The Great Socialism Gap: Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other..

[Flash]

[Q

I have no desire to continue being the most violent nation in the world.

According to the FBI stats the great majority of the violence in this country is concentrated in the Black and Brown druggie, gang banger and street thugs of the Democrat controlled big city shitholes.

Higher taxation and more free shit ain't gonna fix that.

 

[MisterBeale]

O.K.

It is at this point, I think we are done having a productive conversation.

It has become clear to me one of two things. Either A) you are not a U.S. citizen, or B) you were not educated here or failed to understand and take to that education. Because anyone that has gotten involved in local politics understands and KNOWS that educations is the job of State and local governments. The Federal Government can only influence it through something called block grants that it attaches strings to that the states must adhere to if they want the money.

The only other reason for the Federal Dept. of Ed. is student loans.

You really don't now a whole lot about this, do you?
https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html


Now you are responding just like any person from the Common Wealth or other nations trying to subvert our society would. Folks deserve free stuff? Why?


"People should not have to choose between being healthy and having. . . (free stuff)"


Why? Eat right, exercise, save, invest, and buy the right health plan.

Education has largely been dealt with on the local level. You said it was unconstitutional to do otherwise. I said you were wrong. As opposed to showing where I am wrong and defending your position you made your post about me.

You're right.

I did make the conversation about you at the point you started making false claims about the U.S. and drawing false comparisons to other nations on a US message board.

I come here to talk about politics in the United State. You started comparing, fallaciously I might add, the U.S. to other western nations. It very much seems to me, you are much more acquainted with other systems than with ours. I am just stating a pretty obvious fact. Don't bullshit a U.S. trained political scientist.

I don't have time for your crap propaganda. Maybe others do.

Shit, you don't even have a clue what Socialism is. You want it to mean, "anything a government does to help people."

Fucked up conversation with a foreign agent provocateur.

The fact that every other first world country provides UHC at a cheaper rate than we do is simple facts. It's not propaganda. It's simple facts.

Which first world nation is as large as ours is?

Which one has as large of a military?

Which one has as diverse a population?

Which one has the same size population?

Budgeting is about choices. I agree, we could, hypothetically do it. But we could not do it on top of, and not added to the things we are are currently doing right now. Our entire culture and national priorities would have to be completely rearranged.


Honestly. . . you have terrible propaganda. Only folks that have no ability for critical thinking or use emotions to control their decision making would fall for this line of crap. Find some new talking points, seriously.

I have no desire to continue being the most violent nation in the world. If you want to argue that we can not provide health care because we have to destroy and kill others to make sure the markets increase, screw that.

You even say you agree we could do it.......but, we have to use that money destroying other countries.

No no, I agree.

Easily.

We are in agreement. No problem.

If you could get us out of the middle east, completely withdraw us out of Afghanistan? Shut down that giant sucking sound the Deep State has. . . the Trillions of unaccounted for cash the Pentagon is sucking in for black ops?

Yeah, we can do it.

You and I know? It'll never, ever EVER happen. For years, Congress could not agree with Obama on a budget.

Then? Trump gets elected, and Dems and Repubs fall over themselves to give him more and more debt for the hundreds of bases in 74 nations. Everyone's investments go up when spending on defense is approved.

How are they going to cut that? None of the folks in power will shoot themselves in the foot, destroying their investments and putting all those folks out of jobs?


Do you really not know how this works?

 

[pknopp]

[Q

I have no desire to continue being the most violent nation in the world.

According to the FBI stats the great majority of the violence in this country is concentrated in the Black and Brown druggie, gang banger and street thugs of the Democrat controlled big city shitholes.

Higher taxation and more free shit ain't gonna fix that.

Addressing capitalism could.

The thousands of lawsuits against opioid companies, explained

 

[pknopp]

Education has largely been dealt with on the local level. You said it was unconstitutional to do otherwise. I said you were wrong. As opposed to showing where I am wrong and defending your position you made your post about me.

You're right.

I did make the conversation about you at the point you started making false claims about the U.S. and drawing false comparisons to other nations on a US message board.

I come here to talk about politics in the United State. You started comparing, fallaciously I might add, the U.S. to other western nations. It very much seems to me, you are much more acquainted with other systems than with ours. I am just stating a pretty obvious fact. Don't bullshit a U.S. trained political scientist.

I don't have time for your crap propaganda. Maybe others do.

Shit, you don't even have a clue what Socialism is. You want it to mean, "anything a government does to help people."

Fucked up conversation with a foreign agent provocateur.

The fact that every other first world country provides UHC at a cheaper rate than we do is simple facts. It's not propaganda. It's simple facts.

Which first world nation is as large as ours is?

Which one has as large of a military?

Which one has as diverse a population?

Which one has the same size population?

Budgeting is about choices. I agree, we could, hypothetically do it. But we could not do it on top of, and not added to the things we are are currently doing right now. Our entire culture and national priorities would have to be completely rearranged.


Honestly. . . you have terrible propaganda. Only folks that have no ability for critical thinking or use emotions to control their decision making would fall for this line of crap. Find some new talking points, seriously.

I have no desire to continue being the most violent nation in the world. If you want to argue that we can not provide health care because we have to destroy and kill others to make sure the markets increase, screw that.

You even say you agree we could do it.......but, we have to use that money destroying other countries.

No no, I agree.

Easily.

We are in agreement. No problem.

If you could get us out of the middle east, completely withdraw us out of Afghanistan? Shut down that giant sucking sound the Deep State has. . . the Trillions of unaccounted for cash the Pentagon is sucking in for black ops?

Yeah, we can do it.

You and I know? It'll never, ever EVER happen. For years, Congress could not agree with Obama on a budget.

Then? Trump gets elected, and Dems and Repubs fall over themselves to give him more and more debt for the hundreds of bases in 74 nations. Everyone's investments go up when spending on defense is approved.

