General Discussion

Proud Liberal Dem

(24,798 posts)

40. There may not be anything we can do legally to prohibit it

Mon Jan 28, 2019, 04:26 PM

Jan 2019

but we can certainly make it politically unacceptable by categorically rejecting them, speaking out against what they're trying to do. I mean, they can still legally run if they want. We just don't have to accept/normalize it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

71 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

F*ck Billionaires running for President. Period. Not even "good" ones. [View all] Tom Rinaldo Jan 2019 OP

Agreed. No Schultz, No Bloomberg, No Dimon. sarcasmo Jan 2019 #1

Yes, though to be fair I will at least say this of Bloomberg Tom Rinaldo Jan 2019 #4

Well, I'm Anybody But Trump RobinA Jan 2019 #12

Bloomberg is an opportunist Revanchist Jan 2019 #56

Agreed. And this...FDR. brush Jan 2019 #34

This approach not only disqualifies FDR SCantiGOP Jan 2019 #48

Absolutely, the Kennedys also. brush Jan 2019 #50

Adjusted for inflation FDR's wealth peaked at about 60 Million dollars Tom Rinaldo Jan 2019 #63

Simple Solution--make all elections by tax payer funding only at140 Jan 2019 #2

I will gladly review my above opinion once we have accomplished what you suggest. n/t Tom Rinaldo Jan 2019 #6

How do you propose to stop certain Billionaires from running? at140 Jan 2019 #7

I like what "most democratic countries" are doing. That's not us now Tom Rinaldo Jan 2019 #8

Speaking of billionaires SCantiGOP Jan 2019 #20

LOL at140 Jan 2019 #47

There may not be anything we can do legally to prohibit it Proud Liberal Dem Jan 2019 #40

K&R bdamomma Jan 2019 #65

Agreed snort Jan 2019 #3

Wall Street Billionaires are most of the problem and sure as hell democratisphere Jan 2019 #5

Agreed! Agreed! Agreed! jrthin Jan 2019 #9

"We are in danger of allowing vast wealth to create a new political aristocracy in America" ProfessorPlum Jan 2019 #10

The Roosevelts and Kennedys come to mind. llmart Jan 2019 #22

I mean Sgent Jan 2019 #39

It's not a question of empathy. And the ship has left the dock but still is in the harbor... Tom Rinaldo Jan 2019 #41

"We are in danger of allowing vast wealth to create a new political aristocracy in America" volstork Jan 2019 #11

More bartenders, please. moondust Jan 2019 #13

People do not realize Starbucks is not a good employer...they don't have full time employees. Demsrule86 Jan 2019 #14

Things about Schultz that might get him votes LTG Jan 2019 #38

They recently agreed to pay for gender-affirming care for Transgender people Proud Liberal Dem Jan 2019 #42

Agreed, not the greatest employer ever, but LTG Jan 2019 #44

+1 Proud Liberal Dem Jan 2019 #45

If you vote for this guy who like Jill Stein won't win, you are voting for Trump. Demsrule86 Jan 2019 #68

Since they rig the system to dole out very little insurance...not much chance that will happen. Demsrule86 Jan 2019 #67

That is completely untrue...they deliberately keep workers part time so as not to allow them to Demsrule86 Jan 2019 #66

Unfortunately PR is all many voters will see or to which they will bother pay attention LTG Jan 2019 #70

If it were up to me I'd tax billionaires out of existence. hunter Jan 2019 #15

America prospered the most in the 50s and 60s when the marginal tax rates were highest OMGWTF Jan 2019 #16

Yep. hunter Jan 2019 #21

A Starbucks boycott would change his mind... lame54 Jan 2019 #17

Too bad it takes so much money to win treestar Jan 2019 #18

this is part of the problem of dems ignoring rw radio certainot Jan 2019 #19

Agree and disagree... zaj Jan 2019 #23

See post #4 above. I agree it's a meaningful difference. n/t Tom Rinaldo Jan 2019 #37

Billionaire says: T-r-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-s-t me... keithbvadu2 Jan 2019 #24

I'd dispute that Schultz is a good billionaire Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jan 2019 #25

No more businessmen/women! shanti Jan 2019 #26

Yep. n/t violetpastille Jan 2019 #27

They always claim to be fiscally conservative which should be a big, red flag. nt yaesu Jan 2019 #28

Pretty sure it would be unConstitutional to prevent ANY qualified citizen for running for President. BamaRefugee Jan 2019 #29

I addressed that in post #8 n/t Tom Rinaldo Jan 2019 #36

Ten Wealthiest Presidents by estimated net worth Locutusofborg Jan 2019 #30

A couple of observations Tom Rinaldo Jan 2019 #35

Yes, especially billionaires whose "contribution" to our country Bradshaw3 Jan 2019 #31

My mood as well. MBS Jan 2019 #32

Agreed. They need to find another hobby. Vinca Jan 2019 #33

K&R ZeroSomeBrains Jan 2019 #43

And anyone who says "Both parties" is a willfully ignorant, malicious, dishonest asshole. dalton99a Jan 2019 #46

We could repeal Citizens United and start taxing and regulating large corporations again. Initech Jan 2019 #49

FDR would have been a billionaire by today's standards still_one Jan 2019 #51

FDR would have been racist by today's standards. violetpastille Jan 2019 #52

You have just eliminated those in the Joseph P. Kennedy family. still_one Jan 2019 #53

I would have voted for JFK in 1960 in the GE violetpastille Jan 2019 #54

of course, but my point is we need to be careful with sweeping generalizations that the OP is making still_one Jan 2019 #57

You're absolutely correct about that. violetpastille Jan 2019 #60

How about millionaires? oberliner Jan 2019 #55

1 billion equals 1000 millions jalan48 Jan 2019 #58

Still - the vast majority of Americans are not millionaires oberliner Jan 2019 #62

Billionaires equal Stolen wages from their employees Yavin4 Jan 2019 #59

Plutocracy. jalan48 Jan 2019 #61

Billionaires bdamomma Jan 2019 #64

"I've spent my life learning how to make myself rich! Now you should make me President struggle4progress Jan 2019 #69

I like what AOC (or maybe one of her aides?) said: 'Every billionaire is a policy failure.' aidbo Jan 2019 #71