When I respond to these kinds of threads, I don't primarily do it for the sake of convincing the people I'm responding to. You're right, that gets tired FAST when the other party seems determined to misinterpret or distort everything you say.

It's especially annoying when almost everyone does it to the point where it becomes the norm.

Instead, my primary motivation is simply to hold up the ridiculous for public scrutiny. Someone makes a false accusation? I don't respond to the actual accusation, I just hold it up and show how cheap and dirty and ridiculous it is. Instead of, "Hey, that's not true! I actually did the opposite!", I go, "Hey everyone, look at this jackass false accusation! Isn't it absurd?! That's what you have to resort to when you have no actual argument, I guess. ;-)"

Ugh. Stuff like this is why I rarely argue on the forum anymore. It's almost nothing but mud-slinging, posturing, and arrogant assumption of the high ground. Usually from the same people repeatedly. It's really tiresome to argue with those who are already convinced they're right and that their position is inherently superior.

Ugh. Stuff like this is why I rarely argue on the forum anymore. It's almost nothing but mud-slinging, posturing, and arrogant assumption of the high ground. Usually from the same people repeatedly. It's really tiresome to argue with those who are already convinced they're right and that their position is inherently superior.

You misunderstand. I respond to things like false accusations with this kind of display.

I respond to actual arguments with actual counter arguments and evidence. False accusations are not actual arguments. They do not deserve any such response.

Question: How do you respond to false accusations against yourself? Do you treat them as legitimate arguments?

Literally I think people will see the obvious flaws in Hitchslap's argumentation

If that's true, then why do you make false accusations against him? You've done it to me, too, on several occasions. If you really, 'literally' believe that "people will see the obvious flaws in Hitchslap's argumentation", then why don't you just leave it at that? Why do you take the 'low ground' and 'sling mud' (to borrow Eklipse's characterizations)? Why do you have to Trump it up?

Do you really, 'literally' believe that? I have my doubts.

Edited 1/19/2016 05:03:20

How do you respond to false accusations against yourself? Do you treat them as legitimate arguments?

Sure I treat them as a minor point of argumentation and will try to address it in the best way possible given the limited ability to project ethos into an online forum debate.

Why do you take the 'low ground' and 'sling mud' (to borrow Eklipse's characterizations)? Why do you have to Trump it up?

Point to me or quote me where I did this and I'll look at what I said again. Until you do so I have no idea what you pinpointed as me "slinging mud". Please always provide the exact sentences I used that prompted you to respond in the subsequent post. Thanks.

I don't have tile to adress everything now, but Jai do you even read my last post? You don't see the strawman here, actually worse than a strawman. Just analyze your acusation and compare it to what i repetedly said throughout the thread

Hitchslap I read the last post you made and then read mine.

The only thing where I admit I committed a strawman (but it was on purpose) was with the Koch Brothers tirade I went into. I picked up on that just out of frustration with what I hear from Democratic Politicians often. I apologize if I sounded as if you was blaming you for the liberal double standard on political donations from Billionaires. That's my bad...I was really blaming the media not you. I use forum posts to comment on larger societal issues that may not be directly involved in the 1-on-1 argument we were having.

However on the other stuff I don't see where I went wrong. I corrected you on the time that the candidates get to speak for, I clarified why Banks are inherently allowed to spend people's money in trading in financial services, and I explained that Pharmaceutical companies don't create the healthcare system (the government does). Besides the Koch Brothers thing was there anywhere you felt I was accusing you?

Alright, in the following post i will try to break down your rhetoric as a whole and analyze it in details
I'll also adress all the remaining points i didn't adress previously.

This is the last time i do that though, in the future i would really like that we focus on one point at a time, wich i think is better for everyone involved, and wich allows to get to the bottom of things instead of drifting to something i refer to as the "Kent Hovind Strategy". Wich basically consist in saying as much bullshit as you can, so that your interlocutor spend all his time and effort trying to disprove the never ending bullshit, swinging the debate away from the actual issues, and forces him to give up when being overloaded with bullshit arguments, blank statements and lies. (we are not there yet, but i've been there with other people on this forum, and i pledged to myself to never again waste my time like this)

edit: tipo

Edited 1/20/2016 00:04:05

The only thing where I admit I committed a strawman (but it was on purpose) was with the Koch Brothers tirade I went into

Ok, so you admit to misrepresenting my views, on purpose (wich makes it worse). How can we have an honest conversation when you don't have any respect for your interlocutor?

