Post by: MakeItRain on January 10, 2016, 02:19:39 PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/poll-neck-neck-2016-races-iowa-new-hampshire-n493361
Post by: renocat on January 10, 2016, 03:11:02 PM
Post by: sys on January 10, 2016, 03:14:21 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on January 10, 2016, 03:17:24 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on January 10, 2016, 03:21:52 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 10, 2016, 03:24:22 PM
Post by: sys on January 10, 2016, 03:40:42 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on January 10, 2016, 03:41:52 PM
it's still amazing to me that it hasn't occurred to anyone in either of the major two parties that they could post a candidate that people don't find repulsive and lock up an easy presidential win.
What's repulsive about Bernie?
Post by: sys on January 10, 2016, 03:58:42 PM
it's still amazing to me that it hasn't occurred to anyone in either of the major two parties that they could post a candidate that people don't find repulsive and lock up an easy presidential win.
What's repulsive about Bernie?
90% marginal tax rate, overregulation of "wall street", protectionist trade, overseas taxation, anti keystone, anti nuclear, financial transaction tax, anti immigration reform to start.
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on January 10, 2016, 04:00:22 PM
Sounds great to meit's still amazing to me that it hasn't occurred to anyone in either of the major two parties that they could post a candidate that people don't find repulsive and lock up an easy presidential win.
What's repulsive about Bernie?
90% marginal tax rate, overregulation of "wall street", protectionist trade, overseas taxation, anti keystone, anti nuclear, financial transaction tax, anti immigration reform to start.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 10, 2016, 05:14:30 PM
it's still amazing to me that it hasn't occurred to anyone in either of the major two parties that they could post a candidate that people don't find repulsive and lock up an easy presidential win.
What's repulsive about Bernie?
90% marginal tax rate, overregulation of "wall street", protectionist trade, overseas taxation, anti keystone, anti nuclear, financial transaction tax, anti immigration reform to start.
Also, dementia and extremely low iq
Post by: MakeItRain on January 10, 2016, 05:35:16 PM
it's still amazing to me that it hasn't occurred to anyone in either of the major two parties that they could post a candidate that people don't find repulsive and lock up an easy presidential win.
What's repulsive about Bernie?
90% marginal tax rate, overregulation of "wall street", protectionist trade, overseas taxation, anti keystone, anti nuclear, financial transaction tax, anti immigration reform to start.
Not a single one of those things are repulsive in the eyes of the greater electorate. Those are policy items that people do are don't agree with. If repulsion speaks to how candidates fit with an individual view on certain issues then wouldn't you find like every person in the world repulsive? There are certainly issues I vehemently disagree with Bernie Sanders on but that doesn't repulse me. I despise Barack Obama's signature policy but that doesn't amount to repulsion. I'm repulsed by three current candidates, but three more; Hillary, Rubio, and Grimace, are speeding rapidly to repulsion.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 10, 2016, 05:53:35 PM
Also, he couldn't get 1/3 of democrats to support his batshit crazy agenda, let alone 1/2 of congress. He's a less serious candidate than Donald Trump, and that's saying something.
Post by: MakeItRain on January 10, 2016, 06:02:20 PM
Jealous, ignorance and sloth are repulsive characteristics. Every one of those policies is grounded in jealousy, ignorance and sloth.
Also, he couldn't get 1/3 of democrats to support his batshit crazy agenda, let alone 1/2 of congress. He's a less serious candidate than Donald Trump, and that's saying something.
Give me a break FSD, the republican party is split in two or even three, they couldn't even find a speaker without doing further damage to the party. In this political climate the ability to garner consensus is a laughable standard and you know it.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 10, 2016, 06:13:33 PM
rough ridin' GHW got legislation passed at a time when dem speaker Pelosi was openly calling him a liar and a murderer. It's not that hard if you worry more about your job than spin and poll numbers.
It doesn't have to be this bad. Most of the candidates could probably get things done. Sanders wouldn't
Post by: michigancat on January 10, 2016, 07:03:02 PM
it's still amazing to me that it hasn't occurred to anyone in either of the major two parties that they could post a candidate that people don't find repulsive and lock up an easy presidential win.
What's repulsive about Bernie?
90% marginal tax rate, overregulation of "wall street", protectionist trade, overseas taxation, anti keystone, anti nuclear, financial transaction tax, anti immigration reform to start.
Not a single one of those things are repulsive in the eyes of the greater electorate. Those are policy items that people do are don't agree with. If repulsion speaks to how candidates fit with an individual view on certain issues then wouldn't you find like every person in the world repulsive? There are certainly issues I vehemently disagree with Bernie Sanders on but that doesn't repulse me. I despise Barack Obama's signature policy but that doesn't amount to repulsion. I'm repulsed by three current candidates, but three more; Hillary, Rubio, and Grimace, are speeding rapidly to repulsion.
@sys may honestly find every person in the world repulsive
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 10, 2016, 07:19:44 PM
it's still amazing to me that it hasn't occurred to anyone in either of the major two parties that they could post a candidate that people don't find repulsive and lock up an easy presidential win.
It has occurred to me, and a lot of major GOP donors, who favor Rubio.
Post by: MakeItRain on January 10, 2016, 07:50:42 PM
It should be the only standard. It wasn't this bad until the ideologue who preferred to gloat and politic rather than govern was elected president. He was so terrible, he could barely push legiation through a Dem controlled house and supermajority senate. The excuses for his instantly failed terms are pathetic, it's all his fault.
rough ridin' GHW got legislation passed at a time when dem speaker Pelosi was openly calling him a liar and a murderer. It's not that hard if you worry more about your job than spin and poll numbers.
It doesn't have to be this bad. Most of the candidates could probably get things done. Sanders wouldn't
The republican party seems irreconcilably split
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.kym-cdn.com%2Fphotos%2Fimages%2Foriginal%2F000%2F489%2F941%2F85b.gif&hash=ce9a043e17d53c9d989d64786441a1cd2abbd245)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 10, 2016, 07:54:46 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 10, 2016, 07:55:34 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on January 13, 2016, 01:10:43 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chelsea-clinton-bernie-sanders-single-payer_56956c06e4b05b3245dad15a
Post by: renocat on January 14, 2016, 11:12:14 PM
Post by: steve dave on January 15, 2016, 08:41:16 AM
Post by: Asteriskhead on January 15, 2016, 08:44:36 AM
you know what's weird about bern? he's like the oldest candidate but his voting base is the youngest.
i think it might have to do with the fact he appears the least scummiest. that seems to be a pretty big thing for people around my age, not being a scumbag.
Post by: steve dave on January 15, 2016, 08:56:20 AM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 15, 2016, 09:05:05 AM
He's also right that we have too much government corruption and crony capitalism. He's right that Obamacare is a disaster. Unfortunately, this is where Bern goes off the rails. These problems are created by the government, but his solution is... more government. That's a serious disconnect. We don't need more socialism in the United States.
But I do appreciate that at least he seems to be honest about his beliefs, and he doesn't appear to be a felon.
Post by: CNS on January 15, 2016, 09:10:08 AM
Post by: star seed 7 on January 15, 2016, 09:12:14 AM
Post by: steve dave on January 15, 2016, 09:30:08 AM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 15, 2016, 12:45:02 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on January 15, 2016, 12:58:08 PM
Post by: steve dave on January 15, 2016, 01:00:55 PM
I like that he focuses on our internal problems and doesn't isis fear monger like every other candidate. I don't necessarily agree with his solutions but I appreciate that he doesn't pander to the low/medium majority voter fears.
Post by: lopakman on January 15, 2016, 01:05:41 PM
Fsd lives in fear, how sad :frown:
ignorance is bliss, that must be why you're always so happy amirite
Post by: Tobias on January 15, 2016, 01:08:12 PM
Post by: CNS on January 15, 2016, 01:11:29 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 15, 2016, 01:13:32 PM
Post by: chuckjames on January 15, 2016, 01:58:12 PM
Post by: mocat on January 15, 2016, 03:25:24 PM
Post by: Cartierfor3 on January 15, 2016, 03:45:27 PM
I agree with Bernie on some things. He's absolutely right, for example, that rape and sexual assault are police matters, and only police matters, whether they occur in a dark alley or a college campus, and universities are denying due process to the accused.
He's also right that we have too much government corruption and crony capitalism. He's right that Obamacare is a disaster. Unfortunately, this is where Bern goes off the rails. These problems are created by the government, but his solution is... more government. That's a serious disconnect. We don't need more socialism in the United States.
But I do appreciate that at least he seems to be honest about his beliefs, and he doesn't appear to be a felon.
I like that he focuses on our internal problems and doesn't isis fear monger like every other candidate. I don't necessarily agree with his solutions but I appreciate that he doesn't pander to the low/medium majority voter fears.
i like both these posts
Post by: 8manpick on January 15, 2016, 04:36:17 PM
terrorism had like a 4,000 person head start and still could not even sniff the amount of american deaths caused by other things since 2001, like the police for exampleYeah our reaction to terrorism is one of the biggest Chicken Little events in recent history
Post by: cfbandyman on January 15, 2016, 04:58:09 PM
terrorism had like a 4,000 person head start and still could not even sniff the amount of american deaths caused by other things since 2001, like the police for exampleYeah our reaction to terrorism is one of the biggest Chicken Little events in recent history
Our reaction has been one of the biggest causes of the crapshow we're in. Sunk billions into a destabilizing quagmire while getting 2000+ killed in Afghanistan and 4000+ in a lie of Iraq that has caused us to have ISIS. Let alone the stupid Department of Homeland Security, the charade of the TSA, oh and the highly intrusive Patriot act that also hasn't really done anything but be able to capture and store your dick pics. Terrorism won in the sense we spend untold amounts of time and money to try to stop a few assholes from the middle east. Why we didn't Seal Team 6 Bin Laden from the start is beyond me. But we got to be all big and bad and start crap.