How are they going to cut that? None of the folks in power will shoot themselves in the foot, destroying their investments and putting all those folks out of jobs?


Do you really not know how this works?

The argument is that Sanders would destroy the country with his politics. If the choices is the mess you note is inevitable or destroying that, I'm going with destroying it.

 

[MisterBeale]

You're right.

I did make the conversation about you at the point you started making false claims about the U.S. and drawing false comparisons to other nations on a US message board.

I come here to talk about politics in the United State. You started comparing, fallaciously I might add, the U.S. to other western nations. It very much seems to me, you are much more acquainted with other systems than with ours. I am just stating a pretty obvious fact. Don't bullshit a U.S. trained political scientist.

I don't have time for your crap propaganda. Maybe others do.

Shit, you don't even have a clue what Socialism is. You want it to mean, "anything a government does to help people."

Fucked up conversation with a foreign agent provocateur.

The fact that every other first world country provides UHC at a cheaper rate than we do is simple facts. It's not propaganda. It's simple facts.

Which first world nation is as large as ours is?

Which one has as large of a military?

Which one has as diverse a population?

Which one has the same size population?

Budgeting is about choices. I agree, we could, hypothetically do it. But we could not do it on top of, and not added to the things we are are currently doing right now. Our entire culture and national priorities would have to be completely rearranged.


Honestly. . . you have terrible propaganda. Only folks that have no ability for critical thinking or use emotions to control their decision making would fall for this line of crap. Find some new talking points, seriously.

I have no desire to continue being the most violent nation in the world. If you want to argue that we can not provide health care because we have to destroy and kill others to make sure the markets increase, screw that.

You even say you agree we could do it.......but, we have to use that money destroying other countries.

No no, I agree.

Easily.

We are in agreement. No problem.

If you could get us out of the middle east, completely withdraw us out of Afghanistan? Shut down that giant sucking sound the Deep State has. . . the Trillions of unaccounted for cash the Pentagon is sucking in for black ops?

Yeah, we can do it.

You and I know? It'll never, ever EVER happen. For years, Congress could not agree with Obama on a budget.

Then? Trump gets elected, and Dems and Repubs fall over themselves to give him more and more debt for the hundreds of bases in 74 nations. Everyone's investments go up when spending on defense is approved.

How are they going to cut that? None of the folks in power will shoot themselves in the foot, destroying their investments and putting all those folks out of jobs?


Do you really not know how this works?

The argument is that Sanders would destroy the country with his politics. If the choices is the mess you note is inevitable or destroying that, I'm going with destroying it.

O.K.

But I don't think you understand how this works.

He ISN'T that powerful.

The only thing he will end up destroying? Will be the DNC.

Let's assume that he gets elected.


What will happen is much the same as what happened when Obama got elected. Congress will NOT align with his priorities, Congress passes legislation.

oh, he can submit shit, but the states will never agree to pass his priorities.

Added to that, they will pass CR's, which, Sanders will inevitably have to pass if he wants the current social programs to be funded.

IOW, for at least the next four years? Absolutely nothing would get done.

Just like when Obama was president.

Sanders will rule by EO as far as he can.

. . . and since we know that Sanders is not a Neo-liberal? I am less afraid of him than any other DNC candidate. I do not think he will get us in any new wars. In fact, he may even be better for the nation if you are for less government, than even Trump IS!

 

[forkup]

[Q

Oh giving away money too oil companies does make sense?

Explain how we "give money away to oil companies".

You are not one of these stupid uneducated low information Moon Bats that think it is wrong for the tax code to allow a legitimate tax deduction for the expense of energy exploration, are you? One of these idiots that complain about things like that but support the filthy ass government providing subsidies to the solar and wind farm industries and then tax credits to the dumbshits that buy the technology.

How about joining Conservatives like me and advocate doing away with all government transfers of payments? All welfare, subsidies, grants, bailouts and entitlements. We will start twill stopping all those stupid subsidies to the Environmental Wacko industries.

United States Spend Ten Times More On Fossil Fuel Subsidies Than Education
Subsidies are the government giving away money to certain sectors to help them. In this case, a sector that's already making quite a lot of money and have a proven detrimental effect on the environment.

It is quite interesting that you find subsidies that actually make sense from an environmental standpoint the thing to get rid of first. Not the ones that have a detrimental effect. As for the rest. I'm European as such I pay a lot of taxes. Saying that though I get a lot in return for it. My wife who is American and has lived here for more than 10 years now agrees. We have conservatives here. Parties that are very much pro-business. None of them, and this is true throughout the Western world would ever run on a platform to get rid of our social safety net. Does that not strike you as odd, that the thing you rail against is something ZERO political parties would ever want to get rid of it?

 

[pknopp]

The fact that every other first world country provides UHC at a cheaper rate than we do is simple facts. It's not propaganda. It's simple facts.

Which first world nation is as large as ours is?

Which one has as large of a military?

Which one has as diverse a population?

Which one has the same size population?

Budgeting is about choices. I agree, we could, hypothetically do it. But we could not do it on top of, and not added to the things we are are currently doing right now. Our entire culture and national priorities would have to be completely rearranged.


Honestly. . . you have terrible propaganda. Only folks that have no ability for critical thinking or use emotions to control their decision making would fall for this line of crap. Find some new talking points, seriously.

I have no desire to continue being the most violent nation in the world. If you want to argue that we can not provide health care because we have to destroy and kill others to make sure the markets increase, screw that.

You even say you agree we could do it.......but, we have to use that money destroying other countries.

No no, I agree.

Easily.

We are in agreement. No problem.

If you could get us out of the middle east, completely withdraw us out of Afghanistan? Shut down that giant sucking sound the Deep State has. . . the Trillions of unaccounted for cash the Pentagon is sucking in for black ops?

Yeah, we can do it.