I was really blaming the media not you

While it might have been your intention, there is absolutely no reason to think that it was the case, from the way you framed it. There was no doubt here that this was a direct response to me. I don't see the point in just rambling about your stereotypes of what a democrat is, with no regard whatsoever for the actual point your interlocutor is making.

-->But anyway, i'm still glad that you recognized that, it is to your credit, so that now we can move forward. I'm just asking you to please refrain from doing that again, if we are going to continue this conversation or any other. I actually try hard not do misrepresent people's view, and i try to understand exactly what they mean, so that when i make a point, it is actually relevent to the conversation. However, if you ever catch me doing a strawman, or making an incorrect statement, please do correct me, and i will gladly admit it.

============================THE RHETORIC==========================

Besides the Koch Brothers thing was there anywhere you felt I was accusing you?

There is a few other things though, that i take issue with, in the way you put things.

--- 1) ---
-->The first one, i already mentionned it, was when you where trying to frame the democrats for attacking every person working in the pharmaceutical industry and the banks. This is obviously not true, and i think that this was again a strawman from you. But this was kind of a "fair" strawman, that i think you don't believe in yourself, and you made it to kind of over emphasize on your initial argument, wich started as a legitimate argument. So no big deal.

--- 2) ---

There are 1645 billionaires in the world? Are all included in your list of billionaires without morals?? My guess is yes because you hate everyone and everything that stinks of making more than $250,000 a year right?

-->Here what we have was an obvious adhominem attack. There isn't a thing in what i have said that could lead you to think that "I hate everyone making more that $250k a year". Their isn't a thing in what i said that would indicate that i hate people on the basis of how much thay make. The only criticism i've made was on what they DO with their money, and what they DO to get even more.

--- 3) ---
-->This one is a little trickier. Its not an adhominem, and its not a strawman per say, or at least not an obvious one, wich makes it tricky because it is a narrative that builds up throughout all you posts. So let me break it down.

The general idea here is to infer that your opponent believes "X" , with "X" being an obviously false statement. And you do that combining a range of strategies.
- One strategy is to point out that your opponent didn't answer a question, when there was actually no question to answer. This make it seem like your opponent is dodgy, has something to hide, or is losing an argument
- Another Strategy is to assign meaningless labels to your opponent, so that you can argue against what you think this label stand for, instead of engaging in your opponent's actual arguments.
- Wich leads to the last part of the strategy, wich is to demand that your opponent admits that "Z" is true, making it seems like your opponent actually think that "Z" is NOT true, when nothing indicate that he does. You create a false "issue" based on wrong premises, designed to discredit your opponent.

===========================EXAMPLES=================================

Lets illustrate this with a few examples from what you wrote:

--- a)imaginary questions ---

You didn't answer my previous question. Do you not agree that when an individual puts money in a bank they are signing a contract that gives permission to the bank to use its money to invest in financial services?

--> there was no question. You made a statement, wich i chose not to comment because i don't issue with it. I could take issue with it, because while the statement is true, i think that it is misleading. But it would lead to another debate, and like i say i don't like to deal with multiple unrelated arguments at the same time, i think that it is counter productive. But since you insist, i will make a comment on it at the end of this post.

--- b)labels ---

You're defense of socialism is brave but blatant

--> You stick the label socialist to my back, as if it meant anything. That way you can attack me on your idea of what socialism mean instead of what i say. I think this is why you accuse me of hating rich people, because you probably think that socialists hate rich people.(its the best explanation i can come up with for the ad-hominem)

--> Throughout your all of your post, you also infer that i am a Democrat, or that i support anything the democrats do. Another label you want to stick to me, so that by arguing against any democrat, you make it look like you are arguing against me (wich leads to point c) ). That way when you criticize Obama, you think you have a point, and that way you can invoke the "liberal double standard", another label for wich you had to misrepresent my views in order to be able to stick to me.
Also note that this is stupid, since i'm not even american, nor do i live in america. I'm just a french guy interested in american politics, and i like discussing political issues, whatever they may be and wherever they come from.