Post by: Ptolemy on January 15, 2016, 07:06:53 PM
What I don't get is how the youth of this era can give up all chance they have of earning things on their own and hitch their futures to a socialist that believes government is entitled to 90% of what you earn. Look beyond all the crony-capitalist crap that I can actually agree with most on and get back to the basis....socialism runs on envy. If someone else made more money than you, they need to be punished by having most of it taken from them (theft) and redistributed to those that didn't earn it.
Can any of you young people explain this? Is it as simple as, "Hey I don't have to work as hard if I can have Bernie take it from someone else!"
What is it?
Post by: steve dave on January 15, 2016, 07:21:03 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on January 15, 2016, 07:27:31 PM
When I became of voting age, Reagan was just starting his first term. The country, led by the quasi-socialist Jimmy Carter the previous 4 years was awash in stagflation: double-digit unemployment, interest rates, and recession. I wasn't very political at the time, and had liberal professors trying to shove their crap along with their lectures. But I and those I knew in school at the time had minds of our own. I couldn't wait for 1984 and the chance to re-elect Reagan. What could possibly be fair about making the higher earners pay a greater percentage of their income for government than lower earners? The top marginal tax rate in Carter's years was 70%! What possible incentive is there to be productive and innovative if government takes 70% of it all? After Reagan's second term was over, the top rate was reduced to 28%. History was clear about the economic boom that results from such free market actions. The free market is why the U.S. economy leads the world.
What I don't get is how the youth of this era can give up all chance they have of earning things on their own and hitch their futures to a socialist that believes government is entitled to 90% of what you earn. Look beyond all the crony-capitalist crap that I can actually agree with most on and get back to the basis....socialism runs on envy. If someone else made more money than you, they need to be punished by having most of it taken from them (theft) and redistributed to those that didn't earn it.
Can any of you young people explain this? Is it as simple as, "Hey I don't have to work as hard if I can have Bernie take it from someone else!"
What is it?
:lol:
Post by: Tobias on January 15, 2016, 07:30:32 PM
Post by: Ptolemy on January 15, 2016, 07:56:54 PM
get out of here dad :curse:
I'm guessing that means, no, you can't explain it.
Makes perfect sense given the discussion with a recent Chemical Engg grad I related in another thread that was unaware that man only produces 3% of all the planet's atmospheric carbon dioxide.
I fear for mankind's future.
Post by: star seed 7 on January 15, 2016, 07:59:01 PM
Post by: Tobias on January 15, 2016, 08:03:12 PM
One day, innovation will fix how scared old people are of stuff
lib who wants to give away 90% of his paycheck and also sit around collecting free crap for not working outed
Post by: Ptolemy on January 15, 2016, 11:28:43 PM
lib who wants to give away 90% of his paycheck and also sit around collecting free crap for not working outed
Actually, he wants to give away (take) 90% of MY earnings and sit around collecting someone else's earned crap for not working.
Post by: Tobias on January 15, 2016, 11:34:49 PM
Post by: wetwillie on January 15, 2016, 11:38:06 PM
Post by: Tobias on January 15, 2016, 11:40:33 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on January 15, 2016, 11:44:29 PM
Post by: bones129 on January 16, 2016, 01:28:17 AM
Biden my time
Won't happen. Might be nice if it would, but it won't.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 16, 2016, 06:00:06 AM
Post by: CNS on January 16, 2016, 07:51:38 AM
Post by: Asteriskhead on January 16, 2016, 08:24:38 AM
lib who wants to give away 90% of his paycheck and also sit around collecting free crap for not working outed
Actually, he wants to give away (take) 90% of MY earnings and sit around collecting someone else's earned crap for not working.
interesting, if true.
Post by: chum1 on January 16, 2016, 08:39:56 AM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 16, 2016, 08:47:47 AM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 16, 2016, 08:48:36 AM
Post by: chuckjames on January 16, 2016, 09:41:31 AM
When I became of voting age, Reagan was just starting his first term. The country, led by the quasi-socialist Jimmy Carter the previous 4 years was awash in stagflation: double-digit unemployment, interest rates, and recession. I wasn't very political at the time, and had liberal professors trying to shove their crap along with their lectures. But I and those I knew in school at the time had minds of our own. I couldn't wait for 1984 and the chance to re-elect Reagan. What could possibly be fair about making the higher earners pay a greater percentage of their income for government than lower earners? The top marginal tax rate in Carter's years was 70%! What possible incentive is there to be productive and innovative if government takes 70% of it all? After Reagan's second term was over, the top rate was reduced to 28%. History was clear about the economic boom that results from such free market actions. The free market is why the U.S. economy leads the world.
What I don't get is how the youth of this era can give up all chance they have of earning things on their own and hitch their futures to a socialist that believes government is entitled to 90% of what you earn. Look beyond all the crony-capitalist crap that I can actually agree with most on and get back to the basis....socialism runs on envy. If someone else made more money than you, they need to be punished by having most of it taken from them (theft) and redistributed to those that didn't earn it.
Can any of you young people explain this? Is it as simple as, "Hey I don't have to work as hard if I can have Bernie take it from someone else!"
What is it?
What's funny about all this is the greatest economic growth in our country's history happened when the highest marginal tax rate was 91%. And with that money the government with all its awfulness created the middle class with the GI bill.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 16, 2016, 10:07:49 AM
I'll agree Sanders is a far greater threat to this country than isis. From a pain and suffering pov
Post by: chuckjames on January 16, 2016, 10:11:00 AM
Even re-writing American history, as demonstrated above,
I'll agree Sanders is a far greater threat to this country than isis. From a pain and suffering pov
Great argument. You forgot the personal attacks tho. So not sure this is a real FSD post.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 16, 2016, 10:12:36 AM
Post by: chuckjames on January 16, 2016, 10:17:45 AM
It's not an argument. :dunno:
I'm aware Bc you actually never make arguments for your side. You just call the other side stupid. But I guess trolls are gonna troll.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 16, 2016, 11:05:39 AM
It's not an argument. :dunno:
I'm aware Bc you actually never make arguments for your side. You just call the other side stupid. But I guess trolls are gonna troll.
I mean, that's not true
Post by: CNS on January 16, 2016, 11:51:45 AM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.wp.com%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fed-assets%2F2016%2F01%2FSnasders-LMAO-copy.jpg&hash=4c1f9d05fdf38a73b0c69f9ede84b32635c1bd29)Holy crap.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 16, 2016, 12:12:57 PM
:lol:
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 16, 2016, 12:14:30 PM
:lol:
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 16, 2016, 12:20:38 PM
I suppose if you had to argue the incremental cost isn't worth the lives saved, but that's entirely too pragmatic.
Post by: star seed 7 on January 16, 2016, 12:40:40 PM
Post by: michigancat on January 16, 2016, 12:41:36 PM
I mean, there's no question we've spent an obscene amount of money fighting terrorism (or whatever we call what we're doing now), but are you actually arguing those efforts have not done anything to curtail or prevent another 9/11 type event?
I suppose if you had to argue the incremental cost isn't worth the lives saved, but that's entirely too pragmatic.
How many lives have been saved?
Post by: CNS on January 16, 2016, 01:08:19 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 16, 2016, 01:23:51 PM
I mean, there's no question we've spent an obscene amount of money fighting terrorism (or whatever we call what we're doing now), but are you actually arguing those efforts have not done anything to curtail or prevent another 9/11 type event?
I suppose if you had to argue the incremental cost isn't worth the lives saved, but that's entirely too pragmatic.
How many lives have been saved?
More than 0
Post by: michigancat on January 16, 2016, 01:29:27 PM
The money is one thing. The ramp up of security overreach, violation of basic privacy, and the amt of fear mongering is worse than the money spent.
I agree, but both are pretty bad.
I mean, there's no question we've spent an obscene amount of money fighting terrorism (or whatever we call what we're doing now), but are you actually arguing those efforts have not done anything to curtail or prevent another 9/11 type event?
I suppose if you had to argue the incremental cost isn't worth the lives saved, but that's entirely too pragmatic.
How many lives have been saved?
More than 0
Is that more than the number killed in Iraq and afghanistan?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 16, 2016, 01:33:25 PM
The money is one thing. The ramp up of security overreach, violation of basic privacy, and the amt of fear mongering is worse than the money spent.
Yeah, we all know the trade offs. Reciting them with a gratuitous "fear mongering" comment makes you look like a dumbass.
I'm asking the "isis isn't a big deal" crowd if they truly think isis (and other terror groups) would be the same it is today without our efforts to destroy/undermine them.
Because right now your position seems to be that all of the crap you're bitchin about is illusory. Which is pretty rough ridin' looney .
And I generally agree the costs aren't worth the marginal benefit, but I'm not so flippant and naive to say isis isn't a significant problem.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 16, 2016, 01:38:24 PM
The money is one thing. The ramp up of security overreach, violation of basic privacy, and the amt of fear mongering is worse than the money spent.
I agree, but both are pretty bad.I mean, there's no question we've spent an obscene amount of money fighting terrorism (or whatever we call what we're doing now), but are you actually arguing those efforts have not done anything to curtail or prevent another 9/11 type event?
I suppose if you had to argue the incremental cost isn't worth the lives saved, but that's entirely too pragmatic.
How many lives have been saved?
More than 0
Is that more than the number killed in Iraq and afghanistan?
It's hard to say, CNN took down the death counter as soon as b.o. began leading the attacks. Based on what al quaeda did on 9/11, had we just said welp that's a one off event and changed nothing, I would guess many many more innocent people would be dead.
Obviously it's conjectural. At least it's not conjectural fallacy, like your position.
Post by: star seed 7 on January 16, 2016, 02:25:18 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 16, 2016, 02:36:55 PM
Sad, yet :ROFL:
Post by: star seed 7 on January 16, 2016, 02:39:08 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 16, 2016, 02:42:35 PM
Poor Lib
Post by: CNS on January 16, 2016, 03:00:13 PM
Not what was meant. You didn't get itdax, the tea party isn't much of a thing any more.
Yeah, it's just the "tea party" talking about this. Wow, stupid.