You and I know? It'll never, ever EVER happen. For years, Congress could not agree with Obama on a budget.

Then? Trump gets elected, and Dems and Repubs fall over themselves to give him more and more debt for the hundreds of bases in 74 nations. Everyone's investments go up when spending on defense is approved.

How are they going to cut that? None of the folks in power will shoot themselves in the foot, destroying their investments and putting all those folks out of jobs?


Do you really not know how this works?

The argument is that Sanders would destroy the country with his politics. If the choices is the mess you note is inevitable or destroying that, I'm going with destroying it.

O.K.

But I don't think you understand how this works.

He ISN'T that powerful.

The only thing he will end up destroying? Will be the DNC.

Let's assume that he gets elected.


What will happen is much the same as what happened when Obama got elected. Congress will NOT align with his priorities, Congress passes legislation.

No, Obama's priorities were not what he claimed. Congress was fully on board with his pro-corporate policies. They bucked a few social issues which is really not that important to start with.

oh, he can submit shit, but the that states will never agree to pass his priorities.

Added to that, they will pass CR's, which, Sanders will inevitably have to pass if he wants the current social programs to be funded.

IOW, for at least the next four years? Absolutely nothing would get done.

Just like when Obama was president.

Sanders will rule by EO as far as he can.

. . . and since we know that Sanders is not a Neo-liberal? I am less afraid of him than any other DNC candidate. I do not think he will get us in any new wars. In fact, he may even be better for the nation if you are for less government, than even Trump IS!

In another time that never happened. Obama doesn't decide to do a corporate give away of our health care (which is what Obamacare was). We don't get the mess we did to get it passed. We don't get the lies about what it was. The (D)s dont get crushed over all of that.

Let's say that all Obama could get done was getting rid of the pre-existing condition problem and getting people up to age 26 to remain on their parents insurance. Both were very popular options and would have went over really well. Obama argues up to the 2010 elections that he needed help to further these ideas. The (D)'s don't lose the House and Senate. Obama could have built upon those two programs. But no, he wanted to reward the Insurance and pharmaceutical companies (and Wall Street) that funded his campaign.

 

[MisterBeale]

Which first world nation is as large as ours is?

Which one has as large of a military?

Which one has as diverse a population?

Which one has the same size population?

Budgeting is about choices. I agree, we could, hypothetically do it. But we could not do it on top of, and not added to the things we are are currently doing right now. Our entire culture and national priorities would have to be completely rearranged.


Honestly. . . you have terrible propaganda. Only folks that have no ability for critical thinking or use emotions to control their decision making would fall for this line of crap. Find some new talking points, seriously.

I have no desire to continue being the most violent nation in the world. If you want to argue that we can not provide health care because we have to destroy and kill others to make sure the markets increase, screw that.

You even say you agree we could do it.......but, we have to use that money destroying other countries.

No no, I agree.

Easily.

We are in agreement. No problem.

If you could get us out of the middle east, completely withdraw us out of Afghanistan? Shut down that giant sucking sound the Deep State has. . . the Trillions of unaccounted for cash the Pentagon is sucking in for black ops?

Yeah, we can do it.

You and I know? It'll never, ever EVER happen. For years, Congress could not agree with Obama on a budget.

Then? Trump gets elected, and Dems and Repubs fall over themselves to give him more and more debt for the hundreds of bases in 74 nations. Everyone's investments go up when spending on defense is approved.

How are they going to cut that? None of the folks in power will shoot themselves in the foot, destroying their investments and putting all those folks out of jobs?


Do you really not know how this works?

The argument is that Sanders would destroy the country with his politics. If the choices is the mess you note is inevitable or destroying that, I'm going with destroying it.

O.K.

But I don't think you understand how this works.

He ISN'T that powerful.

The only thing he will end up destroying? Will be the DNC.

Let's assume that he gets elected.


What will happen is much the same as what happened when Obama got elected. Congress will NOT align with his priorities, Congress passes legislation.

No, Obama's priorities were not what he claimed. Congress was fully on board with his pro-corporate policies. They bucked a few social issues which is really not that important to start with.

oh, he can submit shit, but the that states will never agree to pass his priorities.

Added to that, they will pass CR's, which, Sanders will inevitably have to pass if he wants the current social programs to be funded.

IOW, for at least the next four years? Absolutely nothing would get done.

Just like when Obama was president.

Sanders will rule by EO as far as he can.

. . . and since we know that Sanders is not a Neo-liberal? I am less afraid of him than any other DNC candidate. I do not think he will get us in any new wars. In fact, he may even be better for the nation if you are for less government, than even Trump IS!

In another time that never happened. Obama doesn't decide to do a corporate give away of our health care (which is what Obamacare was). We don't get the mess we did to get it passed. We don't get the lies about what it was. The (D)s dont get crushed over all of that.

Let's say that all Obama could get done was getting rid of the pre-existing condition problem and getting people up to age 26 to remain on their parents insurance. Both were very popular options and would have went over really well. Obama argues up to the 2010 elections that he needed help to further these ideas. The (D)'s don't lose the House and Senate. Obama could have built upon those two programs. But no, he wanted to reward the Insurance and pharmaceutical companies (and Wall Street) that funded his campaign.

Regardless.

I maintain, the elites have done this all on purpose.

Do not be deceived into believing this is "people power."

This was a purposeful application of the Hegelian Dialectic for an End Game.

The powers that be are holding all the cards.

A nomination and election of Trump and Bernie do not serve to destroy the system as usual. Do not be deceived. Things will not improve in any significant way for the average person.

 

[pknopp]

I have no desire to continue being the most violent nation in the world. If you want to argue that we can not provide health care because we have to destroy and kill others to make sure the markets increase, screw that.

You even say you agree we could do it.......but, we have to use that money destroying other countries.

No no, I agree.

Easily.

We are in agreement. No problem.