--- c) Demands ---
demands that i admit something i never took issue with, and for wich there is no basis to think that i do

So I mentioned that having a few Big Banks holding all the economy of a country was a problem, to wich you responded that Obama made this worse

In the last 8 years of Obama the big banks have gotten bigger and the small banking sector has been essentially destroyed. Obama's regulation of the financial sector through Dodd-Frank was to blame...and not in any way political favoritism.

--> i didn't comment on that, because i have no reason to do so. I actually don't know every details of american politics, but i have no reason to believe that your statement is false, nor does it affect me or my argument in the least if it is true. You are just shifting the issue to be able to rant about Obama. Obama allowed the banks to get bigger...well then Obama did a shitty job a preventing the Banks to get bigger. Now what? Don't get me wrong, it wasn't a worthless statement, it was interesting and informative, but it is a non-issue in the discussion we were having. As far as i know, it wasn't a discussion about Obama's record.

He couldn't even admit that Dodd-Frank was the primary regulatory law that led to the growth of big banks since 2008 and the collapse of small community banks. If he can't even acknowledge that a primarily Democratic law created part of the financial monopolizing that Democrats today are railing against then there's nothing more to discuss. His ideology is blinding him to the facts at hand...which is alright as long as he doesn't get to vote in a US election :)

-->And there we go, the final fallacy. You demand that i admit to something that is irrelevant in the discussion, and that i have no reason to contradict. But just by saying that, you think that you are winning points. Again, you might fool some people (not the smartest cookies in the jar), or you might fool people that weren't really paying attention, but you certainly don't fool me.
And actually me "admitting" to that would even be a wrong thing to do on my part, since i don't know enough about it to make an informed judgement yet.


-->Now do i think that you used all these fallacies on purpose, as an demoniac strategy that you actually thought through? Of course not
Being intellectually honest is hard. Thinking critically is hard. Trying to be objective is hard. It is easier to stay inside your biased echo chamber. It is easier to resort to fallacies, misrepresentations and lies rather than to stay on point.

==========================THE ISSUES===============================

Now lets adress the actual issues:

1)

When people deposit money in major institutions they do so knowing that their money is being used by said banking institution to invest in stocks or other financial services. Its a contractual financial exchange.

If consumers don't want their money "recklessly" speculated, then they have the right and option not to have their money held by said institutional bank

Oh really? What are the options? I'm not saying you are wrong, i'm just confused about how the whole thing would work.
Where would they put their money, under a matress? Is there anything you CAN do without a bank account? Do you ask your employer to pay you in cash? What do you tell your landlord? Can you even rent a house?
Maybe you are right, maybe you can live without a bank account in the US, but please do explain, i'm interested. What i know is you can't do anything without a bank account in France.

2)

And the funniest thing about Hitchslap's argument? He thinks the Pharmaceutical Companies created and passed the laws that established our healthcare system instead of the government lol!

Pharmaceutical companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars in political lobbying. Why do you think that is? Legislators passes the laws, sure. And how are legislators elected? Who is financing their campain? (Am i being too subtle or do you see where i'm going with this?)

edit: tipo

Edited 1/19/2016 23:50:40

Wow you went all out on that post. Must have taken you quite some time. I apologize but like the Republicans at Debates I don't have that much time to formulate a response to every sentence, so I'll just keep it to the issues and a few qualms I had with what you wrote.

1) The only criticism i've made was on what they DO with their money, and what they DO to get even more.