Post by: Tobias on January 16, 2016, 03:01:49 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on January 16, 2016, 03:08:45 PM
Post by: renocat on January 17, 2016, 12:28:07 AM
Post by: mocat on January 17, 2016, 10:17:04 AM
dax, this one is directed at you
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 17, 2016, 12:25:30 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 23, 2016, 11:32:03 AM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi0.wp.com%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fed-assets%2F2016%2F01%2FBernie-Swag-Out.jpg&hash=9fc7b95bae1e7bac5b3102a88d23b28dc5ba1046)
Post by: star seed 7 on January 23, 2016, 11:50:16 AM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 23, 2016, 12:37:30 PM
Nobody tapped you lib7. So get out.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 28, 2016, 01:42:36 PM
Shots fired! Shots fired!
#notfeelingthebern
Post by: MakeItRain on February 05, 2016, 10:41:46 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanderss-fiction-filled-campaign/2016/01/27/cd1b2866-c478-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html
Shots fired! Shots fired!
#notfeelingthebern
You see the comments in that article? I got tired of looking for one supportive of the wapo. Here's the thing the establishment needs to understand with Trump and Sanders, the general populace has watched Washington deteriorate and simply not function for the better part of an entire generation now. This may not be the exact time that we see a change on how things are done but it's coming and this is a start not the end of this. The only thing Washington can seem to agree to is where we're going to fight next. Both parties like to spend their time telling Americans how bad things are and the people are starting to believe them. Sanders and Trump don't need the media, they are populists who are giving people something to believe in.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 05, 2016, 10:45:03 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 05, 2016, 12:38:42 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanderss-fiction-filled-campaign/2016/01/27/cd1b2866-c478-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html
Shots fired! Shots fired!
#notfeelingthebern
You see the comments in that article? I got tired of looking for one supportive of the wapo. Here's the thing the establishment needs to understand with Trump and Sanders, the general populace has watched Washington deteriorate and simply not function for the better part of an entire generation now. This may not be the exact time that we see a change on how things are done but it's coming and this is a start not the end of this. The only thing Washington can seem to agree to is where we're going to fight next. Both parties like to spend their time telling Americans how bad things are and the people are starting to believe them. Sanders and Trump don't need the media, they are populists who are giving people something to believe in.
I personally am now trying to avoid Trump altogether, it's not easy given the media coverage, but I don't proactively seek any articles, nor watch any news clips that pertain specifically to Trump. While I appreciate some of the points he has made, they are merely points that he doesn't back up with any depth or substance.
Post by: bucket on February 05, 2016, 12:45:00 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanderss-fiction-filled-campaign/2016/01/27/cd1b2866-c478-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html
Shots fired! Shots fired!
#notfeelingthebern
You see the comments in that article? I got tired of looking for one supportive of the wapo. Here's the thing the establishment needs to understand with Trump and Sanders, the general populace has watched Washington deteriorate and simply not function for the better part of an entire generation now. This may not be the exact time that we see a change on how things are done but it's coming and this is a start not the end of this. The only thing Washington can seem to agree to is where we're going to fight next. Both parties like to spend their time telling Americans how bad things are and the people are starting to believe them. Sanders and Trump don't need the media, they are populists who are giving people something to believe in.
:excited:
Post by: wetwillie on February 05, 2016, 01:02:19 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 05, 2016, 02:34:51 PM
MIR will Bernie get a good percentage of the black votes that Obama got in 2008? A Washington post article I read a few weeks ago was making it sound like Clinton would get a good percentage more.
I'm not sure. I do take offense to the msm who think that Hillary will get all of us to vote for her because she continually says "Barack Obama." If I were to guess I'd think the demographics for the black voters will be similar to white voters. The young and educated black voters will go with Bernie and the older black voters who are generally more moderate will vote with her.
I do know she has a real problem with Hispanic voters though.
Post by: CNS on February 05, 2016, 03:00:26 PM
He has much more of a shot than most media is giving him, imo.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 06, 2016, 08:18:24 AM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.wp.com%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fed-assets%2F2016%2F02%2FKrauthammer-on-Bernie.jpg&hash=c11cf00970073503ea583ebfec16008c3e18ff70)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.wp.com%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fed-assets%2F2016%2F02%2FDemocratis-Socialism.jpg&hash=ef9f77fc9e065db146eacc68e163a1baaed0d349)
In all seriousness, what does it say about libtards that they're still in favor - now openly! - of an economic model with such an epic track record of failure? I guess that's why Bernie's supporters are almost exclusively old radicals and young fools with no real world experience.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 06, 2016, 08:20:24 AM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.wp.com%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fed-assets%2F2016%2F02%2FBernie-Nintendo.jpg&hash=c8ad6876912ebddbd0e4cb512d0a4090021766b0)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 06, 2016, 08:24:15 AM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.wp.com%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fed-assets%2F2016%2F02%2FPoliticians-should-run.jpg&hash=3c2889739d3cde08791126b0fa4fb49c08448177)
This is one of the great intellectual disconnects of libtardism. With all the evidence of government incompetence and corruption, they want to give them greater control?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 06, 2016, 08:27:13 AM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi0.wp.com%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fed-assets%2F2016%2F02%2FBernie-Ross.jpg&hash=9e99de4d22f26622ae61004b188bb7a7b1bdb423)
This one is my favorite. :lol:
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 06, 2016, 08:38:22 AM
Post by: bucket on February 06, 2016, 09:57:17 AM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.wp.com%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fed-assets%2F2016%2F02%2FJFK-free-crap.jpg&hash=26539d6edf46bc072e4d21fefbcf2d36723eecef)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.wp.com%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fed-assets%2F2016%2F02%2FPoliticians-should-run.jpg&hash=3c2889739d3cde08791126b0fa4fb49c08448177)
This is one of the great intellectual disconnects of libtardism. With all the evidence of government incompetence and corruption, they want to give them greater control?
Your first image didn't load so I'm only commenting on the second. The people hold government accountable (believe it or not). The government hold the elite accountable (believe it or not). What's wrong with wanting government officials to keep them in check? What's wrong with not wanting great recessions and paying for bailouts?
Post by: wetwillie on February 06, 2016, 10:06:25 AM
Post by: bucket on February 06, 2016, 10:25:09 AM
Bernie's viability is in some heads I see.
Honestly, I thought going after Wall Street would be a bi-partisan issue. I thought if a candidate wanted to do that 90-95 percent of the voters would get behind that candidate. I was wrong. Bernie has faults, don't get me wrong, but income inequality is my biggest concern and it's his platform. The other candidates fail to bring much of anything, besides xenophobia, to the table. Therefore it's write-in Ken Griffey Jr. or vote Bernie.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 06, 2016, 11:13:56 AM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 06, 2016, 11:18:28 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/debbie-wasserman-schultz-primary_us_56aa4c4be4b00164892297e7
Post by: Ptolemy on February 06, 2016, 11:19:40 AM
Post by: sys on February 06, 2016, 11:20:56 AM
Post by: Ptolemy on February 06, 2016, 11:25:27 AM
racehorses get the same oats, win or lose.
The winning horse gets access to much better poon than the losing horse does.
Post by: sys on February 06, 2016, 11:26:55 AM
The winning horse gets access to much better poon than the losing horse does.
well there you go. that's why socialism works.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 06, 2016, 11:27:52 AM
Income Inequality? What incentive is there to achieve if govt forces everyone to make the same amount of money?
Don't be moronic, no one is advocating for that.
Post by: Ptolemy on February 06, 2016, 11:30:07 AM
Don't be moronic, no one is advocating for that.
If income inequality is a problem, the logical solution is equal income.
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 11:31:08 AM
Income Inequality? What incentive is there to achieve if govt forces everyone to make the same amount of money?
And what good is capitalism if there are very few people that are uber rich and everyone else is poor? Ala the robber baron era of the late 19th century..early 20th century?
Post by: CNS on February 06, 2016, 11:36:26 AM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 06, 2016, 11:37:16 AM
KSUW, fsd is a sock do whatever, but can you please stop using the word tard? Please.
The word is libtard. And it's a perfectly appropriate descriptor of the libtarded state of mind.
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 11:38:38 AM
I am not for income equality. I am for regulations of wall street, major campaign finance reform, ending large Corp spending on politics in general, and making ed much more accessible. Ppl don't need the equal pay, but debt is what is killing the middle class. Most of that is irresponsible spending, and I do not want the govt to address that, but they do need address the college debt.
A very reasonable position. IMO
Post by: CNS on February 06, 2016, 11:40:25 AM
Post by: Ptolemy on February 06, 2016, 11:42:00 AM
And what good is capitalism if there are very few people that are uber rich and everyone else is poor? Ala the robber baron era of the late 19th century..early 20th century?
The Industrial Revolution led to the Roaring Twenties. Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, Vanderbilt, et.al. (the robber barons you demonize) did more to help poor people than you or I could ever dream of accomplishing. The US does not have has the highest GDP per capita among major countries in the world because of anything Bernie Sanders can visualize.
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 11:43:50 AM
And what good is capitalism if there are very few people that are uber rich and everyone else is poor? Ala the robber baron era of the late 19th century..early 20th century?
The Industrial Revolution led to the Roaring Twenties. Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, Vanderbilt, et.al. (the robber barons you demonize) did more to help poor people than you or I could ever dream of accomplishing. The US does not have has the highest GDP per capita among major countries in the world because of anything Bernie Sanders can visualize.
And then what happened after the roaring 20s?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 06, 2016, 11:43:59 AM
Bernie's viability is in some heads I see.
Honestly, I thought going after Wall Street would be a bi-partisan issue. I thought if a candidate wanted to do that 90-95 percent of the voters would get behind that candidate. I was wrong. Bernie has faults, don't get me wrong, but income inequality is my biggest concern and it's his platform. The other candidates fail to bring much of anything, besides xenophobia, to the table. Therefore it's write-in Ken Griffey Jr. or vote Bernie.
Ok. Let's start with "reigning in Wall Street." I agree, but the conservative approach is to stop the crony capitalism of bailouts and subsidies. By contrast, socialists want to pick the winners and losers - and then tax them mercilessly. Conservatives have the better approach.