If you could get us out of the middle east, completely withdraw us out of Afghanistan? Shut down that giant sucking sound the Deep State has. . . the Trillions of unaccounted for cash the Pentagon is sucking in for black ops?

Yeah, we can do it.

You and I know? It'll never, ever EVER happen. For years, Congress could not agree with Obama on a budget.

Then? Trump gets elected, and Dems and Repubs fall over themselves to give him more and more debt for the hundreds of bases in 74 nations. Everyone's investments go up when spending on defense is approved.

How are they going to cut that? None of the folks in power will shoot themselves in the foot, destroying their investments and putting all those folks out of jobs?


Do you really not know how this works?

The argument is that Sanders would destroy the country with his politics. If the choices is the mess you note is inevitable or destroying that, I'm going with destroying it.

O.K.

But I don't think you understand how this works.

He ISN'T that powerful.

The only thing he will end up destroying? Will be the DNC.

Let's assume that he gets elected.


What will happen is much the same as what happened when Obama got elected. Congress will NOT align with his priorities, Congress passes legislation.

No, Obama's priorities were not what he claimed. Congress was fully on board with his pro-corporate policies. They bucked a few social issues which is really not that important to start with.

oh, he can submit shit, but the that states will never agree to pass his priorities.

Added to that, they will pass CR's, which, Sanders will inevitably have to pass if he wants the current social programs to be funded.

IOW, for at least the next four years? Absolutely nothing would get done.

Just like when Obama was president.

Sanders will rule by EO as far as he can.

. . . and since we know that Sanders is not a Neo-liberal? I am less afraid of him than any other DNC candidate. I do not think he will get us in any new wars. In fact, he may even be better for the nation if you are for less government, than even Trump IS!

In another time that never happened. Obama doesn't decide to do a corporate give away of our health care (which is what Obamacare was). We don't get the mess we did to get it passed. We don't get the lies about what it was. The (D)s dont get crushed over all of that.

Let's say that all Obama could get done was getting rid of the pre-existing condition problem and getting people up to age 26 to remain on their parents insurance. Both were very popular options and would have went over really well. Obama argues up to the 2010 elections that he needed help to further these ideas. The (D)'s don't lose the House and Senate. Obama could have built upon those two programs. But no, he wanted to reward the Insurance and pharmaceutical companies (and Wall Street) that funded his campaign.

Regardless.

I maintain, the elites have done this all on purpose.

Do not be deceived into believing this is "people power."

This was a purposeful application of the Hegelian Dialectic for an End Game.

The powers that be are holding all the cards.

A nomination and election of Trump and Bernie do not serve to destroy the system as usual. Do not be deceived. Things will not improve in any significant way for the average person.

If Bernie wins and does nothing for the people (which is an idea I totally reject as that is who he has always been) those like myself (a growing number of people) will go even more extreme.

 

[MisterBeale]

No no, I agree.

Easily.

We are in agreement. No problem.

If you could get us out of the middle east, completely withdraw us out of Afghanistan? Shut down that giant sucking sound the Deep State has. . . the Trillions of unaccounted for cash the Pentagon is sucking in for black ops?

Yeah, we can do it.

You and I know? It'll never, ever EVER happen. For years, Congress could not agree with Obama on a budget.

Then? Trump gets elected, and Dems and Repubs fall over themselves to give him more and more debt for the hundreds of bases in 74 nations. Everyone's investments go up when spending on defense is approved.

How are they going to cut that? None of the folks in power will shoot themselves in the foot, destroying their investments and putting all those folks out of jobs?


Do you really not know how this works?

The argument is that Sanders would destroy the country with his politics. If the choices is the mess you note is inevitable or destroying that, I'm going with destroying it.

O.K.

But I don't think you understand how this works.

He ISN'T that powerful.

The only thing he will end up destroying? Will be the DNC.

Let's assume that he gets elected.


What will happen is much the same as what happened when Obama got elected. Congress will NOT align with his priorities, Congress passes legislation.

No, Obama's priorities were not what he claimed. Congress was fully on board with his pro-corporate policies. They bucked a few social issues which is really not that important to start with.

oh, he can submit shit, but the that states will never agree to pass his priorities.

Added to that, they will pass CR's, which, Sanders will inevitably have to pass if he wants the current social programs to be funded.

IOW, for at least the next four years? Absolutely nothing would get done.

Just like when Obama was president.

Sanders will rule by EO as far as he can.

. . . and since we know that Sanders is not a Neo-liberal? I am less afraid of him than any other DNC candidate. I do not think he will get us in any new wars. In fact, he may even be better for the nation if you are for less government, than even Trump IS!

In another time that never happened. Obama doesn't decide to do a corporate give away of our health care (which is what Obamacare was). We don't get the mess we did to get it passed. We don't get the lies about what it was. The (D)s dont get crushed over all of that.

Let's say that all Obama could get done was getting rid of the pre-existing condition problem and getting people up to age 26 to remain on their parents insurance. Both were very popular options and would have went over really well. Obama argues up to the 2010 elections that he needed help to further these ideas. The (D)'s don't lose the House and Senate. Obama could have built upon those two programs. But no, he wanted to reward the Insurance and pharmaceutical companies (and Wall Street) that funded his campaign.

Regardless.

I maintain, the elites have done this all on purpose.

Do not be deceived into believing this is "people power."

This was a purposeful application of the Hegelian Dialectic for an End Game.

The powers that be are holding all the cards.

A nomination and election of Trump and Bernie do not serve to destroy the system as usual. Do not be deceived. Things will not improve in any significant way for the average person.

If Bernie wins and does nothing for the people (which is an idea I totally reject as that is who he has always been) those like myself (a growing number of people) will go even more extreme.

Bernie cares about the power of the STATE. . . and control of people.

A bit naive. Well meaning? Perhaps. But that is his highest priority, NOT helping people.

