws, and juries willing to convict based upon them, there is no chance. People lie. When there is no proof and the heat of the moment is paramount, people will lie. Therefore, there is a world of difference between \"should be enforceable \" and \"can be enforceable. \" Additionally, why add this layer of legal complexity to an already complex social and altogether basically and intimately human situation? Frankly, it's the ultimate in having your cake and eating it too. Every time you drive a car, you accept the risk of a crash. That's why car insurance is mandatory. And it WILL happen eventually. Every time you fly in a plane, you accept that it might crash. That's why you carry life insurance. Every time you eat a greasy fat burger, you accept the risk of weight gain or a heart attack. That's why you have health insurence. Every time anyone has sex, legally both parties are agreeing to accept the risk that the woman might become pregnant. Nothing is 100%. Part of being alive and experiencing all that life has to offer comes with risk. The same goes for sex. One final point: regardless of any and all agreements before sex, all legal decisions hinge on only one thing: the welfare of the child. (Edit: Except for rape) no legislature, jury, judge or society is going to de facto punish a child (by jailing a parent) for the act that brought it into the world. Edit: It occurs to me that bungee jumping is something similar to what you are suggesting. You want the thrill. They are willing to give you the thrill. There is some safety gear that you hope is sufficient. Everyone does what they can to keep you alive. You dont expect the worst to happen, but you still sign a waiver before you jump.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,878 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Lying to a sexual partner about being on birth control should be a punishable offense. If a man lies that he's had a vasectomy in order to have unprotected sex, he deserves to be punished. If a man removes a condom mid-sex without the knowledge (and/or approval) of his partner, that should be punished. If a woman lies about being on birth control and has sex with a man, she deserves to be punished. Same applies if she claims that she's already pregnant, when she isn't. If a woman has previously taken birth control pills and then decides to stop taking them, she should be legally obliged to tell her sexual partner(s) about it before having sex with them again, if she has previously told them that she's on birth control. Same applies for a man who decides to reverse his vasectomy. My opinion applies even if they don't result in a pregnancy or an STD. Of course it has to be **proven** that there was deception, because pregnancies can still happen even with birth control. I don't want to see people punished for defying the odds. Can you change my view?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It's illegal to take of the condom because you are exposing your partner to physical harm. They are now exposed to STDs and if female they can get pregnant which will either end with an abortion, miscarriage or birth. You can cause your partner physical pain and discomfort. This does not happen at all when a woman lies about birth control. The only one physically affected would be the woman, not her partner. I think lying about birth control is abusive, but it is not the same thing as taking of a condom.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Lying to a sexual partner about being on birth control should be a punishable offense. If a man lies that he's had a vasectomy in order to have unprotected sex, he deserves to be punished. If a man removes a condom mid-sex without the knowledge (and/or approval) of his partner, that should be punished. If a woman lies about being on birth control and has sex with a man, she deserves to be punished. Same applies if she claims that she's already pregnant, when she isn't. If a woman has previously taken birth control pills and then decides to stop taking them, she should be legally obliged to tell her sexual partner(s) about it before having sex with them again, if she has previously told them that she's on birth control. Same applies for a man who decides to reverse his vasectomy. My opinion applies even if they don't result in a pregnancy or an STD. Of course it has to be **proven** that there was deception, because pregnancies can still happen even with birth control. I don't want to see people punished for defying the odds. Can you change my view?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "My thought is, each party can use birth control. You are ultimately responsible for you. Men cause pregnancy. Use at your own risk (!)",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,879 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Lying to a sexual partner about being on birth control should be a punishable offense. If a man lies that he's had a vasectomy in order to have unprotected sex, he deserves to be punished. If a man removes a condom mid-sex without the knowledge (and/or approval) of his partner, that should be punished. If a woman lies about being on birth control and has sex with a man, she deserves to be punished. Same applies if she claims that she's already pregnant, when she isn't. If a woman has previously taken birth control pills and then decides to stop taking them, she should be legally obliged to tell her sexual partner(s) about it before having sex with them again, if she has previously told them that she's on birth control. Same applies for a man who decides to reverse his vasectomy. My opinion applies even if they don't result in a pregnancy or an STD. Of course it has to be **proven** that there was deception, because pregnancies can still happen even with birth control. I don't want to see people punished for defying the odds. Can you change my view?