Next, "income equality." Trying to fix income equality has not worked out so well in socialist paradises. You might want to look into that. You might also want to consider this:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.wp.com%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fed-assets%2F2016%2F02%2FIncome-Gap.png&hash=fd88312f352a6eab0855447c643103f3df85e301)
Post by: CNS on February 06, 2016, 11:46:29 AM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 06, 2016, 11:46:53 AM
And what good is capitalism if there are very few people that are uber rich and everyone else is poor? Ala the robber baron era of the late 19th century..early 20th century?
The Industrial Revolution led to the Roaring Twenties. Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, Vanderbilt, et.al. (the robber barons you demonize) did more to help poor people than you or I could ever dream of accomplishing. The US does not have has the highest GDP per capita among major countries in the world because of anything Bernie Sanders can visualize.
And then what happened after the roaring 20s?
This happened. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot–Hawley_Tariff_Act (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot–Hawley_Tariff_Act)
Another wonderful example of government management of the economy.
Post by: Ptolemy on February 06, 2016, 11:47:08 AM
I am not for income equality. I am for regulations of wall street, major campaign finance reform, ending large Corp spending on politics in general, and making ed much more accessible. Ppl don't need the equal pay, but debt is what is killing the middle class. Most of that is irresponsible spending, and I do not want the govt to address that, but they do need address the college debt.
Why is the federal govt best equipped to regulate Wall Street? I am a corporation - 1 person. My corp pays taxes. My corp should have a say in how that money is spent. Agree with you on govt debt. That's why govt needs to be reduced in size severely, not increased as Sanders wants. College debt? We all have college debt, and it has always been monstrous. Get to work and pay it off like all of us did. When I got married I had my debt plus my wife's debt - which was multiples more than mine. We paid off every dime. Just do it.
Post by: Cartierfor3 on February 06, 2016, 11:47:57 AM
KSUW, fsd is a sock do whatever, but can you please stop using the word tard? Please.
The word is libtard. And it's a perfectly appropriate descriptor of the libtarded state of mind.
you ruin your ability to sway people to your side when you die on hills like this one ksu. just a friendly piece of advice. using the word "tard" is offensive.
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 11:50:03 AM
And what good is capitalism if there are very few people that are uber rich and everyone else is poor? Ala the robber baron era of the late 19th century..early 20th century?
The Industrial Revolution led to the Roaring Twenties. Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, Vanderbilt, et.al. (the robber barons you demonize) did more to help poor people than you or I could ever dream of accomplishing. The US does not have has the highest GDP per capita among major countries in the world because of anything Bernie Sanders can visualize.
And then what happened after the roaring 20s?
This happened. http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/02/Income-Gap.png (http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/02/Income-Gap.png)
Another wonderful example of government management of the economy.
Huh? Is that like the visual form of Black Monday?
Post by: CNS on February 06, 2016, 11:51:45 AM
If you think these guys don't intend a certain effect, you misjudge the Pit.KSUW, fsd is a sock do whatever, but can you please stop using the word tard? Please.
The word is libtard. And it's a perfectly appropriate descriptor of the libtarded state of mind.
you ruin your ability to sway people to your side when you die on hills like this one ksu. just a friendly piece of advice. using the word "tard" is offensive.
Post by: Ptolemy on February 06, 2016, 11:52:11 AM
the unions are the.only reason working working class isn't some peasant like portion of a.system similar to feudalism under those guys
The unions are the ONLY reason? What incentive is there for a "robber baron" to kill all of his employees and/or customers?
Post by: CNS on February 06, 2016, 11:54:30 AM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 06, 2016, 11:57:51 AM
And what good is capitalism if there are very few people that are uber rich and everyone else is poor? Ala the robber baron era of the late 19th century..early 20th century?
The Industrial Revolution led to the Roaring Twenties. Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, Vanderbilt, et.al. (the robber barons you demonize) did more to help poor people than you or I could ever dream of accomplishing. The US does not have has the highest GDP per capita among major countries in the world because of anything Bernie Sanders can visualize.
And then what happened after the roaring 20s?
This happened. http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/02/Income-Gap.png (http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/02/Income-Gap.png)
Another wonderful example of government management of the economy.
Huh? Is that like the visual form of Black Monday?
I copied wrong link. 1. See correction. 2. Realize government was largely to blame. 3. Realize you're wrong. 4. You're welcome.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 06, 2016, 11:59:23 AM
Income Inequality? What incentive is there to achieve if govt forces everyone to make the same amount of money?
And what good is capitalism if there are very few people that are uber rich and everyone else is poor? Ala the robber baron era of the late 19th century..early 20th century?
Pssst. You just described what happens in socialist paradises. No middle class. A few rich, and a lotta poor.
Post by: Ptolemy on February 06, 2016, 11:59:33 AM
They had zero incentive because they were able to keep labor cheap and plentiful. Unions, back then, we're responsible for a decent wage, safer conditions, and basically everything that humanized a job. You probably think OSHA is bad too.
OSHA? Why is the federal government best equipped to regulate occupational safety? Case in point - I work in a specific area of the work-world that OSHA governs and most of their regulations "governing" that realm are technical nonsense.
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 12:00:19 PM
And what good is capitalism if there are very few people that are uber rich and everyone else is poor? Ala the robber baron era of the late 19th century..early 20th century?
The Industrial Revolution led to the Roaring Twenties. Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, Vanderbilt, et.al. (the robber barons you demonize) did more to help poor people than you or I could ever dream of accomplishing. The US does not have has the highest GDP per capita among major countries in the world because of anything Bernie Sanders can visualize.
And then what happened after the roaring 20s?
This happened. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot–Hawley_Tariff_Act (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot–Hawley_Tariff_Act)
Another wonderful example of government management of the economy.
That damn liberal Hoover and his policies. I mean the Fed also did pretty stupid stuff between 1929 and 1932 also. I don't think that act created the Great Depression by any means, it just didn't help solve it. I'm not for tariffs or protectionist ideals. I'm a big believer in Ricardo and his view of trade.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 06, 2016, 12:02:55 PM
KSUW, fsd is a sock do whatever, but can you please stop using the word tard? Please.
The word is libtard. And it's a perfectly appropriate descriptor of the libtarded state of mind.
you ruin your ability to sway people to your side when you die on hills like this one ksu. just a friendly piece of advice. using the word "tard" is offensive.
Yeah I don't self-sensor to protect the weak sensibilities of fools.
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 12:04:31 PM
Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! link=topic=36987.msg1517221#msg15l17221 date=1454781563
Income Inequality? What incentive is there to achieve if govt forces everyone to make the same amount of money?
And what good is capitalism if there are very few people that are uber rich and everyone else is poor? Ala the robber baron era of the late 19th century..early 20th century?
Pssst. You just described what happens in socialist paradises. No middle class. A few rich, and a lotta poor.
Pssst. It also happens to be the natural endgame of laissez faire Capitalism, because of economies of scale and such.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 06, 2016, 12:06:42 PM
Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! link=topic=36987.msg1517221#msg15l17221 date=1454781563Income Inequality? What incentive is there to achieve if govt forces everyone to make the same amount of money?
And what good is capitalism if there are very few people that are uber rich and everyone else is poor? Ala the robber baron era of the late 19th century..early 20th century?
Pssst. You just described what happens in socialist paradises. No middle class. A few rich, and a lotta poor.
Pssst. It also happens to be the natural endgame of laissez faire Capitalism, because of economies of scale and such.
:lol: ok bub. You just keep believing that capitalism wasn't responsible for the greatest economy and standard of living in the history of the world - and that socialism has a better track record on that score. :lol:
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 12:10:07 PM
Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! link=topic=36987.msg1517221#msg15l17221 date=1454781563Income Inequality? What incentive is there to achieve if govt forces everyone to make the same amount of money?
And what good is capitalism if there are very few people that are uber rich and everyone else is poor? Ala the robber baron era of the late 19th century..early 20th century?
Pssst. You just described what happens in socialist paradises. No middle class. A few rich, and a lotta poor.
Pssst. It also happens to be the natural endgame of laissez faire Capitalism, because of economies of scale and such.
:lol: ok bub. You just keep believing that capitalism wasn't responsible for the greatest economy and standard of living in the history of the world - and that socialism has a better track record on that score. :lol:
Where did I say I'm a socialist? I believe in the power of the free market and capitalism, but I think the power of capitalism needs to be reigned in by government or else it will be abused by man.
Post by: Ptolemy on February 06, 2016, 12:10:59 PM
:lol: ok bub. You just keep believing that capitalism wasn't responsible for the greatest economy and standard of living in the history of the world - and that socialism has a better track record on that score. :lol:
The Bernians are running out of steam, it appears.
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 12:12:50 PM
And what good is capitalism if there are very few people that are uber rich and everyone else is poor? Ala the robber baron era of the late 19th century..early 20th century?
The Industrial Revolution led to the Roaring Twenties. Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, Vanderbilt, et.al. (the robber barons you demonize) did more to help poor people than you or I could ever dream of accomplishing. The US does not have has the highest GDP per capita among major countries in the world because of anything Bernie Sanders can visualize.
And then what happened after the roaring 20s?
This happened. http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/02/Income-Gap.png (http://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/02/Income-Gap.png)
Another wonderful example of government management of the economy.
Huh? Is that like the visual form of Black Monday?
I copied wrong link. 1. See correction. 2. Realize government was largely to blame. 3. Realize you're wrong. 4. You're welcome.
Man the US government had the power to send the entire world into a depression. Damn if only government was that powerful.
Post by: Ptolemy on February 06, 2016, 12:13:32 PM
Where did I say I'm a socialist? I believe in the power of the free market and capitalism, but I think the power of capitalism needs to be reigned in by government or else it will be abused by man.
Why is govt better qualified than the marketplace to reign-in capitalism? As proven by the last 100 years, govt just starts picking winners and losers and making itself more powerful.