Bernie Sanders: 'I don't believe in charities' - WND

 

[Flash]

“If any one will not work, let him not eat.” (2 Thess. 3: 10)

 

[forkup]

The argument is that Sanders would destroy the country with his politics. If the choices is the mess you note is inevitable or destroying that, I'm going with destroying it.

O.K.

But I don't think you understand how this works.

He ISN'T that powerful.

The only thing he will end up destroying? Will be the DNC.

Let's assume that he gets elected.


What will happen is much the same as what happened when Obama got elected. Congress will NOT align with his priorities, Congress passes legislation.

No, Obama's priorities were not what he claimed. Congress was fully on board with his pro-corporate policies. They bucked a few social issues which is really not that important to start with.

oh, he can submit shit, but the that states will never agree to pass his priorities.

Added to that, they will pass CR's, which, Sanders will inevitably have to pass if he wants the current social programs to be funded.

IOW, for at least the next four years? Absolutely nothing would get done.

Just like when Obama was president.

Sanders will rule by EO as far as he can.

. . . and since we know that Sanders is not a Neo-liberal? I am less afraid of him than any other DNC candidate. I do not think he will get us in any new wars. In fact, he may even be better for the nation if you are for less government, than even Trump IS!

In another time that never happened. Obama doesn't decide to do a corporate give away of our health care (which is what Obamacare was). We don't get the mess we did to get it passed. We don't get the lies about what it was. The (D)s dont get crushed over all of that.

Let's say that all Obama could get done was getting rid of the pre-existing condition problem and getting people up to age 26 to remain on their parents insurance. Both were very popular options and would have went over really well. Obama argues up to the 2010 elections that he needed help to further these ideas. The (D)'s don't lose the House and Senate. Obama could have built upon those two programs. But no, he wanted to reward the Insurance and pharmaceutical companies (and Wall Street) that funded his campaign.

Regardless.

I maintain, the elites have done this all on purpose.

Do not be deceived into believing this is "people power."

This was a purposeful application of the Hegelian Dialectic for an End Game.

The powers that be are holding all the cards.

A nomination and election of Trump and Bernie do not serve to destroy the system as usual. Do not be deceived. Things will not improve in any significant way for the average person.

If Bernie wins and does nothing for the people (which is an idea I totally reject as that is who he has always been) those like myself (a growing number of people) will go even more extreme.

Bernie cares about the power of the STATE. . . and control of people.

A bit naive. Well meaning? Perhaps. But that is his highest priority, NOT helping people.

Bernie Sanders: 'I don't believe in charities' - WND

You know this confuses me. Firstly the quote is from 1981. Somehow I don't exactly know how relevant that still is to someone's position. Secondly, every day I hear people on this board say how lefties want 'free shit'. Here he says he doesn't believe in that and somehow that's destroying society?

Thirdly unrelated I also want to add this. During the industrial revolution, the church in an effort to deal with the growing unrest of the working class an unrest that saw the birth of Socialism and unions it's response was and I'm simplifying here that the working class should NOT organize. They should simply know their place and it was the rich people's duty to give them charity. Of course, the charity wouldn't have meant an end to child labor, the 'chit system' 14-hour workdays and the like. In that light, I understand what Bernie is saying.

Charity even today is to often used as a way for the ultra-rich to inoculate themselves against public opinion turning against them. The concept itself is not bad but in the end, it doesn't solve problems.

 

[Flash]

[Q

Oh giving away money too oil companies does make sense?

Explain how we "give money away to oil companies".

You are not one of these stupid uneducated low information Moon Bats that think it is wrong for the tax code to allow a legitimate tax deduction for the expense of energy exploration, are you? One of these idiots that complain about things like that but support the filthy ass government providing subsidies to the solar and wind farm industries and then tax credits to the dumbshits that buy the technology.

How about joining Conservatives like me and advocate doing away with all government transfers of payments? All welfare, subsidies, grants, bailouts and entitlements. We will start twill stopping all those stupid subsidies to the Environmental Wacko industries.

United States Spend Ten Times More On Fossil Fuel Subsidies Than Education
Subsidies are the government giving away money to certain sectors to help them. In this case, a sector that's already making quite a lot of money and have a proven detrimental effect on the environment.

It is quite interesting that you find subsidies that actually make sense from an environmental standpoint the thing to get rid of first. Not the ones that have a detrimental effect. As for the rest. I'm European as such I pay a lot of taxes. Saying that though I get a lot in return for it. My wife who is American and has lived here for more than 10 years now agrees. We have conservatives here. Parties that are very much pro-business. None of them, and this is true throughout the Western world would ever run on a platform to get rid of our social safety net. Does that not strike you as odd, that the thing you rail against is something ZERO political parties would ever want to get rid of it?

Like all Left Wing bullshit that article is misleading. Moon Bats are confused about Economics just like they are confused about many other things.

The great majority of what the Environmental Wackos call subsidies are legitimate business expense tax deductions. Mostly for exploration. The same kind of deductions that other businesses get. That is a good thing because looking for new reserves is costly and risky and if the money used for was tax then the cost of power in this country would rise substantially.

You do like lower cost of energy, don't you? You are not one of these idiots that would to see taxes go up and the cost of energy to increase because of that, would you? That would be stupid, wouldn't it?

It is better for the the government not getting that tax revenue and the cost of energy being lower than it is than for the filthy government to get even more money than it does now to spend on worthless shit and the cost of electricity in our homes and the cost of fuel at the pump to sky rocket.

I don't know about you Moon Bat but I like the cost of electricity and fuel to be lower and I hate the filthy government getting more money than it already does seeing how they spend money on worthless shit.

There are a very few direct subsides and the ones we do have is used to encourage either domestic production or clean coal development.

However, if you are really against any direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry then please join me to oppose all government subsidies to anybody. How about it Sport?

