The DNC should never have let Bernie run

[Pogo]

I know a lot of "righties" that liked sanders. It wasn't his policies, but the fact he seemed to have integrity and focused on American advancement instead of foreign.
I liked Bernie. If he was the nom, I would vote for him over trump now. I would probably regret it in the long run, because now I know what a sell out he was/is.

Any integrity Sanders had went out the window when he sold out and supported Clinton

Wrong. His integrity would only have been lost if he helped Trump win.

You know, like Ted Cruz is helping Hillary. Not mention all the Bushes helping Hillary.

He spoke out against the Establishment the entirety of the election, and then endorsed the Establishment candidate. Sounds like he's selling out and throwing away his integrity to me.

And what other course do you think he has?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Socialism is government control of the means of production. Communism is the same, but with the added removal of 'social classes', 'wealth gaps', and the State.

An oxymoron.

Removal of the State huh?

What about Democratic Socialism -- the one that actually applies to the election?

Have you heard this one before---
"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism --- it's the other way around"

Yes, that's a core component.

Democratic Socialism is an oxymoron. There's no will of the people in absolute government power.

Under Communism man exploits man, and government exploits man. Absolute government power creates a very fragile nation, from the inside and the outside. Government controlling the means of production, private industry, cannot work. It's only made worse by the extra power the government gains through it.

so you just proved yourself wrong. It isn't an oxy moron. In true communism, there is no govt. Failed socialism would lead to the state withering away.

No, I haven't. The government still owns the means of production, and every citizen. Calling it common ownership is an illusion. All the the nations that have become Communist are proof of that.

I can call myself a progressive, but if I support regressive policies, I aint exactly a progressive, am I?
Fact is, they were full of shit. Like stalin, he wasn't a commie. He was a socialist dictator. Same with Cuba. Same with NK.

Progressives are already Regressives. Their policies are all regressive in nature. I suppose every other Communist Nation that followed suit were also full of it? Oh, but then we run out of examples. I guess there was just never a Communist Nation? I like you, but you're silly.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I know a lot of "righties" that liked sanders. It wasn't his policies, but the fact he seemed to have integrity and focused on American advancement instead of foreign.
I liked Bernie. If he was the nom, I would vote for him over trump now. I would probably regret it in the long run, because now I know what a sell out he was/is.

Any integrity Sanders had went out the window when he sold out and supported Clinton

Wrong. His integrity would only have been lost if he helped Trump win.

You know, like Ted Cruz is helping Hillary. Not mention all the Bushes helping Hillary.

He spoke out against the Establishment the entirety of the election, and then endorsed the Establishment candidate. Sounds like he's selling out and throwing away his integrity to me.

And what other course do you think he has?

Holding onto his values and dignity instead of endorsing what he was fighting against?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I know a lot of "righties" that liked sanders. It wasn't his policies, but the fact he seemed to have integrity and focused on American advancement instead of foreign.
I liked Bernie. If he was the nom, I would vote for him over trump now. I would probably regret it in the long run, because now I know what a sell out he was/is.

Any integrity Sanders had went out the window when he sold out and supported Clinton

Wrong. His integrity would only have been lost if he helped Trump win.

You know, like Ted Cruz is helping Hillary. Not mention all the Bushes helping Hillary.

He spoke out against the Establishment the entirety of the election, and then endorsed the Establishment candidate. Sounds like he's selling out and throwing away his integrity to me.

So by that reasoning we can say that Trump has no integrity by choosing as establishment an establishment Republican as one could ever find in Mike Pence.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Removal of the State huh?

What about Democratic Socialism -- the one that actually applies to the election?

Have you heard this one before---
"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism --- it's the other way around"

Yes, that's a core component.

Democratic Socialism is an oxymoron. There's no will of the people in absolute government power.

Under Communism man exploits man, and government exploits man. Absolute government power creates a very fragile nation, from the inside and the outside. Government controlling the means of production, private industry, cannot work. It's only made worse by the extra power the government gains through it.

so you just proved yourself wrong. It isn't an oxy moron. In true communism, there is no govt. Failed socialism would lead to the state withering away.

No, I haven't. The government still owns the means of production, and every citizen. Calling it common ownership is an illusion. All the the nations that have become Communist are proof of that.

I can call myself a progressive, but if I support regressive policies, I aint exactly a progressive, am I?
Fact is, they were full of shit. Like stalin, he wasn't a commie. He was a socialist dictator. Same with Cuba. Same with NK.

Progressives are already Regressives. Their policies are all regressive in nature. I suppose every other Communist Nation that followed suit were also full of it? Oh, but then we run out of examples. I guess there was just never a Communist Nation? I like you, but you're silly.

Define what you think regressive means and then name the regressive liberal beliefs.

