Fuck it! Let Bernie win.

[Confounding]

I do disagree with that. To run a national campaign requires purchasing air time for commercials, printing brochures, renting venues, traveling around the country... how are you supposed to do it without money?

I'm pretty sure England and a number of other countries in the EU have publicly funded elections. Seems to work okay for them.

 

[Boss]

I do disagree with that. To run a national campaign requires purchasing air time for commercials, printing brochures, renting venues, traveling around the country... how are you supposed to do it without money?

I'm pretty sure England and a number of other countries in the EU have publicly funded elections. Seems to work okay for them.

But you see, if we had wanted to model ourselves after England we would still be the British Colonies of North America. We established a Constitution and part of it says that we have free political speech. If you don't like that, you can lobby to have the Constitution changed but I don't think you will find much support for that. So maybe you should go live in England or the EU, where you can have the kind of government that suits you?

 

[Pogo]

I do disagree with that. To run a national campaign requires purchasing air time for commercials, printing brochures, renting venues, traveling around the country... how are you supposed to do it without money?

I'm pretty sure England and a number of other countries in the EU have publicly funded elections. Seems to work okay for them.

But you see, if we had wanted to model ourselves after England we would still be the British Colonies of North America. We established a Constitution and part of it says that we have free political speech. If you don't like that, you can lobby to have the Constitution changed but I don't think you will find much support for that. So maybe you should go live in England or the EU, where you can have the kind of government that suits you?

Ummm..... that was in the 18th century we did that. You're comparing temporal apples and oranges.

 

[Boss]

Ummm..... that was in the 18th century we did that. You're comparing temporal apples and oranges.

Doesn't matter when we did it. The Constitution still applies until you repeal or amend it... unless you're ready to pick up your musket and have a revolution... anytime you get ready to do that, just let me know... mmk?

 

[Pogo]

I tend to agree, but my point is that we might as well let it happen now. That way they will learn, and we can fix it before people forget what it was like without it.

I hope that you are just being sarcastic and not serious. If they destroy the free market capitalist system that built this country, it will never be the same again. Once you drive over the cliff, there's no recovering from that. There are countries in the Baltics who were only Communist for a few decades and they have been trying for 30 years to re-establish democracy since the fall of the USSR and it's damn near impossible because the infrastructure no longer exists.

The Millennials have to be educated on what Socialism brings with it. They are under this delusion of Utopia that will just never exist but they've bought into it hook, line and sinker. It seems like a hopeless endeavor, I admit, but we simply have to keep fighting. Surrender can't be an option.

I am serious. Remember however that I do not have the power to make it happen.

I believe and hope, that it won't take decades for young Americans to understand the error that they would make. It is truely my belief that we cannot stop the tide of ignorance and progressive indoctrination that is producing people dumb enough to actually vote crazy Bernie into office. You can call it surrender but maybe if it happens sooner than later, it can get fixed before people forget what it was like before him.

I assure you, this is a bad, bad, BAD idea. This is not a matter of "oops, we messed up, let's change it back!" Once you go full-on Socialist, there isn't a way to change back. There is literally nothing to change back to. Once you destroy Wall Street and the financial institutions which underpin the free market system, you can't re-establish them. It's like a man cutting off his pecker to become a woman, it doesn't matter if he realizes down the road that it was a bad idea.

For better or worse (it will be worse), we'll have to live with the Socialist system.... until, ultimately, the US disintegrates into anarchy and what once were states cobble together some semblance of order that may resemble what once was. But the country we once knew will be gone forever. We'll never see it again, our great grandchildren will never see it. They may wish for it... they may be befuddled as to why we ever gave it up... they will inevitably look at history and ponder how we could have been so foolish. But you cannot put the bloom back on the rose.

As futile as it might seem, the better alternative is to continue to fight for what our founders established. We have to take back our education system and stop the indoctrination that has been systemically happening in America for the past 70+ years. This has to be rejected politically and philosophically. We're going to always be dealing with those who have been brainwashed by the Socialist propaganda. We've been dealing with them for years... some say as far back as the Civil War or before.

You might be right, but I will argue that it is inevitable anyway. The progressives have control of what the young learn at school and see on tv and in the movies. My only point is that for those of us who are older and know how bad it will be, it won't be as bad. Shouldn't the young, who will be responsible for their own misery, suffer for it? They won't listen to reason? Fuck 'em.

I understand your sentiments, it's difficult trying to convince brainwashed young people who already think they know more than us. I still think what we have is worth fighting for and we can't throw up our hands in frustration.

I recently read a Pew study found that 47% of Millennials favor Socialism. That's an alarming statistic but I am an optimist... it means 53% don't favor Socialism. There is still hope but we have to wake the fuck up and stop pretending there isn't a problem.