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 12:16:59 PM
Where did I say I'm a socialist? I believe in the power of the free market and capitalism, but I think the power of capitalism needs to be reigned in by government or else it will be abused by man.
Why is govt better qualified than the marketplace to reign-in capitalism? As proven by the last 100 years, govt just starts picking winners and losers and making itself more powerful.
the biggest reason is there are externalities that the market can't capture like pollution, social cost, etc.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 12:17:41 PM
'lemy nipping at renocats heels for favorite "wtf" factor :love:
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 06, 2016, 12:20:31 PM
:lol: ok bub. You just keep believing that capitalism wasn't responsible for the greatest economy and standard of living in the history of the world - and that socialism has a better track record on that score. :lol:
The Bernians are running out of steam, it appears.
Those memes really stirred up a hornets nest. Because there's more than a little truth to them. Socialism is pretty tough to defend. There's just a whole lot of Venezuelan shitholes in the world where socialist crusades have failed.
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 12:21:04 PM
Post by: Ptolemy on February 06, 2016, 12:22:35 PM
the biggest reason is there are externalities that the market can't capture like pollution, social cost, etc.
That answer offers no evidence why the govt is best qualified to regulate "pollution, social cost, etc." For example, he federal government officially identifies a gas essential to life itself, carbon dioxide, a pollutant.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 12:25:28 PM
the biggest reason is there are externalities that the market can't capture like pollution, social cost, etc.
That answer offers no evidence why the govt is best qualified to regulate "pollution, social cost, etc." For example, he federal government officially identifies a gas essential to life itself, carbon dioxide, a pollutant.
Yes! More like this! :lol:
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 12:26:22 PM
the biggest reason is there are externalities that the market can't capture like pollution, social cost, etc.
That answer offers no evidence why the govt is best qualified to regulate "pollution, social cost, etc." For example, he federal government officially identifies a gas essential to life itself, carbon dioxide, a pollutant.
So we just let the market decide? Who cares if I pollute the river, that's the people problem down stream. I made my money already.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 06, 2016, 12:29:39 PM
Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! link=topic=36987.msg1517221#msg15l17221 date=1454781563Income Inequality? What incentive is there to achieve if govt forces everyone to make the same amount of money?
And what good is capitalism if there are very few people that are uber rich and everyone else is poor? Ala the robber baron era of the late 19th century..early 20th century?
Pssst. You just described what happens in socialist paradises. No middle class. A few rich, and a lotta poor.
Pssst. It also happens to be the natural endgame of laissez faire Capitalism, because of economies of scale and such.
:lol: ok bub. You just keep believing that capitalism wasn't responsible for the greatest economy and standard of living in the history of the world - and that socialism has a better track record on that score. :lol:
Where did I say I'm a socialist? I believe in the power of the free market and capitalism, but I think the power of capitalism needs to be reigned in by government or else it will be abused by man.
Government is man, and it is no more accountable, or less corrupt, than those greedy corporations. Government is, however, a lot stupider, and acts a lot stupider because it's not risking its own money.
This is a somewhat philosophical argument, btw. In reality, we're probably not as far apart as it sounds. I'm not advocating for no regulation - just less. Certainly not more! Going more socialist with Bernie is just dumbfounding.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 06, 2016, 12:31:18 PM
No one here is arguing for Soviet like communism, but keep arguing against that straw man.
Venezuela and Argentina are not "Soviet like communism" either. They both put their economies in the shitter. I'm not using strawman.
Post by: Ptolemy on February 06, 2016, 12:35:16 PM
Yes! More like this! :lol:
I take it you don't know either?
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 12:37:34 PM
No one here is arguing for Soviet like communism, but keep arguing against that straw man.
Venezuela and Argentina are not "Soviet like communism" either. They both put their economies in the shitter. I'm not using strawman.
I think most of South American/ African economies are screwed no matter the system or government, because there is no basic rule of law in those parts of the world. Corruption is king. If you look at what the western countries that have modern economies all have in common it's a resemblance of rule of law as its backbone.
Post by: sys on February 06, 2016, 12:38:09 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 12:41:20 PM
i can't take this anymore. rein /= reign. goddamn.
:lol:
Post by: CNS on February 06, 2016, 12:41:40 PM
Post by: Ptolemy on February 06, 2016, 12:42:23 PM
So we just let the market decide? Who cares if I pollute the river, that's the people problem down stream. I made my money already.
If a company depends on the river to conduct its business, there is a market incentive to not destroy it.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 12:43:01 PM
So we just let the market decide? Who cares if I pollute the river, that's the people problem down stream. I made my money already.
If a company depends on the river to conduct its business, there is a market incentive to not destroy it.
more more more :love:
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 12:44:07 PM
So we just let the market decide? Who cares if I pollute the river, that's the people problem down stream. I made my money already.
If a company depends on the river to conduct its business, there is a market incentive to not destroy it.
And if it doesn't depend on the river to conduct business?
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 12:45:37 PM
It's crazy that ppl actually think the market would self reg things that would cost them money.
The invisible hand and such.
Post by: CNS on February 06, 2016, 12:46:32 PM
Post by: Ptolemy on February 06, 2016, 12:46:42 PM
It's crazy that ppl actually think the market would self reg things that would cost them money.
It's even crazier that people think without govt regulation McDonald's would serve food that would poison and kill their clientele.
Post by: Ptolemy on February 06, 2016, 12:47:32 PM
And if it doesn't depend on the river to conduct business?
You brought the river into the discussion, not me.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 12:47:52 PM
It's crazy that ppl actually think the market would self reg things that would cost them money.
It's even crazier that people think without govt regulation McDonald's would serve food that would poison and kill their clientele.
:lol:
Post by: CNS on February 06, 2016, 12:47:57 PM
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 12:49:11 PM
And if it doesn't depend on the river to conduct business?
You brought the river into the discussion, not me.
Ok, there are plenty examples of a company poisoning a river that it the company doesn't depend on for business what's your free market solution to that?
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 12:49:49 PM
:lol:
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 12:50:11 PM
No one is saying that, dumbass'Lemy is the king of strawman arguments. I'm beginning to learn this.
Post by: Tobias on February 06, 2016, 12:50:56 PM
Post by: Ptolemy on February 06, 2016, 12:51:34 PM
What if they only need running water, not potable water? eff the others down stream, right? What if it costs them less to truck in potable water than it does to ship out hazardous waste responsibly? Dump it in the river because it makes fiscal sense.
Well, in this river-dependent society you created, if the corporation only needs running water to do it's business, the people need to eat and living and working close to the river makes it likely that they will fish for food. Thus there is incentive to not dump hazardous waste into the river, and it has nothing to do with government.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 12:51:55 PM
'lemy is the king of the pit, period
renocat sure better start bringing his a game
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 12:52:10 PM
What if they only need running water, not potable water? eff the others down stream, right? What if it costs them less to truck in potable water than it does to ship out hazardous waste responsibly? Dump it in the river because it makes fiscal sense.
Well, in this river-dependent society you created, if the corporation only needs running water to do it's business, the people need to eat and living and working close to the river makes it likely that they will fish for food. Thus there is incentive to not dump hazardous waste into the river, and it has nothing to do with government.
HALL
Post by: Ptolemy on February 06, 2016, 12:53:39 PM
Ok, there are plenty examples of a company poisoning a river that it the company doesn't depend on for business what's your free market solution to that?
OK, let's go there. First define poisoning? You're defending a federal government that declares what you exhale and plants consume as a pollutant. So what company is poisoning a river and what's the poison?
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 12:54:28 PM
What if they only need running water, not potable water? eff the others down stream, right? What if it costs them less to truck in potable water than it does to ship out hazardous waste responsibly? Dump it in the river because it makes fiscal sense.
Well, in this river-dependent society you created, if the corporation only needs running water to do it's business, the people need to eat and living and working close to the river makes it likely that they will fish for food. Thus there is incentive to not dump hazardous waste into the river, and it has nothing to do with government.
And yet companies before all those needles regulations dumped hazardous waste into the rivers, even if was supposedly in the benefit not to.
Post by: Ptolemy on February 06, 2016, 12:58:53 PM
And yet companies before all those needles regulations dumped hazardous waste into the rivers, even if was supposedly in the benefit not to.
The two companies need to coexist. You don't need government to make them get along.
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 01:00:51 PM
Ok, there are plenty examples of a company poisoning a river that it the company doesn't depend on for business what's your free market solution to that?
OK, let's go there. First define poisoning? You're defending a federal government that declares what you exhale and plants consume as a pollutant. So what company is poisoning a river and what's the poison?
I mean technically Carbon Dioxide kills you, so I would consider that a pollutant too. But even if I gave you carbon dioxide, there are plenty on man made chemicals that have been dumped into rivers that are poisonous.
http://m.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/teflon-and-perfluorooctanoic-acid--pfoa
This c-8 stuff was dumped by Dow chemicals into a river in West Virginia. I would consider that poison.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 01:01:19 PM
Post by: CNS on February 06, 2016, 01:02:06 PM
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 01:03:30 PM
And yet companies before all those needles regulations dumped hazardous waste into the rivers, even if was supposedly in the benefit not to.
The two companies need to coexist. You don't need government to make them get along.
So basically you think if governor wasn't here, we would live in a utopia where everyone would get along and make the right decision, because the free market would tell them to.
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 01:04:20 PM
Post by: wetwillie on February 06, 2016, 01:05:34 PM
Post by: CNS on February 06, 2016, 01:06:05 PM
Post by: bucket on February 06, 2016, 01:07:19 PM
Where did I say I'm a socialist? I believe in the power of the free market and capitalism, but I think the power of capitalism needs to be reigned in by government or else it will be abused by man.
Why is govt better qualified than the marketplace to reign-in capitalism? As proven by the last 100 years, govt just starts picking winners and losers and making itself more powerful.
Are you rough ridin' kidding me? Ya, lets go back to child labor and no overtime pay.