Okay so we've established there are 1645 billionaires (some of whom probably have used immoral or unscrupulous means to get and maintain that wealth). We can also recall that you targeted your criticism of banks and pharmaceuticals to the "billionaires without morals". This verbal criticism of the wealthy is based on actions (as you claim). However, (as you know) morality is a relative term depending on the culture, context, and individual's perception. I object to the use of blanket catch-all-phrases such as "billionaires without morals" without concrete supplementing examples. This (although not the intention of the person who said it) can be misconstrued to represent that large wealth in and of itself is immoral and subject to criticism by society at large. Now you state that Bernie provided several examples - Exxon-Mobile, Goldman-Sachs, Koch Brothers - however I need to understand in what ways these were mentioned by Bernie (or by Hillary if you are referring to what she said). Bernie simply saying Koch Brothers giving millions in political donations is disingenuous on his part, since he knows fully well it occurs in both ideological directions. The same goes with banking institutions. You can't criticize banking institutions without acknowledging the benefits they provide in terms of employment and national wealth creation. That's like Donald Trump criticizing illegal immigrants without acknowledging the real labor value they provide to industries such as agriculture. If the whole crux of your (and or Bernie's) argument is anger at what the rich DO with their money then concrete examples have to be made on WHAT those actions actually are. In terms of the Democratic debate that this original thread was about...I heard very very little on WHAT these "billionaires without morals" who are made out to be evil actually did (this was my original argument).

2) Obama allowed the banks to get bigger...well then Obama did a shitty job a preventing the Banks to get bigger. Now what?

I'm sad to see you thought I was lying about Dodd-Frank allowing bigger banks to buy out smaller ones. If you can't accept my word at face value I again reference the link provided earlier which is also supported by other articles you can google (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/02/12/Spectacular-Way-Too-Big-Failure-Dodd-Frank). Now you ask what does this have to do with the original argument presented by the Democrats, which is that the banks are too large and too powerful and must be broken up. The entire point of bringing up Dodd-Frank and Obama's regulation of the banking sector is that it was supported by Democrats in Congress, including Bernie Sanders. So here's the problem: Democrats pass Dodd-Frank to regulate banks after 2008, Dodd-Frank ends up allowing big banks to get bigger after 2008, Democrats (and Bernie) complain that the banks are too big even though they helped them get bigger, and now Democrats want to fix the problem they helped to create by breaking up banks. There is a hypocrisy to the way Democrats are dealing with the issue of big banks because they fail to admit their land-mark legislation paved the way for bigger banks, a fact supported by a Harvard Study linked. (http://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/mrcbg/publications/awp/awp37)

3) Where would they put their money, under a matress? Is there anything you CAN do without a bank account? Do you ask your employer to pay you in cash? What do you tell your landlord? Can you even rent a house?

Disclaimer - I have a rudimentary understanding of Macro and Microeconomics. I think my logic on this is consistent, but someone with more knowledge on economics may interject. A bank is a financial institution that offers many financial services - loans, savings account, checking account, mortgages, credit cards, CDs, retirement accounts - all of which has a certain amount of risk. What's the risk? The primary risk is the tradeoff between inflation and interest. If interest rates are lower than inflation, you lose money annually by keeping your money with the bank. If interest rates are higher than inflation, you gain money annually. Now everyone puts their money into the bank (knowingly or unknowingly) that their money is being used by the bank to invest in other institutions and assets and financial services. Now this is considered a safe practice because the federal government assures everyone's bank accounts up to $250,000. You shouldn't keep money under a mattress because 1) most employers can't pay in cash and 2) its impractical. This is the point though - consumers have to take a risk when they put their money in a bank and let the bank use it. Now you're thinking that this is unfair because it puts consumers at the mercy of banks who could lose all their money but not have any consequences because the government will bail them out. But I never argued that the 2008 Bailout was right. In fact I stand on the opposite - they shouldn't have gotten a bailout (strict capitalism says you let the markets rise and fall without government intervention) and executives should have gone to jail. But the reason executives should go to jail is probably not for the reason you are thinking. In the years before 2008 banks were giving loans and mortgages to anyone, even those with poor credit or poor finances, because they were able to bundle and sell those bad loans to other financial institutions. This was the single largest source of corruption, but it was also the consumer's fault for getting into loans and mortgages they know they couldn't afford. The blame was a two way street - both consumers and banking executives made mistakes. The only difference is you can't arrest millions of Americans pursuing or making poor financial decisions - you can blame the banks for enabling them to do so. Democrats have to accept that the market inherently has a lot of risk and that no amount of regulation will eliminate that risk. Meanwhile, Republicans have to admit that 2008 financial crash was due in significant part due to wall street corruption.