 

[Pogo]

I know a lot of "righties" that liked sanders. It wasn't his policies, but the fact he seemed to have integrity and focused on American advancement instead of foreign.
I liked Bernie. If he was the nom, I would vote for him over trump now. I would probably regret it in the long run, because now I know what a sell out he was/is.

I would never support a Socialist, I especially would never vote for a Communist. I don't care how honest he is, he'd 'honestly' destroy our economy, and everything that makes our country great. Integrity is useless when the individual is delusional.

You've invited this line of question, since you're 14 years old ---- what is a "socialist"? What is a "communist"? And what is the difference?

Finally, what is a "Democratic Socialist"?

Socialism is government control of the means of production. Communism is the same, but with the added removal of 'social classes', 'wealth gaps', and the State.

An oxymoron.

Removal of the State huh?

What about Democratic Socialism -- the one that actually applies to the election?

Have you heard this one before---
"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism --- it's the other way around"

Yes, that's a core component.

Democratic Socialism is an oxymoron. There's no will of the people in absolute government power.

That's a complete cop-out. Bernie Sanders has always called himself a Democratic Socialist. What does he mean?

Under Communism man exploits man, and government exploits man. Absolute government power creates a very fragile nation, from the inside and the outside. Government controlling the means of production, private industry, cannot work. It's only made worse by the extra power the government gains through it.

So you're copying from Wiki, which means you don't know.

You seem to speak of "absolute government power" and "no government at all" as the same thing.

You know what "Doublethink" is?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I know a lot of "righties" that liked sanders. It wasn't his policies, but the fact he seemed to have integrity and focused on American advancement instead of foreign.
I liked Bernie. If he was the nom, I would vote for him over trump now. I would probably regret it in the long run, because now I know what a sell out he was/is.

Any integrity Sanders had went out the window when he sold out and supported Clinton

Wrong. His integrity would only have been lost if he helped Trump win.

You know, like Ted Cruz is helping Hillary. Not mention all the Bushes helping Hillary.

He spoke out against the Establishment the entirety of the election, and then endorsed the Establishment candidate. Sounds like he's selling out and throwing away his integrity to me.

So by that reasoning we can say that Trump has no integrity by choosing as establishment an establishment Republican as one could ever find in Mike Pence.

You must have forgotten who you're talking to. I've been saying Trump has no integrity since the start of the election. Neither candidate has any integrity, they're both nearly the bottom of the barrel. If you're looking for someone to defend Trump, you're looking at the wrong person entirely.

 

[TNHarley]

Removal of the State huh?

What about Democratic Socialism -- the one that actually applies to the election?

Have you heard this one before---
"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism --- it's the other way around"

Yes, that's a core component.

Democratic Socialism is an oxymoron. There's no will of the people in absolute government power.

Under Communism man exploits man, and government exploits man. Absolute government power creates a very fragile nation, from the inside and the outside. Government controlling the means of production, private industry, cannot work. It's only made worse by the extra power the government gains through it.

so you just proved yourself wrong. It isn't an oxy moron. In true communism, there is no govt. Failed socialism would lead to the state withering away.

No, I haven't. The government still owns the means of production, and every citizen. Calling it common ownership is an illusion. All the the nations that have become Communist are proof of that.

I can call myself a progressive, but if I support regressive policies, I aint exactly a progressive, am I?
Fact is, they were full of shit. Like stalin, he wasn't a commie. He was a socialist dictator. Same with Cuba. Same with NK.

Progressives are already Regressives. Their policies are all regressive in nature. I suppose every other Communist Nation that followed suit were also full of it? Oh, but then we run out of examples. I guess there was just never a Communist Nation? I like you, but you're silly.

No, im not being silly. You are being two general with 2 very different social/economic concepts. They are the ass opposite of each other. Party masters just used doom and gloom and now people don't what the fuck to think. Like statist lefties calling themselves "liberal". Liberal you are not!

 

[NYcarbineer]

I know a lot of "righties" that liked sanders. It wasn't his policies, but the fact he seemed to have integrity and focused on American advancement instead of foreign.
I liked Bernie. If he was the nom, I would vote for him over trump now. I would probably regret it in the long run, because now I know what a sell out he was/is.

Any integrity Sanders had went out the window when he sold out and supported Clinton

Wrong. His integrity would only have been lost if he helped Trump win.

You know, like Ted Cruz is helping Hillary. Not mention all the Bushes helping Hillary.

He spoke out against the Establishment the entirety of the election, and then endorsed the Establishment candidate. Sounds like he's selling out and throwing away his integrity to me.

And what other course do you think he has?

Holding onto his values and dignity instead of endorsing what he was fighting against?

He was fighting against the Right first and foremost. His battle with Clinton was over who was a better opponent of the Right, based on beliefs.

You don't start fighting for the enemy just because you don't win top spot on your own team.