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 01:07:55 PM
There are only maybe 10 unique posters on the board chuck
He got me good today. *tips cap*
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 01:09:39 PM
Post by: CNS on February 06, 2016, 01:09:53 PM
Post by: Ptolemy on February 06, 2016, 01:17:42 PM
http://m.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/teflon-and-perfluorooctanoic-acid--pfoa
This c-8 stuff was dumped by Dow chemicals into a river in West Virginia. I would consider that poison.
None of the studies declare unequivocally that c8 caused cancer in the WV people beyond that which people normally get cancer. Regulatory history is long with lawyers and special interests using the fear of an incurable disease as the catalyst to grow government control over the marketplace. Examples: The fiberglass insulation industry was brought to its knees over the asbestos controversy and the two have nothing to do with each other. Another: we're forced by government to use more expensive and less capable refrigerants because of a hypothesized man-created "hole" in the ozone layer (there is no evidence that the ozone layer has never had a hole). I suspect the c8 controversy was much of the same.
Post by: Ptolemy on February 06, 2016, 01:19:44 PM
Are you rough ridin' kidding me? Ya, lets go back to child labor and no overtime pay.
Lots of people - most parents - make their kids work for little or no pay. What is overtime pay?
Post by: Ptolemy on February 06, 2016, 01:21:04 PM
most ppl will find him a dumbass.
Why would I want a dumbass when I have people like you all?
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 01:21:34 PM
Post by: CNS on February 06, 2016, 01:24:59 PM
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 01:31:10 PM
Post by: michigancat on February 06, 2016, 01:36:40 PM
It was a factor, but so was having a country with incredibly vast natural resources that were either purchased or won in wars by the government and subsequently given to citizens. So was a transcontinental railroad built on land given away by the government. Then when things started to go to crap, the government spent a shitload on the military, and after WWII created a massive wealth redistribution with the GI Bill. No devastating wars on home soil for 150 wars was also a major factor.Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! link=topic=36987.msg1517221#msg15l17221 date=1454781563Income Inequality? What incentive is there to achieve if govt forces everyone to make the same amount of money?
And what good is capitalism if there are very few people that are uber rich and everyone else is poor? Ala the robber baron era of the late 19th century..early 20th century?
Pssst. You just described what happens in socialist paradises. No middle class. A few rich, and a lotta poor.
Pssst. It also happens to be the natural endgame of laissez faire Capitalism, because of economies of scale and such.
Post by: Ptolemy on February 06, 2016, 01:42:27 PM
'Lemy, are cigarettes bad for you? Or is that just another lawyer/ special groups conspiracy to control the market place?
75% of HEAVY smokers never get lung cancer.
Post by: wetwillie on February 06, 2016, 01:45:22 PM
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 01:47:29 PM
'Lemy, are cigarettes bad for you? Or is that just another lawyer/ special groups conspiracy to control the market place?
75% of HEAVY smokers never get lung cancer.
Is lead bad for you? Or is that also a just a government conspiracy to take over the market?
Post by: sys on February 06, 2016, 01:49:08 PM
Cigarettes don't kill people, people kill people.
it is the cigarette's fault that 1 in 4 people have defective lung genes? (no, it's not).
Post by: Ptolemy on February 06, 2016, 01:50:27 PM
Is lead bad for you? Or is that also a just a government conspiracy to take over the market?
If you consume lead, it is bad for you. However, the benefits of lead far, far outweigh the detriments.
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 02:08:35 PM
Is lead bad for you? Or is that also a just a government conspiracy to take over the market?
If you consume lead, it is bad for you. However, the benefits of lead far, far outweigh the detriments.
Ok..since I finally got you to admit something might be bad for a human, a company that dumps lead into a river upstream to produce their awesome lead products, doesn't owe the people downstream anything?
Post by: Ptolemy on February 06, 2016, 02:11:46 PM
Ok..since I finally got you to admit something might be bad for a human, a company that dumps lead into a river upstream to produce their awesome lead products, doesn't owe the people downstream anything?
The people downstream need to buy ammo.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 02:12:57 PM
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 02:19:13 PM
Ok..since I finally got you to admit something might be bad for a human, a company that dumps lead into a river upstream to produce their awesome lead products, doesn't owe the people downstream anything?
The people downstream need to buy ammo.
So basically you're in favor of a Hobbsian type society, where life is brutish, nasty, and short?
Post by: Ptolemy on February 06, 2016, 02:23:15 PM
So basically you're in favor of a Hobbsian type society, where life is brutish, nasty, and short?
No. The world in which I reside has life becoming gradually less brutal, nasty and short. But the free market is the catalyst for it, not government.
We created government, it is up to us as its parent to control it.
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 02:28:15 PM
So basically you're in favor of a Hobbsian type society, where life is brutish, nasty, and short?
No. The world in which I reside has life becoming gradually less brutal, nasty and short. But the free market is the catalyst for it, not government.
We created government, it is up to us as its parent to control it.
So you don't believe in any government, just the free market?
Post by: Ptolemy on February 06, 2016, 02:33:25 PM
So you don't believe in any government, just the free market?
Did I say kill it, or control it?
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 02:34:49 PM
So you don't believe in any government, just the free market?
Did I say kill it, or control it?
I'm just trying to gage the amount of government you find acceptable.
Post by: CNS on February 06, 2016, 02:35:02 PM
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 02:38:37 PM
Post by: Ptolemy on February 06, 2016, 02:42:05 PM
I'm just trying to gage the amount of government you find acceptable.
Control the borders, protect US interests abroad, maintain the interstate highway system...that's about it.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 02:44:15 PM
Post by: Ptolemy on February 06, 2016, 02:45:53 PM
why shouldn't the states control their highways and borders?
The states DO control their borders and roads and highways within their borders.(??)
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 02:46:06 PM
I'm just trying to gage the amount of government you find acceptable.
Control the borders, protect US interests abroad, maintain the interstate highway system...that's about it.
So the government is good enough to build and maintain the interstate highway system? But nothing else?
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 02:47:20 PM
why shouldn't the states control their highways and borders?
The states DO control their borders and roads and highways within their borders.(??)
about time kansas put up a fence to keep out okies
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 02:48:48 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 02:49:36 PM
Post by: Ptolemy on February 06, 2016, 02:51:15 PM
So the government is good enough to build and maintain the interstate highway system? But nothing else?
Actually, government doesn't build anything. They administer the contracts and the private sector builds it.
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 02:51:39 PM
but when you really think about it, cities can be so big and what's right for the east side might not be right for the west side so all government probably should just be left up to neighborhood associations
And if another neighborhood poisons the river with lead you go fight them.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 02:51:49 PM
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 02:52:48 PM
So the government is good enough to build and maintain the interstate highway system? But nothing else?
Actually, government doesn't build anything. They administer the contracts and the private sector builds it.
Yea you're right. The granting of government contracts is totally free market based, and not picking winners and losers.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 02:53:01 PM
but when you really think about it, all of us have had that "one" neighbor and obviously he's totally unable to govern our neighborhood effectively so i'm just going to go ahead and say each property owner gets to set all laws pertaining to their property.
finally, peace and harmony :cheers:
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 02:54:14 PM
Post by: chuckjames on February 06, 2016, 02:55:25 PM
should we contract out the military? probably get better soldiers if they aren't government employees.
That would be picking winners and losers tho.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 02:55:46 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 02:56:28 PM
Post by: sys on February 06, 2016, 02:58:06 PM
thinking back to that sovereign house thing, what if your wife is being a total bitch and dictator and what not? just shoot her in the face?
would depend on the laws enacted and enforced in that sovereign property.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 02:58:40 PM
thinking back to that sovereign house thing, what if your wife is being a total bitch and dictator and what not? just shoot her in the face?
would depend on the laws enacted and enforced in that sovereign property.
tyranny and whatnot tho
Post by: sys on February 06, 2016, 02:59:40 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 03:02:27 PM
Post by: sys on February 06, 2016, 03:03:32 PM
what if your little brother keeps dumping the crap bucket (no city sewer system) right outside your window and it freaking stinks man :curse:
sounds like a local issue, demands a local solution.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 03:05:26 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 03:07:05 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 03:09:10 PM
Post by: sys on February 06, 2016, 03:12:40 PM
thinking of defecting to stevedaveonia, i hear they give everyone free crap and you can drink miller lites right out in the yard
triumph of the free market.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 03:15:50 PM
Post by: Ptolemy on February 06, 2016, 03:22:34 PM
Post by: sys on February 06, 2016, 03:23:34 PM
i haven't figured out a solution on how to get to "omaha" tho, there are no streets or highways anymore and dad told me that like after 4 or 5 properties they don't even accept libnotes as currency anymore
innovation will rise to meet the demand.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 03:24:49 PM
Post by: sys on February 06, 2016, 03:27:23 PM
i sure hope so
i'm building a little stretch of toll highway in my front yard right now.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 03:30:38 PM
Post by: sys on February 06, 2016, 03:32:06 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 03:35:49 PM
Post by: sys on February 06, 2016, 03:40:37 PM
for a nominal fee i imagine :curse:
do you want to incentivize me or not?
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 06, 2016, 04:01:06 PM
Post by: bucket on February 06, 2016, 05:19:25 PM
Bernie's viability is in some heads I see.
Honestly, I thought going after Wall Street would be a bi-partisan issue. I thought if a candidate wanted to do that 90-95 percent of the voters would get behind that candidate. I was wrong. Bernie has faults, don't get me wrong, but income inequality is my biggest concern and it's his platform. The other candidates fail to bring much of anything, besides xenophobia, to the table. Therefore it's write-in Ken Griffey Jr. or vote Bernie.
Ok. Let's start with "reigning in Wall Street." I agree, but the conservative approach is to stop the crony capitalism of bailouts and subsidies. By contrast, socialists want to pick the winners and losers - and then tax them mercilessly. Conservatives have the better approach.
Next, "income equality." Trying to fix income equality has not worked out so well in socialist paradises. You might want to look into that. You might also want to consider this:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.wp.com%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fed-assets%2F2016%2F02%2FIncome-Gap.png&hash=fd88312f352a6eab0855447c643103f3df85e301)
First, I do not think the image you posted is helpful. I think it's noted that I want to go after Wall Street. I also mentioned income inequality and I think I may be mixing the two. I am against income inequality but by no means am I talking about a welfare society.