That poll was made into a thread here.

The problem with it is, as we immediately pointed out in that thread ------ the poll never defines what "socialism" means. It leaves that entirely to the respondent. As polls like to put it, "whatever it means to you".

Given the widespread disinformation campaigns over the last century, what that definition is, is going to vary tremendously, therefore you have no constant to work with in the question. Thus the question itself boils down to nothing more than, "what is your emotional reaction to the word "socialism?". And while that may tell us something about prejudice in political rhetoric, it tells us nothing about how anyone favors or disfavors any actual policy.

 

[Contumacious]

I'm so disheartened by the level of stupidity on display especially among the young. Let's look logically at what would happen if Crazy Bernie wins.

Can we get free stuff? If you are my age (60), we won't get to take advantage of the free college, but we may get free healthcare. At first, we may not have to suffer through long lines and long waits. If you're my age you won't have to worry about paying for the long term effects. So hey! Free stuff right?

If you are young, you have a serious problem. You get free healthcare, free college, a higher minimum wage, and whatever else Crazy Bernie has promised. But eventually the bill will come due. But hey YOU voted for him..."elections have consequences" and all that.

Crazy Bernie says that you don't have to worry, that he'll make Wall Street pay for it. Though he never says how. Yeah, good luck with the consequences of that.

The young, having suffered through years of progressive programming and designed ignorance, will likely only learn the truth when it hits them like a freight train. It may well be that the sooner it happens, the sooner we can trash all of this left wing poison that is making the US of A so sick.

But the berners already won.

The berners' philosophy has been in effect since 1913 when a heavy graduated income tax was imposed and when the federal reserve act was implemented.

The US Constituion was abolished in 1935 and replaced by the welfare/warfare police state Constitution.

 

[Pogo]

Ummm..... that was in the 18th century we did that. You're comparing temporal apples and oranges.

Doesn't matter when we did it. The Constitution still applies until you repeal or amend it... unless you're ready to pick up your musket and have a revolution... anytime you get ready to do that, just let me know... mmk?

It absolutely DOES matter, since it was a historical point brought up that you responded to. I see you cut that part out as inconvenient, so let's bring it back:

I do disagree with that. To run a national campaign requires purchasing air time for commercials, printing brochures, renting venues, traveling around the country... how are you supposed to do it without money?

I'm pretty sure England and a number of other countries in the EU have publicly funded elections. Seems to work okay for them.

But you see, if we had wanted to model ourselves after England we would still be the British Colonies of North America. We established a Constitution and part of it says that we have free political speech. If you don't like that, you can lobby to have the Constitution changed but I don't think you will find much support for that. So maybe you should go live in England or the EU, where you can have the kind of government that suits you?

Ummm..... that was in the 18th century we did that. You're comparing temporal apples and oranges.

I bolded the relevant parts. See how the previous poster is speaking of the present ("have") whereas your response shifts to the past ("if we had wanted to")? Obviously England did not have publicly funded elections at the time, hence your time shift. Thus it's a bullshit comparison, and your point fails.

 

[Boss]

Given the widespread disinformation campaigns over the last century, what that definition is, is going to vary tremendously, therefore you have no constant to work with in the question. Thus the question itself boils down to nothing more than, "what is your emotional reaction to the word "socialism?". And while that may tell us something about prejudice in political rhetoric, it tells us nothing about how anyone favors or disfavors any actual policy.

I can't say I disagree with you, after all, most nitwits who claim they favor Socialism have no idea of what kind of chaos, misery and death always follows in it's wake. They are oblivious to history, apparently. I guess we stopped teaching about it or we let modern-day progressives water it down and sugar coat it until they simply never comprehended the ramifications.

I can remember when I was... oh, about 12 or 13, and was first starting to learn about politics in school and such... and it kind of surprised me to discover that every presidential election, there was a Socialist Party candidate running. They never got much of the vote, but they were an option on the ballot. Seems like it was the same guy every time and there were always several thousand who voted for him. I always wondered who these people were and what were they thinking?

Now, I am 56 and the Democrats have an avowed Socialist running for the nomination and a sizable chunk of Millennials supporting him... and PROUD of it!

 

[Boss]

t absolutely DOES matter...

No, it DOESN'T matter. The Constitution is over 200 years old and it's still the law of the land. If you want to change it, there is a process you must go through. You can't simply win an election and decide it's outdated and obsolete. That's not how this is ever going to work and you need to get that through your stubborn little commie head.