 

[Rozman]

Yeah that would have gone over big....
Why not jump into the wayback time machine and get Hilly baby to
use the State Department e mail server...

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Yes, that's a core component.

Democratic Socialism is an oxymoron. There's no will of the people in absolute government power.

Under Communism man exploits man, and government exploits man. Absolute government power creates a very fragile nation, from the inside and the outside. Government controlling the means of production, private industry, cannot work. It's only made worse by the extra power the government gains through it.

so you just proved yourself wrong. It isn't an oxy moron. In true communism, there is no govt. Failed socialism would lead to the state withering away.

No, I haven't. The government still owns the means of production, and every citizen. Calling it common ownership is an illusion. All the the nations that have become Communist are proof of that.

I can call myself a progressive, but if I support regressive policies, I aint exactly a progressive, am I?
Fact is, they were full of shit. Like stalin, he wasn't a commie. He was a socialist dictator. Same with Cuba. Same with NK.

Progressives are already Regressives. Their policies are all regressive in nature. I suppose every other Communist Nation that followed suit were also full of it? Oh, but then we run out of examples. I guess there was just never a Communist Nation? I like you, but you're silly.

Define what you think regressive means and then name the regressive liberal beliefs.

Business and industrial regulation. Raising business taxes. Federal Aid in general.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I know a lot of "righties" that liked sanders. It wasn't his policies, but the fact he seemed to have integrity and focused on American advancement instead of foreign.
I liked Bernie. If he was the nom, I would vote for him over trump now. I would probably regret it in the long run, because now I know what a sell out he was/is.

Any integrity Sanders had went out the window when he sold out and supported Clinton

Wrong. His integrity would only have been lost if he helped Trump win.

You know, like Ted Cruz is helping Hillary. Not mention all the Bushes helping Hillary.

He spoke out against the Establishment the entirety of the election, and then endorsed the Establishment candidate. Sounds like he's selling out and throwing away his integrity to me.

So by that reasoning we can say that Trump has no integrity by choosing as establishment an establishment Republican as one could ever find in Mike Pence.

You must have forgotten who you're talking to. I've been saying Trump has no integrity since the start of the election. Neither candidate has any integrity, they're both nearly the bottom of the barrel. If you're looking for someone to defend Trump, you're looking at the wrong person entirely.

Then go argue with the Trump defenders once in awhile. Show some integrity.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Any integrity Sanders had went out the window when he sold out and supported Clinton

Wrong. His integrity would only have been lost if he helped Trump win.

You know, like Ted Cruz is helping Hillary. Not mention all the Bushes helping Hillary.

He spoke out against the Establishment the entirety of the election, and then endorsed the Establishment candidate. Sounds like he's selling out and throwing away his integrity to me.

And what other course do you think he has?

Holding onto his values and dignity instead of endorsing what he was fighting against?

He was fighting against the Right first and foremost. His battle with Clinton was over who was a better opponent of the Right, based on beliefs.

You don't start fighting for the enemy just because you don't win top spot on your own team.

He was fighting against the Establishment, which he deems the 1%, or the Rich, or any number of silly, misleading names he can come up with. I never said he should fight for the enemy, he could have supported Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, or nobody. It would have been entirely within his values and beliefs to support the Green Party Candidate, far more so than Hillary.

 

[NYcarbineer]

so you just proved yourself wrong. It isn't an oxy moron. In true communism, there is no govt. Failed socialism would lead to the state withering away.

No, I haven't. The government still owns the means of production, and every citizen. Calling it common ownership is an illusion. All the the nations that have become Communist are proof of that.

I can call myself a progressive, but if I support regressive policies, I aint exactly a progressive, am I?
Fact is, they were full of shit. Like stalin, he wasn't a commie. He was a socialist dictator. Same with Cuba. Same with NK.

Progressives are already Regressives. Their policies are all regressive in nature. I suppose every other Communist Nation that followed suit were also full of it? Oh, but then we run out of examples. I guess there was just never a Communist Nation? I like you, but you're silly.

Define what you think regressive means and then name the regressive liberal beliefs.

Business and industrial regulation. Raising business taxes. Federal Aid in general.

Regulating businesses is regressive? What does that regress to? Regress means to go back.

What era in the past would one be going back to in supporting the regulation of business?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Any integrity Sanders had went out the window when he sold out and supported Clinton

Wrong. His integrity would only have been lost if he helped Trump win.

You know, like Ted Cruz is helping Hillary. Not mention all the Bushes helping Hillary.

He spoke out against the Establishment the entirety of the election, and then endorsed the Establishment candidate. Sounds like he's selling out and throwing away his integrity to me.

So by that reasoning we can say that Trump has no integrity by choosing as establishment an establishment Republican as one could ever find in Mike Pence.