4) Pharmaceutical companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars in political lobbying. Why do you think that is? Legislators passes the laws, sure.

This is a tricky argument you make. On one hand its logical to assume that if person A donates millions to politician B, that politician B will create law C wanted by person A. However this is not a black and white matter since a multitude of variables go into the creation and passage of a law - party ideology, election year pressure, constituent pressure to pursue certain laws, opposing lobbyists and super pacs who want you to create a law D that is fundamentally opposite to law C.

Yes pharmacy companies spend millions in lobbying. But do you know what a lot of that is for? Getting rid of FDA regulations (this have very little to do with the actual structure of the HealthCare system) and passing laws that provide incentives for drug companies to conduct R&D for new drugs. Another big thing that I think I mentioned but you forgot to comment on is that drug prices have risen under ObamaCare. If you remember, that legislation was passed by Obama and the Democrats (Sanders supported it!!) to increase the number of people with insurance coverage. This was a law that 1) changed the healthcare system and 2) was supported by the Pharmacy Industry with $80 billion. So now Democrats are angry that drugs are more expensive even though they were the ones who helped to exacerbate it? And to top that off they refuse to repeal the law which helped to increase drug prices. This is hypocritical at its face no?

Links - http://budget.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=213965, http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/24/obamacare-to-blame-for-soaring-drug-costs-aei.html, http://www.wsj.com/articles/big-pharmas-obamacare-reward-1423180690

Lastly, I take issue with your claim that political donation and lobbying = corruption. I have money. I can give it to any super pac, any political campaign, any politician, any interest group that will lobby for a certain activity...in short almost anybody. This is true political freedom. Under the constitution I have the right to my property and can do anything with it as long as it harms no one. Money that I earned is my private property and I can use it however I see fit...including donating to politicians and super pacs if I so choose. Let's say that your point that lobbying and political donations are immoral is correct. Should we ban everything that is immoral (real question by the way)? Alcohol consumption and marijuana (I would argue) are both immoral products for people to use, but I don't think they should be made illegal. If your argument is that politicians shouldn't be bought by corporations and rich people then maybe you should instead be criticizing Americans for not electing moral candidates who would refuse political donations instead of targeting businesses and billionaires. By the way I don't think Bernie fits this description because if he becomes the Democratic nominee he will accept the money raised by the Democratic National Committee, which gets donations from rich people and super pacs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86A0mqtWB-I


Watch around the 2:25 mark. Yes, Sanders spends most of the time talking about the Koch Brothers, but when he is asked directly about Soros and Steyers, he instantly replies that his criticism applies to them too. I agree with Sanders on this. Citizens United created a ridiculous system. Both sides, Democrat and Republican, have been forced to adhere to the views of Soros, Steyers, the Koch Brothers, Adelson, and more. Candidates, at this point, have almost become unable to express their own views, because their views might not bring in the money. The net result is that individual politicians are being increasingly forced into rigid party lines, while parties are being increasingly forced towards the agendas of their wealthiest benefactors.

That's what Trump is for

Citizens United created a ridiculous system. Both sides, Democrat and Republican, have been forced to adhere to the views of Soros, Steyers, the Koch Brothers, Adelson, and more. Candidates, at this point, have almost become unable to express their own views, because their views might not bring in the money.