You say that you agree with "reigning in Wall Street." I favor capitalism. I too believe it has helped make this country great. However, I think it has gotten out of control. See LIBOR, Countrywide, and breaking up the banks. FYI breaking up the banks isn't complicated. Jamie Dimon just wants to use American citizens as collateral if his investments fall through.
Finally, and my main point, I want these jack wagons arrested. The countrywide ass clowns should be arrested. The SEC should prosecute, instead of settling in court they should get a verdict. America paid for the bailout and the elites (and others) profited big time on it. If you get jail for peeing in public you sure as hell should get hell for millions losing their jobs and tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands losing their homes.
Post by: SdK on February 06, 2016, 05:29:26 PM
Really? No.Don't be moronic, no one is advocating for that.
If income inequality is a problem, the logical solution is equal income.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 06, 2016, 05:33:10 PM
Bernie's viability is in some heads I see.
Honestly, I thought going after Wall Street would be a bi-partisan issue. I thought if a candidate wanted to do that 90-95 percent of the voters would get behind that candidate. I was wrong. Bernie has faults, don't get me wrong, but income inequality is my biggest concern and it's his platform. The other candidates fail to bring much of anything, besides xenophobia, to the table. Therefore it's write-in Ken Griffey Jr. or vote Bernie.
Ok. Let's start with "reigning in Wall Street." I agree, but the conservative approach is to stop the crony capitalism of bailouts and subsidies. By contrast, socialists want to pick the winners and losers - and then tax them mercilessly. Conservatives have the better approach.
Next, "income equality." Trying to fix income equality has not worked out so well in socialist paradises. You might want to look into that. You might also want to consider this:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.wp.com%2Fwww.powerlineblog.com%2Fed-assets%2F2016%2F02%2FIncome-Gap.png&hash=fd88312f352a6eab0855447c643103f3df85e301)
First, I do not think the image you posted is helpful. I think it's noted that I want to go after Wall Street. I also mentioned income inequality and I think I may be mixing the two. I am against income inequality but by no means am I talking about a welfare society.
You say that you agree with "reigning in Wall Street." I favor capitalism. I too believe it has helped make this country great. However, I think it has gotten out of control. See LIBOR, Countrywide, and breaking up the banks. FYI breaking up the banks isn't complicated. Jamie Dimon just wants to use American citizens as collateral if his investments fall through.
Finally, and my main point, I want these jack wagons arrested. The countrywide ass clowns should be arrested. The SEC should prosecute, instead of settling in court they should get a verdict. America paid for the bailout and the elites (and others) profited big time on it. If you get jail for peeing in public you sure as hell should get hell for millions losing their jobs and tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands losing their homes.
Ok. You can have all that without crazy Bernie's brand of socialism. You should be trying to get as many staunch conservatives into office as possible. That's how you're going to reduce crony capitalism. I think Ted Cruz is your guy.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 05:34:51 PM
Post by: CNS on February 06, 2016, 05:37:13 PM
Post by: wetwillie on February 06, 2016, 05:45:57 PM
Post by: IPA4Me on February 06, 2016, 05:58:51 PM
Post by: bucket on February 06, 2016, 06:06:58 PM
Post by: sys on February 06, 2016, 06:07:57 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 06:11:53 PM
i'll vote for whichever party's gomaw posters can correctly use homonyms.
did you see ksuw use "self-sensor" earlier?
Post by: sys on February 06, 2016, 06:13:36 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2016, 06:22:26 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 06, 2016, 06:43:32 PM
i'll vote for whichever party's gomaw posters can correctly use homonyms.
did you see ksuw use "self-sensor" earlier?
Oh good lord. Spelling police. I'm posting from my iPhone.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 06, 2016, 10:08:30 PM
KSUW, fsd is a sock do whatever, but can you please stop using the word tard? Please.
The word is libtard. And it's a perfectly appropriate descriptor of the libtarded state of mind.
you ruin your ability to sway people to your side when you die on hills like this one ksu. just a friendly piece of advice. using the word "tard" is offensive.
Yeah I don't self-sensor to protect the weak sensibilities of fools.
You can't think of a better reason not to use tard/tarded? That's truly sad.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 06, 2016, 10:14:25 PM
Gmafb with crap like "income inequality". We get it, you've figured out joe six pack is afraid of his shadow and it's politically expeditious to build up a huge straw man and fake burn him down. But the pit is an academic and intellectual stronghold, so spare us the trivial minutia that is your platform.
Post by: sys on February 06, 2016, 10:26:59 PM
reigning in
holy rough ridin' jesus, make this madness end.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 06, 2016, 10:49:46 PM
reigning in
holy rough ridin' jesus, make this madness end.
He nailed those "tarded" barbs though, totally crushed them.
Post by: SdK on February 06, 2016, 11:00:45 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 07, 2016, 09:19:17 AM
Post by: Kat Kid on February 07, 2016, 10:04:30 AM
No one here is arguing for Soviet like communism, but keep arguing against that straw man.
Venezuela and Argentina are not "Soviet like communism" either. They both put their economies in the shitter. I'm not using strawman.
Venezuela and Argentina are both heavily affected by rent-seeking behavior on the part of government officials, very poor social cohesion, and a limited ability to collect taxes. You could certainly argue that these are all symptoms, but they pre-date Chavez/Maduro in Venezuela and go way back in Argentina as well.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 07, 2016, 10:12:15 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 07, 2016, 10:53:10 AM
Sad
Post by: Kat Kid on February 07, 2016, 12:29:19 PM
Clearly these socialists are arguing for an autocratic dictatorship somewhere between what we have now and the Chavez regime. So, it's fair to say the ensuing economic hardship would be somewhere between stagnation and disaster.
Venezuelan democracy is slowly working to clean up the mess of Chavez and Maduro, I would say conservatives should retain their faith in our republic even if they lose. Rubio seems like he thinks we may be losing America forever.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bucket on February 07, 2016, 12:46:16 PM
How can the libtards continue to push for reigning in "wall street" after dodd-frank? Was that completely illusory legislation, or is this more libtard bullshit?
Gmafb with crap like "income inequality". We get it, you've figured out joe six pack is afraid of his shadow and it's politically expeditious to build up a huge straw man and fake burn him down. But the pit is an academic and intellectual stronghold, so spare us the trivial minutia that is your platform.
You're smart enough to know that Dodd-Frank has been rolled back so much that it's a shell of the original bill passed.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 07, 2016, 12:59:47 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 07, 2016, 01:07:51 PM
I can't believe you guys have spent 5 pages arguing this with ksuw, fad, ptolemy, and dax. Are you guys really expecting honest, civil discourse from that group?
IRONY
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 07, 2016, 01:13:57 PM
How can the libtards continue to push for reigning in "wall street" after dodd-frank? Was that completely illusory legislation, or is this more libtard bullshit?
Gmafb with crap like "income inequality". We get it, you've figured out joe six pack is afraid of his shadow and it's politically expeditious to build up a huge straw man and fake burn him down. But the pit is an academic and intellectual stronghold, so spare us the trivial minutia that is your platform.
You're smart enough to know that Dodd-Frank has been rolled back so much that it's a shell of the original bill passed.
You're gonna have to explain that one #berntard, because it sounds like empty rhetoric.
I mean, blaming wall street for the economic crash is pretty lazy. And I know the left is generally jealous and spiteful towards anyone who works more than 30 hours a week, 40 weeks per year, but blaming wall street, income/gender inequality, big corporations for your lifestyle choices is just sour grapes. Get a better job and work harder at it.
Post by: bucket on February 07, 2016, 02:07:30 PM
I have a problem with corporations profiting at the expense of four million people being foreclosed upon, costing people their pensions, the DOJ being so cozy with Wall Street that no one goes to jail, and rather than prosecuting just settling outside of court. Not to mention the big banks refusing to be broken up because if that occurred they would no longer be able to use citizen bank accounts as a measure to keep them from going under when their risky investments backfire.
Post by: CNS on February 07, 2016, 03:01:11 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 07, 2016, 03:15:33 PM
I have a great job and love what I do. That's not the issue, and I suggest you focus on the topic being discussed. -nobody said it was, just a reference to "wealth inequality". It doesn't matter how much money someone else makes
I have a problem with corporations profiting at the expense of four million people being foreclosed upon, - this is incoherent. If you're referring to banks, it was their money that was lost and hundreds of banks failed. The overwhelming majority of people who lost their homes were plenty culpable, and had nothing invested
costing people their pensions, - blame the pension fund manager or get rid of them, capital markets aren't a CD, there will be ups and downs
the DOJ being so cozy with Wall Street that no one goes to jail, - the DOJ has raped billions from the residual banks in post facto punishment. I suppose they could have imprisoned the articles of incorporation, but I don't think any criminals got off
and rather than prosecuting just settling outside of court. Not to mention the big banks refusing to be broken up because if that occurred they would no longer be able to use citizen bank accounts as a measure to keep them from going under when their risky investments backfire. -not sure you understand how banks work. In any event, the biggest banks still have relatively small market share compared to say telecom, lol at thinking it's near monopoly
This is more of a list of mistruths than actual grievances against "wall street". Like it or not, dodd-frank is an enormous expansion of regulatory power, particularly against derivative markets, and "too big to fail" big banks. It also created another useless bureaucracy called the cfpb which enforces the same useless consumer protection laws that do nothing to help consumers, because consumers don't rough ridin' read
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 07, 2016, 03:23:15 PM
If you don't even know how vanilla commercial banks are structured, or how lending works, you certainly aren't going to be able to comprehend "wall street" (e.g., capital markets). Criminalizing investment seems like a very "socialist" thing to do.
Post by: sys on February 07, 2016, 04:19:17 PM
I have a problem with corporations profiting at the expense of four million people being foreclosed upon, costing people their pensions, the DOJ being so cozy with Wall Street that no one goes to jail, and rather than prosecuting just settling outside of court. Not to mention the big banks refusing to be broken up because if that occurred they would no longer be able to use citizen bank accounts as a measure to keep them from going under when their risky investments backfire.
i agree with fsd, at least on the point of bucket not really knowing what he's talking about.