 

[Confounding]

But you see, if we had wanted to model ourselves after England we would still be the British Colonies of North America. We established a Constitution and part of it says that we have free political speech. If you don't like that, you can lobby to have the Constitution changed but I don't think you will find much support for that. So maybe you should go live in England or the EU, where you can have the kind of government that suits you?

"We're not England" is a pretty foolish reason to not consider an idea that works. If money is speech then some people have more speech than others. I personally think that's asinine and will continue to fight to change it. Increased wealth shouldn't give you increased opportunity to control the political system. Unlike yourself I'm not a big fan of oligarchy; something tells me the founding fathers weren't either.

 

[PredFan]

Sure it does. It's all about the free stuff. That is what the supporters say. When they can actually state why they support him that is.

Bernie is one of the few talking about getting private monied interests out of politics. Do you disagree with that? Do you think politics should be a contest of who can gain the favor of the most rich and powerful people? We need to level the playing field. Your message should matter more than the amount of money you have access to.

This is drifting off the subject. Hey, let Bernie win. Chances are the disastrous effects of what he wants to do will happen after I'm gone. The people who will have to suffer are the young, and they are the idiots voting for him.

 

[PredFan]

I'm so disheartened by the level of stupidity on display especially among the young. Let's look logically at what would happen if Crazy Bernie wins.

Can we get free stuff? If you are my age (60), we won't get to take advantage of the free college, but we may get free healthcare. At first, we may not have to suffer through long lines and long waits. If you're my age you won't have to worry about paying for the long term effects. So hey! Free stuff right?

If you are young, you have a serious problem. You get free healthcare, free college, a higher minimum wage, and whatever else Crazy Bernie has promised. But eventually the bill will come due. But hey YOU voted for him..."elections have consequences" and all that.

Crazy Bernie says that you don't have to worry, that he'll make Wall Street pay for it. Though he never says how. Yeah, good luck with the consequences of that.

The young, having suffered through years of progressive programming and designed ignorance, will likely only learn the truth when it hits them like a freight train. It may well be that the sooner it happens, the sooner we can trash all of this left wing poison that is making the US of A so sick.

But the berners already won.

The berners' philosophy has been in effect since 1913 when a heavy graduated income tax was imposed and when the federal reserve act was implemented.

The US Constituion was abolished in 1935 and replaced by the welfare/warfare police state Constitution.

Perhaps, but if Crazy Bernie is POTUS, the results will be accelerated.

 

[Pogo]

Given the widespread disinformation campaigns over the last century, what that definition is, is going to vary tremendously, therefore you have no constant to work with in the question. Thus the question itself boils down to nothing more than, "what is your emotional reaction to the word "socialism?". And while that may tell us something about prejudice in political rhetoric, it tells us nothing about how anyone favors or disfavors any actual policy.

I can't say I disagree with you, after all, most nitwits who claim they favor Socialism have no idea of what kind of chaos, misery and death always follows in it's wake. They are oblivious to history, apparently. I guess we stopped teaching about it or we let modern-day progressives water it down and sugar coat it until they simply never comprehended the ramifications.

I can remember when I was... oh, about 12 or 13, and was first starting to learn about politics in school and such... and it kind of surprised me to discover that every presidential election, there was a Socialist Party candidate running. They never got much of the vote, but they were an option on the ballot. Seems like it was the same guy every time and there were always several thousand who voted for him. I always wondered who these people were and what were they thinking?

Now, I am 56 and the Democrats have an avowed Socialist running for the nomination and a sizable chunk of Millennials supporting him... and PROUD of it!

Not a "Socialist" --- a "Democratic Socialist".

But do go on --- what kind of "chaos, misery and death always follows in it is wake" then?

 

[Pogo]

t absolutely DOES matter...

No, it DOESN'T matter. The Constitution is over 200 years old and it's still the law of the land. If you want to change it, there is a process you must go through. You can't simply win an election and decide it's outdated and obsolete. That's not how this is ever going to work and you need to get that through your stubborn little commie head.

Yes it DOES matter --- you made a bullshit point that tried to compare an 18th century action with a 21st century environment. That's bullshit, and that's why you keep editing the context out of the post --- because it proves you WRONG.

Dishonest hack.

 

[Arianrhod]

Sure it does. It's all about the free stuff. That is what the supporters say. When they can actually state why they support him that is.

Bernie is one of the few talking about getting private monied interests out of politics. Do you disagree with that? Do you think politics should be a contest of who can gain the favor of the most rich and powerful people? We need to level the playing field. Your message should matter more than the amount of money you have access to.

This is drifting off the subject. Hey, let Bernie win. Chances are the disastrous effects of what he wants to do will happen after I'm gone. The people who will have to suffer are the young, and they are the idiots voting for him.