Thanks for the video by the way. Refreshing to see Sanders criticize both left-wing and right-wing videos. Was impressed by that, because I thought he would buckle under "liberal" donations. At least he's consistent

However on the point you made in your comment. I haven't been able to get concrete numbers but the amount of money poured in state and local elections (where a majority of laws that effect the everyday lives of regular citizens are produced) is a fraction of that spent on federal elections. That being said there is a tremendous amount of opportunity for fringe-candidates or ones with federally unpopular political views to get elected. These people then get a strong political platform upon which to expand their message and get more people interested. I think we need to solve the problem of "political corruption" from the ground up. Elect more local and state representatives who refuse to use the money donated by super pacs, interest groups, lobbyists, and corporations. This will create a new generation of morally superior politicians (hopefully). I'm not for making political donations illegal, because I don't see the constitutional argument supporting that position.

@Jai

1) on stuff
-->"Bernie simply saying Koch Brothers giving millions in political donations is disingenuous on his part"

No it is not, it is just a fact, and as you came to realize apparently, Bernie Sanders is against money in politics, wether the money goes to the Democrats or the Republicans. He is also the only one not using Super Pacs, and refuse any donation above ~3000$ (don't rememeber the exact figure). Martin Shkreli actually tried to donate to Sanders (the maximum amount allowed), and Sanders refunded him.

-->"You can't criticize banking institutions without acknowledging the benefits they provide in terms of employment and national wealth creation"

I fail to see how banks create wealth. Speculation is a zero-sum game, the make money by investing in people that actually create the wealth, on speculation and on loans.

But my issue is also about the whole system, not only greedy billionaires. This week, Oxfam released a study showing that the gap between the richest people and the rest is increasing every year. The top 1% now owns more than the rest 99% of the world combine. 62 people now own as much as half the world (3.5Billion people), and their wealth has increased by $500Billion in just 5 years. It makes me sick that we allow this to happen. The system needs to be changed, and it starts by stopping the Billionaires from gaming the system. That's it.

2) Dodd-Frank
-->"I'm sad to see you thought I was lying about Dodd-Frank allowing bigger banks to buy out smaller ones."

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and consider that this was an honest mistake from your part.
Here is what i said:
**I actually don't know every details of american politics, but i have no reason to believe that your statement is false**
**(...)and that i have no reason to contradict**

I also said that:
**i don't know enough about it to make an informed judgement yet.**

So it would make no sense for me to argue for or against your statement. Maybe Dodd-Frank was the primary cause for the banks to get bigger, or maybe it is more complicated than that, i don't know. I can only doubt that if it is really the case, i can only doubt that it was the initial intention. Bernie Sanders voted for it, and Bernie Sanders has made it clear that he wants to break up the Banks. So him voting for a motion that purposedly made the banks bigger doesn't make sense.
I don't take your word at face value, because i'm not really putting that much trust in your judgement. And even if you are wrong, it doesn't mean that you lied, it just means that you are wrong.

Maybe i'll take the time to get informed on Dodd-Frank, and we can discuss it then. But for now i don't see the point in continuing the discussion on the matter. (and we still have 3 other open topic, wich is already too much imo)


3)banks
So we seem to agree on that. People don't have any other option offered to them than giving their money to the banks. So all the stuff about 'having the right and option", mutually agree "contract", is a bogus argument. Where we disagree is that i think that the government should impose some regulations on them, while you don't seem to think that this should be the case. In fact, maybe this is fundamentally where the two of us disagree. I think that on any area affecting people's well being, the government should make regulation to protect the citizens against corporate greed. This is true for the Banks, Health Care, or policies to protect the environement (the water, the air), i'm also in favor of regulating house renting prices, etc. You seem to be in favor of an unregulated free market (correct me if i'm wrong)

4)obamacare
Again, i'm don't know the issue about obamacare enough to comment on it. What i've seen is that the majority of people are in favor of it. I also watched SciShow's host Hank Green interview with Obama from last year, where he thank him for his laws on health care, wich allows him afford the medicine he has to take for his chronic disease.

5)on lobbyng=corruption
ability to give money to any politician - "This is true political freedom"
In a society where everyone made the same amount of money, i'd say that you are right. But as we know, this is far from being the case. And allowing anyone to give any amount to politician actually means that whoever got the money have controls who gets elected, and therefore where to lead the country. You think that it is freedom, but it is just a form of discrimination. There are first class citizens who's voice weight more than the rest (and by voice i mean money).