You must have forgotten who you're talking to. I've been saying Trump has no integrity since the start of the election. Neither candidate has any integrity, they're both nearly the bottom of the barrel. If you're looking for someone to defend Trump, you're looking at the wrong person entirely.

Then go argue with the Trump defenders once in awhile. Show some integrity.

I do. I was arguing with them just two days ago. I've been calling them Trump-bots since the primaries.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong. His integrity would only have been lost if he helped Trump win.

You know, like Ted Cruz is helping Hillary. Not mention all the Bushes helping Hillary.

He spoke out against the Establishment the entirety of the election, and then endorsed the Establishment candidate. Sounds like he's selling out and throwing away his integrity to me.

And what other course do you think he has?

Holding onto his values and dignity instead of endorsing what he was fighting against?

He was fighting against the Right first and foremost. His battle with Clinton was over who was a better opponent of the Right, based on beliefs.

You don't start fighting for the enemy just because you don't win top spot on your own team.

He was fighting against the Establishment, which he deems the 1%, or the Rich, or any number of silly, misleading names he can come up with. I never said he should fight for the enemy, he could have supported Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, or nobody. It would have been entirely within his values and beliefs to support the Green Party Candidate, far more so than Hillary.

You are accusing him of not having integrity because he won't now help Trump win.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

No, I haven't. The government still owns the means of production, and every citizen. Calling it common ownership is an illusion. All the the nations that have become Communist are proof of that.

I can call myself a progressive, but if I support regressive policies, I aint exactly a progressive, am I?
Fact is, they were full of shit. Like stalin, he wasn't a commie. He was a socialist dictator. Same with Cuba. Same with NK.

Progressives are already Regressives. Their policies are all regressive in nature. I suppose every other Communist Nation that followed suit were also full of it? Oh, but then we run out of examples. I guess there was just never a Communist Nation? I like you, but you're silly.

Define what you think regressive means and then name the regressive liberal beliefs.

Business and industrial regulation. Raising business taxes. Federal Aid in general.

Regulating businesses is regressive? What does that regress to? Regress means to go back.

What era in the past would one be going back to in supporting the regulation of business?

The 1950s, where the Great Depression was extended by seven years due to those specific policies.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

He spoke out against the Establishment the entirety of the election, and then endorsed the Establishment candidate. Sounds like he's selling out and throwing away his integrity to me.

And what other course do you think he has?

Holding onto his values and dignity instead of endorsing what he was fighting against?

He was fighting against the Right first and foremost. His battle with Clinton was over who was a better opponent of the Right, based on beliefs.

You don't start fighting for the enemy just because you don't win top spot on your own team.

He was fighting against the Establishment, which he deems the 1%, or the Rich, or any number of silly, misleading names he can come up with. I never said he should fight for the enemy, he could have supported Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, or nobody. It would have been entirely within his values and beliefs to support the Green Party Candidate, far more so than Hillary.

You are accusing him of not having integrity because he won't now help Trump win.

No, I'm accusing him of having no integrity because he won't help a third party win. Fairly certain he was complaining about the two party system, too. So what does he do? He endorses the Establishment, and half of the duopoly.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I would never support a Socialist, I especially would never vote for a Communist. I don't care how honest he is, he'd 'honestly' destroy our economy, and everything that makes our country great. Integrity is useless when the individual is delusional.

You've invited this line of question, since you're 14 years old ---- what is a "socialist"? What is a "communist"? And what is the difference?

Finally, what is a "Democratic Socialist"?

Socialism is government control of the means of production. Communism is the same, but with the added removal of 'social classes', 'wealth gaps', and the State.

An oxymoron.

Removal of the State huh?

What about Democratic Socialism -- the one that actually applies to the election?

Have you heard this one before---
"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism --- it's the other way around"

Yes, that's a core component.

Democratic Socialism is an oxymoron. There's no will of the people in absolute government power.

That's a complete cop-out. Bernie Sanders has always called himself a Democratic Socialist. What does he mean?

Under Communism man exploits man, and government exploits man. Absolute government power creates a very fragile nation, from the inside and the outside. Government controlling the means of production, private industry, cannot work. It's only made worse by the extra power the government gains through it.

So you're copying from Wiki, which means you don't know.

You seem to speak of "absolute government power" and "no government at all" as the same thing.

You know what "Doublethink" is?

Oh, sorry, I missed your post. Bernie Sanders is trying to soften his Socialist image, because Socialism has failed numerous times in other countries, and also to try to look like he left behind his Communist past. Democratic Socialism is an oxymoron, as there's no Democracy in Socialism.

I copied from the wiki only because I didn't know of a written source to show you with. I've read numerous books and historical accounts of Socialism and Communism, I didn't need the wiki to tell me what it is.

In a sense, absolute government power, and no government at all are similar only in the sense that there's catastrophic consequences to both.

 

[TNHarley]

how about men pissing around little girls? That's regressive.