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It's illegal to take of the condom because you are exposing your partner to physical harm. They are now exposed to STDs and if female they can get pregnant which will either end with an abortion, miscarriage or birth. You can cause your partner physical pain and discomfort. This does not happen at all when a woman lies about birth control. The only one physically affected would be the woman, not her partner. I think lying about birth control is abusive, but it is not the same thing as taking of a condom.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Lying to a sexual partner about being on birth control should be a punishable offense. If a man lies that he's had a vasectomy in order to have unprotected sex, he deserves to be punished. If a man removes a condom mid-sex without the knowledge (and/or approval) of his partner, that should be punished. If a woman lies about being on birth control and has sex with a man, she deserves to be punished. Same applies if she claims that she's already pregnant, when she isn't. If a woman has previously taken birth control pills and then decides to stop taking them, she should be legally obliged to tell her sexual partner(s) about it before having sex with them again, if she has previously told them that she's on birth control. Same applies for a man who decides to reverse his vasectomy. My opinion applies even if they don't result in a pregnancy or an STD. Of course it has to be **proven** that there was deception, because pregnancies can still happen even with birth control. I don't want to see people punished for defying the odds. Can you change my view?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "In theory, I agree. But practical enforcement in a democracy is impossible. Practically, actually, physically, historically, humanly and philosophically, it is impossible to distance the act of sex from procreation dispite the existence of birth control. Think about the enormity of what you are suggesting. Since the dawn of time, every single sexual encounter ran the risk of pregnancy. The concept of consistantly reliable birth control was non-existent. This is a modern phenomena. And that doesn't exist 100%, either. Unless you had a written and enforceable signed contract before each encounter, and elected legislatures willing to pass laws written to specifically to enforce such sexual contracts, and SCOTUS judges willing to uphold such laws, and juries willing to convict based upon them, there is no chance. People lie. When there is no proof and the heat of the moment is paramount, people will lie. Therefore, there is a world of difference between \"should be enforceable \" and \"can be enforceable. \" Additionally, why add this layer of legal complexity to an already complex social and altogether basically and intimately human situation? Frankly, it's the ultimate in having your cake and eating it too. Every time you drive a car, you accept the risk of a crash. That's why car insurance is mandatory. And it WILL happen eventually. Every time you fly in a plane, you accept that it might crash. That's why you carry life insurance. Every time you eat a greasy fat burger, you accept the risk of weight gain or a heart attack. That's why you have health insurence. Every time anyone has sex, legally both parties are agreeing to accept the risk that the woman might become pregnant. Nothing is 100%. Part of being alive and experiencing all that life has to offer comes with risk. The same goes for sex. One final point: regardless of any and all agreements before sex, all legal decisions hinge on only one thing: the welfare of the child. (Edit: Except for rape) no legislature, jury, judge or society is going to de facto punish a child (by jailing a parent) for the act that brought it into the world. Edit: It occurs to me that bungee jumping is something similar to what you are suggesting. You want the thrill. They are willing to give you the thrill. There is some safety gear that you hope is sufficient. Everyone does what they can to keep you alive. You dont expect the worst to happen, but you still sign a waiver before you jump.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,880 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Lying to a sexual partner about being on birth control should be a punishable offense. If a man lies that he's had a vasectomy in order to have unprotected sex, he deserves to be punished. If a man removes a condom mid-sex without the knowledge (and/or approval) of his partner, that should be punished. If a woman lies about being on birth control and has sex with a man, she deserves to be punished. Same applies if she claims that she's already pregnant, when she isn't. If a woman has previously taken birth control pills and then decides to stop taking them, she should be legally obliged to tell her sexual partner(s) about it before having sex with them again, if she has previously told them that she's on birth control. Same applies for a man who decides to reverse his vasectomy. My opinion applies even if they don't result in a pregnancy or an STD. Of course it has to be **proven** that there was deception, because pregnancies can still happen even with birth control. I don't want to see people punished for defying the odds. Can you change my view?