Here is how elections are handled in France, and i think that it is a good system (far from perfect):
-> Any physical person can donate to political campains, with a ceiling of 4600€/person
-> Corporations can't donate
-> Political Parties are also publicly funded, depending on how much elected representative the party has (independant from campains)
-> There is a ceiling on how much a candidate can spend on his campain, which depends on the number of inhabitants in the region for regional elections, and amount to about 38Millions € for presidential elections
-> For presidential elections, candidates are refunded by the government. If they get more than 5% of the votes, they can get a refund for up to ~50% of the ceiling (4.7% of the ceiling if they get less than 5% of the votes)
For regional elections, their is a similar system of refunding.

What are you thoughts on that system?

Edited 1/20/2016 21:27:03

@Hitchslap

1) Bernie Sanders is against money in politics, wether the money goes to the Democrats or the Republicans. He is also the only one not using Super Pacs, and refuse any donation above ~3000$

Its $2700 - that's the maximum a single individual can give to a candidate per election, much less than the ceiling of 4800 euros in France. Also I think you forgot to include Donald Trump in the list of people not using (or refusing) to use money from Super Pacs. Also 72% of Trump's unsolicited donations (about $2.8 million) came from donations of $200 or less. So its a bipartisan issue.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml - This link provides a chart of what people can donate and how much to different elections in the US. Its a nice visual explanation.

2) Bernie Sanders voted for it, and Bernie Sanders has made it clear that he wants to break up the Banks. So him voting for a motion that purposedly made the banks bigger doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense to me either. The only thing that would explain it is 1) he did not understand the Dodd-Frank legislation and what it would end up causing or 2) he's a hypocrite. If 2 is correct than his criticism against big banks is entirely negated and he has no authority on the matter. If 1 is correct than I think that speaks to his ability (or lack of) to be president.

3) I fail to see how banks create wealth. Speculation is a zero-sum game

Banks provide a service to consumers. A service based business always creates wealth for the larger economy. When they provide a loan of $10,000 for Person A to build a business, that business will later create wealth for the economy by paying taxes, employing people, and producing a good or service. Without that initial loan of $10,000 that person may not have been able to create that business. Plus Banks employ actual physical people you must remember - bank clerks, IT specialists, financial advisers, guards and money transfer security personnel, construction crews to build banks, etc. Banks are huge sources of national wealth in any economy. As I mentioned before: "n 2014, finance and insurance represented 7.2 percent (or $1.26 trillion) of U.S. gross domestic product."

4) I think that on any area affecting people's well being, the government should make regulation to protect the citizens against corporate greed. This is true for the Banks, Health Care, or policies to protect the environement (the water, the air)

This is the heart of why we disagree. I think this political difference on the role of the government in regulating society is because of the fundamental difference between France (and much of Europe) and America. You have to understand two separate things: America has historically distrusted socialist political and economic policies because we have been a pure-capitalist society until the 1930s, and the US constitution naturally favors a smaller government (indeed our Founding Fathers believed a smaller government means a freer people). No where in the Constitution is the Federal Government given explicit power to regulate banks (and in the current day example, break them up by force). In fact I'll read you the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". The federal government can only control things its explicitly given the power to do so, such as organizing a military or conducting foreign policy or levying taxes. This is the most confusing thing for European people (based on observation) to understand because they are used to a historically more powerful central government that essentially has broad powers to regulate and control. Don't misinterpret me. I don't believe in a completely unregulated free market, but I do believe that regulation must be constitutional. The bailout the big banks and financial institutions got in 2008 was not constitutional and the federal reserve artificially controlling the money supply and interest rates is unconstitutional.

3) What i've seen is that the majority of people are in favor of it.

I'm sorry to say you're absolutely wrong (see polling: http://www.gallup.com/poll/182318/americans-slightly-positive-toward-affordable-care-act.aspx). 50% disapprove of Obamacare (and it used to be 56%), 23% of families say its hurt them, and 32% don't believe that Obamacare will actually help improve their healthcare situation. So yes Obamacare has helped some people get life insurance but at what cost to society? Premiums increased, drug prices increased, and other people are being unwillingly forced to pay for other people's services. The American public is not for Obamacare.