 

[forkup]

[Q

Oh giving away money too oil companies does make sense?

Explain how we "give money away to oil companies".

You are not one of these stupid uneducated low information Moon Bats that think it is wrong for the tax code to allow a legitimate tax deduction for the expense of energy exploration, are you? One of these idiots that complain about things like that but support the filthy ass government providing subsidies to the solar and wind farm industries and then tax credits to the dumbshits that buy the technology.

How about joining Conservatives like me and advocate doing away with all government transfers of payments? All welfare, subsidies, grants, bailouts and entitlements. We will start twill stopping all those stupid subsidies to the Environmental Wacko industries.

United States Spend Ten Times More On Fossil Fuel Subsidies Than Education
Subsidies are the government giving away money to certain sectors to help them. In this case, a sector that's already making quite a lot of money and have a proven detrimental effect on the environment.

It is quite interesting that you find subsidies that actually make sense from an environmental standpoint the thing to get rid of first. Not the ones that have a detrimental effect. As for the rest. I'm European as such I pay a lot of taxes. Saying that though I get a lot in return for it. My wife who is American and has lived here for more than 10 years now agrees. We have conservatives here. Parties that are very much pro-business. None of them, and this is true throughout the Western world would ever run on a platform to get rid of our social safety net. Does that not strike you as odd, that the thing you rail against is something ZERO political parties would ever want to get rid of it?

Like all Left Wing bullshit that article is misleading. Moon Bats are confused about Economics just like they are confused about many other things.

The great majority of what the Environmental Wackos call subsidies are legitimate business expense tax deductions. Mostly for exploration. The same kind of deductions that other businesses get. That is a good thing because looking for new reserves is costly and risky and if the money used for was tax then the cost of power in this country would rise substantially.

You do like lower cost of energy, don't you? You are not one of these idiots that would to see taxes go up and the cost of energy to increase because of that, would you? That would be stupid, wouldn't it?

It is better for the the government not getting that tax revenue and the cost of energy being lower than it is than for the filthy government to get even more money than it does now to spend on worthless shit and the cost of electricity in our homes and the cost of fuel at the pump to sky rocket.

I don't know about you Moon Bat but I like the cost of electricity and fuel to be lower and I hate the filthy government getting more money than it already does seeing how they spend money on worthless shit.

There are a very few direct subsides and the ones we do have is used to encourage either domestic production or clean coal development.

However, if you are really against any direct subsidies to the fossil fuel industry then please join me to oppose all government subsidies to anybody. How about it Sport?

You know, in my experience people who revert to name-calling and show the kind of disdain as you seem to display towards me are the same people who can't really rationally discuss something. Having said that, just so you know I'm a good sport I'll answer. The article, for instance, was one written in Forbes, hardly a left-wing news source. As to the rest, subsidies are a useful tool to promote certain things it's an incentive the government can employ. The carbon fuel industry as a whole does not need to be incentivized. They make a lot of money as it is. You like your energy cheap, so do I. But exactly how cheap is it? When you factor in long term environmental damage, health problems and the like? Do you have kids? If so are you comfortable paying a few cents less on the dollar, (debatable of course since companies have other options than giving money away to their customers without an incentive to do so) when those few cents contribute to their world being subjected to unknown and possibly severe consequences?

 

[pknopp]

The argument is that Sanders would destroy the country with his politics. If the choices is the mess you note is inevitable or destroying that, I'm going with destroying it.

O.K.

But I don't think you understand how this works.

He ISN'T that powerful.

The only thing he will end up destroying? Will be the DNC.

Let's assume that he gets elected.


What will happen is much the same as what happened when Obama got elected. Congress will NOT align with his priorities, Congress passes legislation.

No, Obama's priorities were not what he claimed. Congress was fully on board with his pro-corporate policies. They bucked a few social issues which is really not that important to start with.

oh, he can submit shit, but the that states will never agree to pass his priorities.

Added to that, they will pass CR's, which, Sanders will inevitably have to pass if he wants the current social programs to be funded.

IOW, for at least the next four years? Absolutely nothing would get done.

Just like when Obama was president.

Sanders will rule by EO as far as he can.

. . . and since we know that Sanders is not a Neo-liberal? I am less afraid of him than any other DNC candidate. I do not think he will get us in any new wars. In fact, he may even be better for the nation if you are for less government, than even Trump IS!

In another time that never happened. Obama doesn't decide to do a corporate give away of our health care (which is what Obamacare was). We don't get the mess we did to get it passed. We don't get the lies about what it was. The (D)s dont get crushed over all of that.

Let's say that all Obama could get done was getting rid of the pre-existing condition problem and getting people up to age 26 to remain on their parents insurance. Both were very popular options and would have went over really well. Obama argues up to the 2010 elections that he needed help to further these ideas. The (D)'s don't lose the House and Senate. Obama could have built upon those two programs. But no, he wanted to reward the Insurance and pharmaceutical companies (and Wall Street) that funded his campaign.

Regardless.

I maintain, the elites have done this all on purpose.

Do not be deceived into believing this is "people power."

This was a purposeful application of the Hegelian Dialectic for an End Game.

The powers that be are holding all the cards.

A nomination and election of Trump and Bernie do not serve to destroy the system as usual. Do not be deceived. Things will not improve in any significant way for the average person.

If Bernie wins and does nothing for the people (which is an idea I totally reject as that is who he has always been) those like myself (a growing number of people) will go even more extreme.

Bernie cares about the power of the STATE. . . and control of people.

A bit naive. Well meaning? Perhaps. But that is his highest priority, NOT helping people.

Bernie Sanders: 'I don't believe in charities' - WND

That's his opinion. I understand the idea of not thinking that sick people should have to beg for help but he never did anything to stop people from accessing charities.

Note, this is also a 40 year old opinion.

 

[MisterBeale]

O.K.