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It's illegal to take of the condom because you are exposing your partner to physical harm. They are now exposed to STDs and if female they can get pregnant which will either end with an abortion, miscarriage or birth. You can cause your partner physical pain and discomfort. This does not happen at all when a woman lies about birth control. The only one physically affected would be the woman, not her partner. I think lying about birth control is abusive, but it is not the same thing as taking of a condom.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Lying to a sexual partner about being on birth control should be a punishable offense. If a man lies that he's had a vasectomy in order to have unprotected sex, he deserves to be punished. If a man removes a condom mid-sex without the knowledge (and/or approval) of his partner, that should be punished. If a woman lies about being on birth control and has sex with a man, she deserves to be punished. Same applies if she claims that she's already pregnant, when she isn't. If a woman has previously taken birth control pills and then decides to stop taking them, she should be legally obliged to tell her sexual partner(s) about it before having sex with them again, if she has previously told them that she's on birth control. Same applies for a man who decides to reverse his vasectomy. My opinion applies even if they don't result in a pregnancy or an STD. Of course it has to be **proven** that there was deception, because pregnancies can still happen even with birth control. I don't want to see people punished for defying the odds. Can you change my view?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "You just listed things you wan to happen. Can you explain the WHY part?",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,881 |
[
{
"content": "CMV: Lying to a sexual partner about being on birth control should be a punishable offense. If a man lies that he's had a vasectomy in order to have unprotected sex, he deserves to be punished. If a man removes a condom mid-sex without the knowledge (and/or approval) of his partner, that should be punished. If a woman lies about being on birth control and has sex with a man, she deserves to be punished. Same applies if she claims that she's already pregnant, when she isn't. If a woman has previously taken birth control pills and then decides to stop taking them, she should be legally obliged to tell her sexual partner(s) about it before having sex with them again, if she has previously told them that she's on birth control. Same applies for a man who decides to reverse his vasectomy. My opinion applies even if they don't result in a pregnancy or an STD. Of course it has to be **proven** that there was deception, because pregnancies can still happen even with birth control. I don't want to see people punished for defying the odds. Can you change my view?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "It's illegal to take of the condom because you are exposing your partner to physical harm. They are now exposed to STDs and if female they can get pregnant which will either end with an abortion, miscarriage or birth. You can cause your partner physical pain and discomfort. This does not happen at all when a woman lies about birth control. The only one physically affected would be the woman, not her partner. I think lying about birth control is abusive, but it is not the same thing as taking of a condom.",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | [
{
"content": "CMV: Lying to a sexual partner about being on birth control should be a punishable offense. If a man lies that he's had a vasectomy in order to have unprotected sex, he deserves to be punished. If a man removes a condom mid-sex without the knowledge (and/or approval) of his partner, that should be punished. If a woman lies about being on birth control and has sex with a man, she deserves to be punished. Same applies if she claims that she's already pregnant, when she isn't. If a woman has previously taken birth control pills and then decides to stop taking them, she should be legally obliged to tell her sexual partner(s) about it before having sex with them again, if she has previously told them that she's on birth control. Same applies for a man who decides to reverse his vasectomy. My opinion applies even if they don't result in a pregnancy or an STD. Of course it has to be **proven** that there was deception, because pregnancies can still happen even with birth control. I don't want to see people punished for defying the odds. Can you change my view?",
"role": "user"
},
{
"content": "Legally speaking, in certain areas doing that is considered rape, as it is deemed that the consent is invalid because they were consenting to protected sex. Very difficult to prove though...",
"role": "assistant"
}
] | 269,882 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.