That was your original premise, yet you haven't managed to instill fear in anyone here. Guess you'll just have to tolerate the fact that the conversation doesn't always fit within your narrow rules.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Bernies appeal doesn't stop at free shit. He is also targeting the older generations fuck ups with their voting history. Corporatism and all that.

Sure it does. It's all about the free stuff. That is what the supporters say. When they can actually state why they support him that is.

I work with someone that supports him for one simple reason: he is not Hillary Clinton.

 

[Boss]

But you see, if we had wanted to model ourselves after England we would still be the British Colonies of North America. We established a Constitution and part of it says that we have free political speech. If you don't like that, you can lobby to have the Constitution changed but I don't think you will find much support for that. So maybe you should go live in England or the EU, where you can have the kind of government that suits you?

"We're not England" is a pretty foolish reason to not consider an idea that works. If money is speech then some people have more speech than others. I personally think that's asinine and will continue to fight to change it. Increased wealth shouldn't give you increased opportunity to control the political system. Unlike yourself I'm not a big fan of oligarchy; something tells me the founding fathers weren't either.

But it doesn't work. England is a monarchy. We're a representative republic. We declared independence from England over 200 years ago because we didn't want a monarch or king telling us what to do. Again, if you prefer having a monarch or king tell you what you're going to do... move to England!

Now... "We're not England" isn't a reason, it's just a statement of fact. The reason we can't implement your idea is the First Amendment. And if you think that's foolish, you're free to move somewhere that doesn't have a First Amendment, the world is full of such shitholes. Otherwise, you are also free to get 75% of the country behind your efforts to amend the Constitution and repeal the First Amendment but I think you're going to find most people here like it and don't want to get rid of it. But as long as we have it, people are going to be free to support, with their money, the candidate with the political speech they prefer and there's nothing you can do about that.

Increased wealth gives you the increased opportunity to do most anything. This is true in our country with a Constitution or any other country... even one with a king or monarch. Our founding fathers knew this and that's why they established a First Amendment... so that individuals could contribute money to the people who they wished to have elected as opposed to only the wealthiest being able to hold office.So actually, what you are proposing is a giant step backwards and toward oligarchy or ruling class elites like they have in England and elsewhere in Europe.

 

[Boss]

Given the widespread disinformation campaigns over the last century, what that definition is, is going to vary tremendously, therefore you have no constant to work with in the question. Thus the question itself boils down to nothing more than, "what is your emotional reaction to the word "socialism?". And while that may tell us something about prejudice in political rhetoric, it tells us nothing about how anyone favors or disfavors any actual policy.

I can't say I disagree with you, after all, most nitwits who claim they favor Socialism have no idea of what kind of chaos, misery and death always follows in it's wake. They are oblivious to history, apparently. I guess we stopped teaching about it or we let modern-day progressives water it down and sugar coat it until they simply never comprehended the ramifications.

I can remember when I was... oh, about 12 or 13, and was first starting to learn about politics in school and such... and it kind of surprised me to discover that every presidential election, there was a Socialist Party candidate running. They never got much of the vote, but they were an option on the ballot. Seems like it was the same guy every time and there were always several thousand who voted for him. I always wondered who these people were and what were they thinking?

Now, I am 56 and the Democrats have an avowed Socialist running for the nomination and a sizable chunk of Millennials supporting him... and PROUD of it!

Not a "Socialist" --- a "Democratic Socialist".

But do go on --- what kind of "chaos, misery and death always follows in it is wake" then?

Socialism’s death count

 

[Boss]

t absolutely DOES matter...

No, it DOESN'T matter. The Constitution is over 200 years old and it's still the law of the land. If you want to change it, there is a process you must go through. You can't simply win an election and decide it's outdated and obsolete. That's not how this is ever going to work and you need to get that through your stubborn little commie head.

Yes it DOES matter --- you made a bullshit point that tried to compare an 18th century action with a 21st century environment. That's bullshit, and that's why you keep editing the context out of the post --- because it proves you WRONG.

Dishonest hack.

No, I made an honest point and you're the dishonest hack. A 21st century environment doesn't negate the Constitution. I've read the Constitution and nothing in it says a thing about... once we get to the 21st Century, liberal socialists are free to rip this document to shreds and do their own thing.

 

[Boss]

Not a "Socialist" --- a "Democratic Socialist".

Democratic Socialist is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as democracy in a Socialist system. Just look at the Socialist health care act, Obamacare... it contains the word "shall" over 20,000 times. That's not democratic. That word has nothing to do with democracy and it's actually the opposite... it's oppression... you SHALL do this and you SHALL do that. And that's precisely how Socialism works. It is a system that purposefully and deliberately quells democracy with absolute tyranny.