But I don't think you understand how this works.

He ISN'T that powerful.

The only thing he will end up destroying? Will be the DNC.

Let's assume that he gets elected.


What will happen is much the same as what happened when Obama got elected. Congress will NOT align with his priorities, Congress passes legislation.

No, Obama's priorities were not what he claimed. Congress was fully on board with his pro-corporate policies. They bucked a few social issues which is really not that important to start with.

oh, he can submit shit, but the that states will never agree to pass his priorities.

Added to that, they will pass CR's, which, Sanders will inevitably have to pass if he wants the current social programs to be funded.

IOW, for at least the next four years? Absolutely nothing would get done.

Just like when Obama was president.

Sanders will rule by EO as far as he can.

. . . and since we know that Sanders is not a Neo-liberal? I am less afraid of him than any other DNC candidate. I do not think he will get us in any new wars. In fact, he may even be better for the nation if you are for less government, than even Trump IS!

In another time that never happened. Obama doesn't decide to do a corporate give away of our health care (which is what Obamacare was). We don't get the mess we did to get it passed. We don't get the lies about what it was. The (D)s dont get crushed over all of that.

Let's say that all Obama could get done was getting rid of the pre-existing condition problem and getting people up to age 26 to remain on their parents insurance. Both were very popular options and would have went over really well. Obama argues up to the 2010 elections that he needed help to further these ideas. The (D)'s don't lose the House and Senate. Obama could have built upon those two programs. But no, he wanted to reward the Insurance and pharmaceutical companies (and Wall Street) that funded his campaign.

Regardless.

I maintain, the elites have done this all on purpose.

Do not be deceived into believing this is "people power."

This was a purposeful application of the Hegelian Dialectic for an End Game.

The powers that be are holding all the cards.

A nomination and election of Trump and Bernie do not serve to destroy the system as usual. Do not be deceived. Things will not improve in any significant way for the average person.

If Bernie wins and does nothing for the people (which is an idea I totally reject as that is who he has always been) those like myself (a growing number of people) will go even more extreme.

Bernie cares about the power of the STATE. . . and control of people.

A bit naive. Well meaning? Perhaps. But that is his highest priority, NOT helping people.

Bernie Sanders: 'I don't believe in charities' - WND

That's his opinion. I understand the idea of not thinking that sick people should have to beg for help but he never did anything to stop people from accessing charities.

Note, this is also a 40 year old opinion.

. . . yes.

I find it interesting that much of the DNC has come around to his POV, and a lot in the GOP has too. In essence making charity against the law.

Sad.

 

[MisterBeale]

O.K.

But I don't think you understand how this works.

He ISN'T that powerful.

The only thing he will end up destroying? Will be the DNC.

Let's assume that he gets elected.


What will happen is much the same as what happened when Obama got elected. Congress will NOT align with his priorities, Congress passes legislation.

No, Obama's priorities were not what he claimed. Congress was fully on board with his pro-corporate policies. They bucked a few social issues which is really not that important to start with.

oh, he can submit shit, but the that states will never agree to pass his priorities.

Added to that, they will pass CR's, which, Sanders will inevitably have to pass if he wants the current social programs to be funded.

IOW, for at least the next four years? Absolutely nothing would get done.

Just like when Obama was president.

Sanders will rule by EO as far as he can.

. . . and since we know that Sanders is not a Neo-liberal? I am less afraid of him than any other DNC candidate. I do not think he will get us in any new wars. In fact, he may even be better for the nation if you are for less government, than even Trump IS!

In another time that never happened. Obama doesn't decide to do a corporate give away of our health care (which is what Obamacare was). We don't get the mess we did to get it passed. We don't get the lies about what it was. The (D)s dont get crushed over all of that.

Let's say that all Obama could get done was getting rid of the pre-existing condition problem and getting people up to age 26 to remain on their parents insurance. Both were very popular options and would have went over really well. Obama argues up to the 2010 elections that he needed help to further these ideas. The (D)'s don't lose the House and Senate. Obama could have built upon those two programs. But no, he wanted to reward the Insurance and pharmaceutical companies (and Wall Street) that funded his campaign.

Regardless.

I maintain, the elites have done this all on purpose.

Do not be deceived into believing this is "people power."

This was a purposeful application of the Hegelian Dialectic for an End Game.

The powers that be are holding all the cards.

A nomination and election of Trump and Bernie do not serve to destroy the system as usual. Do not be deceived. Things will not improve in any significant way for the average person.

If Bernie wins and does nothing for the people (which is an idea I totally reject as that is who he has always been) those like myself (a growing number of people) will go even more extreme.

Bernie cares about the power of the STATE. . . and control of people.

A bit naive. Well meaning? Perhaps. But that is his highest priority, NOT helping people.

Bernie Sanders: 'I don't believe in charities' - WND

You know this confuses me. Firstly the quote is from 1981. Somehow I don't exactly know how relevant that still is to someone's position. Secondly, every day I hear people on this board say how lefties want 'free shit'. Here he says he doesn't believe in that and somehow that's destroying society?

Thirdly unrelated I also want to add this. During the industrial revolution, the church in an effort to deal with the growing unrest of the working class an unrest that saw the birth of Socialism and unions it's response was and I'm simplifying here that the working class should NOT organize. They should simply know their place and it was the rich people's duty to give them charity. Of course, the charity wouldn't have meant an end to child labor, the 'chit system' 14-hour workdays and the like. In that light, I understand what Bernie is saying.

Charity even today is to often used as a way for the ultra-rich to inoculate themselves against public opinion turning against them. The concept itself is not bad but in the end, it doesn't solve problems.

So. .. socialists pointing out his ideological consistency over time. . . that's O.K.?


Anyone else does so. . . .


The problem with the left? Is their leaders are out of touch with the nation. They are trying to use class warfare, and it just hasn't worked, and won't ever work again. Folks don't like it anymore.