5) And allowing anyone to give any amount to politician actually means that whoever got the money have controls who gets elected

I think you're falling into the trap of oversimplification. Just because I donate a billion dollars doesn't mean I control the political process of what laws are made and who gets elected. You're ignoring the fact that so many variables and factors go into lawmaking and political elections, some of which I mentioned before: party ideology, election year pressure, constituent pressure to pursue certain laws, opposing lobbyists and super pacs who want you to create a law, gerrymandering. Also I don't see how you can attribute political donations to discrimination - that is an insulting stretch. At the end of the day my vote matters as much as Sheldon Adelson's and Tom Steyer's. They don't have more political power than me and to say so is incredulous. Grassroots movements are powerful. Look at how well Cruz and Trump are doing.

Also there are campaign finance limits to how much people can donate. You make it seem like every billionaire can spend unlimited amounts on a single candidate, which isn't true. Look at: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contrib.shtml#Contribution_Limits. All that Citizen United did was: "make it legal for corporations and unions to spend from their general treasuries to finance independent expenditures related to campaigns, but did not alter the prohibition on direct corporate or union contributions to federal campaigns." The uproar about FEC vs. Citizen United is highly exaggerated because the ability to donate money to political campaigns is a protected constitutional right. Do you actually know what a Political Action Committee is (PAC)? A PAC is a type of organization that pools campaign contributions from members and donates those funds to campaign for or against candidates, legislation, or ballot initiatives. Its a way for people to get involved in the political process. If you don't like the message one pac is supporting than you can donate to another. Its not like there's 5 or 6 or 7 PACS...there are 4,611 PACs as of 2009. That's a whole lot of diversity of viewpoints. You want to see real political corruption go spend a couple of months in India. To attribute the US political system with fraud and corruption and bribery which you are describing is exaggeration...complete hot air.

Both of you are absurd.

Is a Risk website REALLY the place to debate this?

But just to join in with a few points:

Again, i'm don't know the issue about obamacare enough to comment on it. What i've seen is that the majority of people are in favor of it. I also watched SciShow's host Hank Green interview with Obama from last year, where he thank him for his laws on health care, wich allows him afford the medicine he has to take for his chronic disease.

Most *poor* people aren't for Obamacare. The people who are for it are:

1). Upper Lower Class Inner City People (who make ~30,000- ~40,000 a year)
2). People who don't understand how it works
3). People who are lucky enough to be in the small economic niches where it benefits them.
4). People who think its helping poor people but are rich enough that it doesn't effect them.

Is a Risk website REALLY the place to debate this?
But just to join in with a few points:

What a hypocrite ^

4). People who think its helping poor people but are rich enough that it doesn't effect them.

You do realize that the cost of healthcare on a national average is still lower than those of the bush 43 era when accounting for inflation.

Also, the profit margin of these health corporations has declined, which is a rational thing, as it should be illegal to make a profit off of your health, which is what these corporations are doing.

Problem with big vs small business / dilemma

Either we are oppressed by the handful of people who form the government, or we are oppressed by a handful of affluent citizens who puppeteer the government

Remember comrades

War is when the government tells you who the enemy is.

But they call it a revolution when you figure it out for yourself.

The bricks we throw today will be used to build the schools of our education tomorrow.

Fascism is merely capitalism muddied with murder

When i give food to the poor,they call me a saint. When i ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.

The Democrat candidates have together a net worth of 86.5 million. Don't let them lecture you on wealth inequality.

One day, we will ask work for a yield that gives return based on our hardship. Until then we must struggle against the regime comrades

Also, the profit margin of these health corporations has declined, which is a rational thing, as it should be illegal to make a profit off of your health, which is what these corporations are doing.

If they weren't making a profit no one would be offering health insurance, and then how (and who) would you pay for the incredible costs of hospitalization and disease treatment? America has 300 million people and tend to be very very unhealthy. If the government were to pick up those costs (which is unconstitutional), it would bankrupt us.