New York Times endorses plutocracy! (Cory Booker)-David Sirota

[theworldismine13]

Who has done this? Even Obama wasn't doing it when Booker made his sideways comment to try and grab some publicity. It's a straw man.

actually he was doing it and plenty of other people were also

 

[The Real]

actually he was doing it and plenty of other people were also

Can you back up that claim with some quotes?

 

[theworldismine13]

Can you back up that claim with some quotes?

not really, there were no quotes, but there was a tone of using private equity as slur, they denied it but the underlying message was that private equity was something bad that voters should be scared of

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

not really, there were no quotes, but there was a tone of using private equity as slur, they denied it but the underlying message was that private equity was something bad that voters should be scared of

so the president of the United States and "plenty of other people" were publicly using private equity as a slur and there are no quotes? Fascinating.

Your posts do your IQ an enormous ammount of credit

 

[theworldismine13]

so the president of the United States and "plenty of other people" were publicly using private equity as a slur and there are no quotes? Fascinating.

Your posts do your IQ an enormous ammount of credit

yeah im saying the commercials they presented and the way campaign surrogates were talking about it tried to make private equity into a slur, which is what booker said until he was forced to backtrack by the campaign

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

you are against freedom because you dont respect the free market

You are pathetic. You sound like Sly in 2007 right now.

You have successfully derailed this thread into a conversation about private equity, when that's not what the article or the issue about. It's a strawman anyway because Booker's claims about the Obama campaign erroneously tried to make it as if they were shytting on the concept of venture capitalism, as opposed to what Romney did at Bain, and how that should be viewed in the context of him running as President.

But what the article is about is Booker's political career being financed by Wall Street and the implications of that, and him being another establishment Democrat in the pocket of corporate America putting on a populist facade.

You seem to have no quarrel with defending and supporting crony capitalism and politicians bought and sold by Wall Street. Just say you like him because he's black. Everyone who knows your posting history knows you can't really be taken seriously on matters like this anyway because you're not interested in any substantive discussion--just dikkriding politicians who are black, empty platitudes about the free market, and ego-stroking.

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

You are pathetic. You sound like Sly in 2007 right now.

You have successfully derailed this thread into a conversation about private equity, when that's not what the article or the issue about. It's a strawman anyway because Booker's claims about the Obama campaign erroneously tried to make it as if they were shytting on the concept of venture capitalism, as opposed to what Romney did at Bain, and how that should be viewed in the context of him running as President.

But what the article is about is Booker's political career being financed by Wall Street and the implications of that, and him being another establishment Democrat in the pocket of corporate America putting on a populist facade.

You seem to have no quarrel with defending and supporting crony capitalism and politicians bought and sold by Wall Street. Just say you like him because he's black. Everyone who knows your posting history knows you can't really be taken seriously on matters like this anyway because you're not interested in any substantive discussion--just dikkriding politicians who are black, empty platitudes about the free market, and ego-stroking.

He is inellectually intentionally dishonest in all of his posts, its ridiculous.

 

[theworldismine13]

You are pathetic. You sound like Sly in 2007 right now.

You have successfully derailed this thread into a conversation about private equity, when that's not what the article or the issue about. It's a strawman anyway because Booker's claims about the Obama campaign erroneously tried to make it as if they were shytting on the concept of venture capitalism, as opposed to what Romney did at Bain, and how that should be viewed in the context of him running as President.

But what the article is about is Booker's political career being financed by Wall Street and the implications of that, and him being another establishment Democrat in the pocket of corporate America putting on a populist facade.

You seem to have no quarrel with defending and supporting crony capitalism and politicians bought and sold by Wall Street. Just say you like him because he's black. Everyone who knows your posting history knows you can't really be taken seriously on matters like this anyway because you're not interested in any substantive discussion--just dikkriding politicians who are black, empty platitudes about the free market, and ego-stroking.

bookers claim in 2012 were totally legit, he was forced to back off because of immense pressure

there is no facade, booker is a man of the people, and if you read the article there is zero evidence that there is any crony capitalism and it doesn't even talk about his actual job performance

i repeat for emphasis, nowhere in the article does it talk about his actual job performance, the whole entire piece is insinuations, tangentials and reaches, the article is pure garbage, its a disgusting hit piece by the communist wing of the democratic party

 

[No1]

i repeat for emphasis, nowhere in the article does it talk about his actual job performance, the whole entire piece is insinuations, tangentials and reaches

This part is true. I agree, but you've still been doing a lot of reaching in here.

 

[A.R.$]

I didn't eitherintentionsbreh, I thought he was one of the good ones

Breh you be hardpressed to find any good ones. Some may start off with good intentions, but the system usually corrupt most of them. fukk everything else, getting real campaign finance reform should be the number one priority when it comes to government. We can't have real debates about important issues until then because whoever has the most money is going to win (at least most of the time)

 

[Jello Biafra]

I am curious about something (and this is a question for the dudes in this thread criticizing Booker)...if he wins the Senate seat in 2014 and then decides to run for President in 2020, would you support him against whatever white Democrats would be in the running?
Because some of Booker's political leanings offend me but he seems like a genuinely good dude who cares about his city based off that reality show he used to do. And being a good dude who happened to be black was about all the reason anyone had to justify voting for Obama in 2008. Because if it was a populist, anti-corporation/Wall Street candidate that people wanted then they would have voted for John Edwards since he was the only candidate pushing that message back then.

 

[superunknown23]

... they would have voted for John Edwards since he was the only candidate pushing that message back then.

Glad we dodged that one, considering the scandal...

 

[Odyssey]

you are against freedom because you dont respect the free market

Vic and other progressives are simply fighting for their crumbling Puritan Theocracy. Make no mistake progressivism is about power, it always has been, they do not care for your individuality or your freedom.

 

[Madvillain]

I am curious about something (and this is a question for the dudes in this thread criticizing Booker)...if he wins the Senate seat in 2014 and then decides to run for President in 2020, would you support him against whatever white Democrats would be in the running?
Because some of Booker's political leanings offend me but he seems like a genuinely good dude who cares about his city based off that reality show he used to do. And being a good dude who happened to be black was about all the reason anyone had to justify voting for Obama in 2008. Because if it was a populist, anti-corporation/Wall Street candidate that people wanted then they would have voted for John Edwards since he was the only candidate pushing that message back then.

Everybody I know in Newark and the few people I know in NJ Democratic politics say he really hasn't earned the attention he's getting. People out of the loop I feel usually want someone who looks like them and talks the game, though. Like I said, I'd take **** over Booker in the primary but Booker's pretty much a shoo-in for the seat. Depends who rocks in 2020 and what else develops though too. I'm not a big fan.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

There are no incentives for teachers. In my school district (buffalo, ny) 25 percent of black males graduate. Once a teacher has been in the system 3 years he can never be fired. However, young teachers come in energetic, then last in first out finds them out of a job every summer. By the time they make it to the three year mark theyre frustrated and dont care.

When people moved to the suburbs the cities lost their tax base. However, the public sector unions did not lose their incredible pensions and benefits that the cities could not afford. Unions are nothing but labor gangs. If people are good workers they should be able to negotiate their own terms of employment. Unions 'cheat' the system and mostly only exist at this point in the democratic cities as an ode to a semi-marxist ideal.

unbelievably false