Sad comment. Often those lines are for naught when supply runs out.
Does not mean everyone is served.
Congrats! Technically I put in my vows that I would learn Russian, but I’ve failed to do so. I’m pretty bad at second languages.
You prefer dictatorships?
Yes, running out of food is sad.
I would say I can speak Russian at below and intermediate level but she still has to translate me to her family because I can’t get the pronunciation down for ■■■■■ The way the language has so many syllables in most words, and the way they use our letter r makes it a pain the ass compared to languages that use our alphabet.
When she speaks slow I can talk with her in Russian when she’s on the phone with her friends or family I can only pick words and phrases out it moves so fast. I don’t think I will ever be fluent it’s daunting. I felt I needed to learn I knew decent German when lived there but have forgotten much of it whereas she can speak four languages it felt like I should at least be able to speak 2 
Trump got elected by promising government funded health care and mexican funded walls.
You seem to be saying that a completely different failed political philosophy is a viable alternative.
No. We will stick with capitalism and the Second Amendment and rugged individualism…after all agreed to taxes have been paid.
Bootstraps work.
Lot of misinformation about this phrase out there.
He did?
I thought Russia did it with FB ads and by hacking the DNC.
I’m not. What happened in the USSR, China, Cuba, etc… are examples of failure… but this isn’t want Bernie is pushing for. If socialism is to replace capitalism, it must be done democratically to have any chance at success.
I’m fine with capitalism as long as its worse sides are tempered by the government. I personally am in favor of a mixed economy,
Why are we suddenly talking about the second amendment?
Bootstraps only work when you can afford them or someone gives them to you.
What I can get on board with is addressing the tech monopolies like Google and some social media giants.
They are behaving as publishers and should follow the same rules that the media does.
I am not for unfettered capitalism.
I don’t see Bernie as the leader that can make this happen. He appears to be more of a figurehead caught up in an emotional barrage against the extremely wealthy…like Bloomberg.
I don’t agree that these are monopolies. When I think if a monopoly I think of a situation where there’s only one company that owns everything and makes it near impossible for a competitor to get a leg in. Situations where basically they are the only game in town because they own one and only the infrastructure. The situation you mention above are just really big, popular, and powerful services/companies.
What rules are those? Doesn’t all private media get to choose who to platform and not platform? Ironically it seems some on the right want to create a Fairness Doctrine for internet companies which is frankly silly since unlike the radio there’s not a finite number of station’s possible within a general broadcast are.
You don’t have to use Google for search. In fact more people should be using Duck Duck Go because they don’t track you. When it comes to free webmail and online office apps there are several to choose from from different companies. There are also alternatives to Facebook and Twitter.
The one place I do have a concern is that large companies can use their money to influence politicians, but the solution to that isn’t to break up the companies its deal with lobbying and all that jazz.
Bernie is doing Bernie. Nothing new there. Most of Bernie’s ideas wouldn’t make it through even a Democratically controlled Senate and House.
I think Google qualifies as a monopoly and it certainly does quash competitors.
Social media needs to be scrutinized for its censoring practices and content algorithms.
It is inevitable that government will need to insure that these platforms are operating in a transparent and responsible manner.
I would rather not trust Congress as a firewall for a life long self described socialist.
Would you say the Microsoft of ~1995-2005 was a monopoly?
Why? Aren’t they private companies?
What are the prereqs for it to be okay for the government to tell a private company what content its allowed to refuse to carry?
Because they are failing to contain the current occupier of the oval office?
Apple was a strong competitor to MS so it was not such a single market force.
Private companies operating in the public sphere and subject to government oversite. There was a recent case of banned users being re-instated…
This is becoming more frequent.
Sanders is attacking the wealthy for simply being wealthy. He is a concern for a lot of people and he wants his 4th house.
I apologize, I got my years wrong, I meant more the 90s to late 90s back when MS was being trust busted. Only artists and some educators were using Macs which were considered “premium” computers back then and it wasn’t until they brought back Jobs and really not until after the transition to OS X, positive exposure with the introduction of the iPod, and the transition over to Intel chips did they start being any sort of competition to MS’ hold on the desktop market. (Now if only Tim Cook wasn’t ■■■■■■■ it up).
Maybe I’m missing something, but wasn’t that the public official being sued and not Twitter? Twitter wasn’t engaging in censorship or de-platforming there.
A socialist attacking the wealthy?! A politician being hypocritical?! Unheard of!
Did you perhaps post the wrong link?
It doesn’t support your claim.
Might want to listen to him.
Oh I have.
All hat no cattle
1 Like