Do the poor and middle class struggle? Sure. Do most of them recognize that there is a wealth gap? Sure.

But they also, if they are educated, understand what the super wealthy do, and have done for society. The collective memory of the USSR vs the US in economic terms, is a lesson the planet will never forget.

Even now, everyone knows, economically, China uses State capitalism, not socialism.

Politicians should stop bashing the rich… most of us just don’t agree
Politicians should stop bashing the rich… most of us just don’t agree | Sonia Sodha

". . .The left has had more success when it makes the case in terms designed to appeal to the persuadable. For example, the campaign for equal marriage in the US achieved such a big impact because it framed the argument using conservative values of family and responsibility, rather than leftwing values of equality and human rights. When it comes to higher taxes, there is evidence to suggest that the public can be won over; six in 10 think the government should be taxing and spending more. But, according to Nicky Hawkins, a communications strategist at the FrameWorks Institute, Labour needs to do more explaining, rather than relying on shorthands such as “the top 1%” and “corporate greed”, which might resonate in a constituency meeting but not in a party political broadcast. “There are clear lessons from attempts to reform harmful tobacco and food industry practices,” Hawkins says. “Campaigners need to succinctly define the ‘baddie’ and explain their wrongdoing. Too often, they assume people automatically see things the way they do.”

This is consistent with new research about to be published by Tax Justice UK that found that, when making the case for a more progressive tax system, bashing the wealthy resonated far less well with voters than specific arguments about closing loopholes and increasing particular taxes. It might be less sexy than talk of predatory wealth extractors, but it is more effective. The left might also do well to focus on the instrumental rather than the moral case: tax as a building block for a better society rather than as a way to punish the undeserving rich.. . . "

 

[pknopp]

No, Obama's priorities were not what he claimed. Congress was fully on board with his pro-corporate policies. They bucked a few social issues which is really not that important to start with.

In another time that never happened. Obama doesn't decide to do a corporate give away of our health care (which is what Obamacare was). We don't get the mess we did to get it passed. We don't get the lies about what it was. The (D)s dont get crushed over all of that.

Let's say that all Obama could get done was getting rid of the pre-existing condition problem and getting people up to age 26 to remain on their parents insurance. Both were very popular options and would have went over really well. Obama argues up to the 2010 elections that he needed help to further these ideas. The (D)'s don't lose the House and Senate. Obama could have built upon those two programs. But no, he wanted to reward the Insurance and pharmaceutical companies (and Wall Street) that funded his campaign.

Regardless.

I maintain, the elites have done this all on purpose.

Do not be deceived into believing this is "people power."

This was a purposeful application of the Hegelian Dialectic for an End Game.

The powers that be are holding all the cards.

A nomination and election of Trump and Bernie do not serve to destroy the system as usual. Do not be deceived. Things will not improve in any significant way for the average person.

If Bernie wins and does nothing for the people (which is an idea I totally reject as that is who he has always been) those like myself (a growing number of people) will go even more extreme.

Bernie cares about the power of the STATE. . . and control of people.

A bit naive. Well meaning? Perhaps. But that is his highest priority, NOT helping people.

Bernie Sanders: 'I don't believe in charities' - WND

That's his opinion. I understand the idea of not thinking that sick people should have to beg for help but he never did anything to stop people from accessing charities.

Note, this is also a 40 year old opinion.

. . . yes.

I find it interesting that much of the DNC has come around to his POV, and a lot in the GOP has too. In essence making charity against the law.

Sad.

No idea what you are saying. There have been cities that have got upset at people feeding the homeless but that doesn't seem to stop them.

 

[MisterBeale]

Regardless.

I maintain, the elites have done this all on purpose.

Do not be deceived into believing this is "people power."

This was a purposeful application of the Hegelian Dialectic for an End Game.

The powers that be are holding all the cards.

A nomination and election of Trump and Bernie do not serve to destroy the system as usual. Do not be deceived. Things will not improve in any significant way for the average person.

If Bernie wins and does nothing for the people (which is an idea I totally reject as that is who he has always been) those like myself (a growing number of people) will go even more extreme.

Bernie cares about the power of the STATE. . . and control of people.

A bit naive. Well meaning? Perhaps. But that is his highest priority, NOT helping people.

Bernie Sanders: 'I don't believe in charities' - WND

That's his opinion. I understand the idea of not thinking that sick people should have to beg for help but he never did anything to stop people from accessing charities.

Note, this is also a 40 year old opinion.

. . . yes.

I find it interesting that much of the DNC has come around to his POV, and a lot in the GOP has too. In essence making charity against the law.

Sad.

No idea what you are saying. There have been cities that have got upset at people feeding the homeless but that doesn't seem to stop them.

In 33 U.S. Cities, It’s Illegal to Do the One Thing That Helps the Homeless Most

Like I said, it's all about the power of government, not about helping people.

 

[pknopp]

If Bernie wins and does nothing for the people (which is an idea I totally reject as that is who he has always been) those like myself (a growing number of people) will go even more extreme.

Bernie cares about the power of the STATE. . . and control of people.

A bit naive. Well meaning? Perhaps. But that is his highest priority, NOT helping people.

Bernie Sanders: 'I don't believe in charities' - WND

That's his opinion. I understand the idea of not thinking that sick people should have to beg for help but he never did anything to stop people from accessing charities.

Note, this is also a 40 year old opinion.

. . . yes.

I find it interesting that much of the DNC has come around to his POV, and a lot in the GOP has too. In essence making charity against the law.

Sad.

No idea what you are saying. There have been cities that have got upset at people feeding the homeless but that doesn't seem to stop them.

In 33 U.S. Cities, It’s Illegal to Do the One Thing That Helps the Homeless Most

Like I said, it's all about the power of government, not about helping people.

I mentioned that. Charities don't pay attention to it.