Post by: bucket on February 07, 2016, 05:45:38 PM
This occurred hundreds of thousands of time all in the name of capitalism. People should have been locked up. Settling out of court doesn't seem to do stop them.
Post by: sys on February 07, 2016, 06:25:45 PM
The lenders fabricated the incomes of people taking out mortgages. Giving Americans loans they couldn't repay. Sold the loans to big banks which were diced up into securities, given AAA ratings, and sold back into our pension funds. So the average American essentially got mumped twice.
This occurred hundreds of thousands of time all in the name of capitalism. People should have been locked up. Settling out of court doesn't seem to do stop them.
a. for what crime are you proposing that "people" should be locked up? for that matter, what people?
b. how are people harmed by receiving a loan which they cannot repay?
c. who is responsible for evaluating the quality of an item offered for sale? the buyer, the seller or a third party expressly contracted to rate the quality of that item? please consider that the buyer is a professional charging a fee based on their professed expertise in buying such items.
d. what, exactly, do think should be stopped? and why?
Post by: Cartierfor3 on February 07, 2016, 09:19:52 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 07, 2016, 09:31:20 PM
Lenders fabricated income on hundreds of thousands of loans???? :ROFL:
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 07, 2016, 09:38:38 PM
The far more sensible approach is to stop subsidizing and bailing these assholes out. When Goldman Sachs pays over 100mil in bonuses after being bailed out with tax dollars, you don't put people in jail - you stop bailing them out.
Bernie is not your answer, Bucket. Bernie is a pipe dream. Find a true conservative to champion your (worthy) cause.
Post by: wetwillie on February 07, 2016, 09:47:13 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 07, 2016, 09:48:53 PM
Post by: sys on February 07, 2016, 09:49:46 PM
Post by: Kat Kid on February 07, 2016, 10:50:41 PM
The conservative champion in this years race is married to Goldman Sachs and likely got bonus money....
Amazing.
Post by: Ptolemy on February 07, 2016, 11:37:29 PM
I can't believe you guys have spent 5 pages arguing this with ksuw, fad, ptolemy, and dax. Are you guys really expecting honest, civil discourse from that group?
Can you please provide an example where I have been dishonest or less that totally civil?
Post by: BrokenSky1113 on February 08, 2016, 01:13:38 AM
i'll vote for whichever party's gomaw posters can correctly use homonyms.
You won't be voting then
Post by: BrokenSky1113 on February 08, 2016, 01:16:44 AM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 08, 2016, 09:15:35 AM
I can't believe you guys have spent 5 pages arguing this with ksuw, fad, ptolemy, and dax. Are you guys really expecting honest, civil discourse from that group?
Can you please provide an example where I have been dishonest or less that totally civil?
If you've been honest you are paste eating dumb. In fairness I stopped reading your posts on the topic after your second one.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 08, 2016, 10:05:36 AM
Besides putting the wall streets in prison, taking income away from "1%ers" (another code word?), what other punishment is berndawg going to levy to "make things right" in our country? Who else needs to be taken down to make things equaler?
So many stupid people
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 08, 2016, 10:07:55 AM
I can't believe you guys have spent 5 pages arguing this with ksuw, fad, ptolemy, and dax. Are you guys really expecting honest, civil discourse from that group?
Can you please provide an example where I have been dishonest or less that totally civil?
If you've been honest you are paste eating dumb. In fairness I stopped reading your posts on the topic after your second one.
Here's some hard hitting "honest civil discourse" right here.
Post by: mocat on February 08, 2016, 10:19:37 AM
I can't believe you guys have spent 5 pages arguing this with ksuw, fad, ptolemy, and dax. Are you guys really expecting honest, civil discourse from that group?
Can you please provide an example where I have been dishonest or less that totally civil?
If you've been honest you are paste eating dumb. In fairness I stopped reading your posts on the topic after your second one.
this was his sgt peppers
Interesting that all of the people that advocate in favor of abortion have already been born.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 08, 2016, 10:30:36 AM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 08, 2016, 10:56:33 AM
The conservative champion in this years race is married to Goldman Sachs and likely got bonus money....
Amazing.
Yeah, that was pretty good. Props. I wonder if it causes any strain in their marriage that Ted wants to cut all corporate subsidies and bailouts?
Update: never mind. Turns out the Cruz's have already been asked about this. Wife is cool with him being anti-bailout. Not sure is she got a bonus after bailout of not, but sounds like she works in a wealth division that had nothing to do with GS's mortgage backed security stuff. So the attack makes for a nice soundbite, but doesn't look like there's much to it.
Post by: wetwillie on February 08, 2016, 11:11:25 AM
Is "wall steet" the left's new code word for Jews?
Besides putting the wall streets in prison, taking income away from "1%ers" (another code word?), what other punishment is berndawg going to levy to "make things right" in our country? Who else needs to be taken down to make things equaler?
So many stupid people
It may surprise you to know that Bernie Sanders is in fact a Jew.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 08, 2016, 11:13:27 AM
Morton's toe should be along soon to straighten this out.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 08, 2016, 12:33:18 PM
I haven't ever correlated wall street with Jews. Am I incorrect?
Morton's toe should be along soon to straighten this out.
Yeah that's a pretty common correlation.
Post by: CNS on February 08, 2016, 12:36:56 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 08, 2016, 01:16:46 PM
That is a common correlation for ppl that have some metal issue and think of jews every time they hear the word "money".
Ok. That too? I didn't say it was true or right, but it is a stereotype.
http://www.thewire.com/national/2010/01/how-to-think-about-jewish-bankers/25689/ (http://www.thewire.com/national/2010/01/how-to-think-about-jewish-bankers/25689/)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 08, 2016, 01:46:45 PM
Is "wall steet" the left's new code word for Jews?
Besides putting the wall streets in prison, taking income away from "1%ers" (another code word?), what other punishment is berndawg going to levy to "make things right" in our country? Who else needs to be taken down to make things equaler?
So many stupid people
It may surprise you to know that Bernie Sanders is in fact a Jew.
Affectionately referred to by the left as an Uncle
Post by: MakeItRain on February 08, 2016, 01:50:47 PM
I haven't ever correlated wall street with Jews. Am I incorrect?
Morton's toe should be along soon to straighten this out.
Yeah that's a pretty common correlation.
It is? It certainly isn't for me, maybe because I know lots of Jewish people though, our because I'm not a shitty human; either way I guess.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 08, 2016, 01:51:42 PM
I haven't ever correlated wall street with Jews. Am I incorrect?
Morton's toe should be along soon to straighten this out.
The preferred perjorative for jews used by "progressives" had been "bankers". Populist movements in the 20th century sought to punish greedy, money-grubbing bankers. It was not very discreet. I was just curious if the new pejorative was "wall street".
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 08, 2016, 01:53:15 PM
I haven't ever correlated wall street with Jews. Am I incorrect?
Morton's toe should be along soon to straighten this out.
Yeah that's a pretty common correlation.
It is? It certainly isn't for me, maybe because I know lots of Jewish people though, our because I'm not a shitty human; either way I guess.
It's because you're an unknowing tool of the left. You don't have any idea what you're actually saying ever, but you keep saying it.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 08, 2016, 01:54:41 PM
Post by: 8manpick on February 08, 2016, 01:56:19 PM
That is a common correlation for ppl that have some metal issue and think of jews every time they hear the word "money".
Pretty much every Jewish person that I've ever met confirms that. Also, I've only been to Kansas and South Florida /s
Post by: star seed 7 on February 08, 2016, 01:57:16 PM
Post by: 8manpick on February 08, 2016, 01:59:53 PM
And if you actually had lots of Jewish friends you'd know that, because nobody knows more good Jewish jokes than Jewish people.
My Jewish fiancée and future Father in law certainly reference the "rich Jew" idea fairly frequently. More so than my gentile friends and family anyway.
This isn't new, and pretending it doesn't exist seems silly.
Post by: CNS on February 08, 2016, 02:04:17 PM
And if you actually had lots of Jewish friends you'd know that, because nobody knows more good Jewish jokes than Jewish people.
My Jewish fiancée and future Father in law certainly reference the "rich Jew" idea fairly frequently. More so than my gentile friends and family anyway.
This isn't new, and pretending it doesn't exist seems silly.
The extension of that stereotype, to mean that Jews are what ppl are targeting when they say they have a problem with how Wall St does biz, is the problem.
Post by: 8manpick on February 08, 2016, 02:05:07 PM
And if you actually had lots of Jewish friends you'd know that, because nobody knows more good Jewish jokes than Jewish people.
My Jewish fiancée and future Father in law certainly reference the "rich Jew" idea fairly frequently. More so than my gentile friends and family anyway.
This isn't new, and pretending it doesn't exist seems silly.
The extension of that stereotype, to mean that Jews are what ppl are targeting when they say they have a problem with how Wall St does biz, is the problem.
Oh, yeah, that's pretty dumb
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 08, 2016, 10:05:52 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/02/05/millennials-have-a-higher-opinion-of-socialism-than-of-capitalism/?utm_content=buffer2e19a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/02/05/millennials-have-a-higher-opinion-of-socialism-than-of-capitalism/?utm_content=buffer2e19a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer)
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on February 08, 2016, 10:07:58 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 08, 2016, 10:40:46 PM
And if you actually had lots of Jewish friends you'd know that, because nobody knows more good Jewish jokes than Jewish people.
Did I say I had lots of Jewish friends? I don't recall saying or typing that out but I may be wrong. I know I owe everything I am professionally and my wife and kids to two Jewish gentlemen. One of them has a goatee, rides a Harley, boxes, and would beat the crap out of you if you said you associated Jews with bankers.
Post by: CNS on February 08, 2016, 10:42:40 PM
Post by: sys on February 08, 2016, 11:28:11 PM
go, bloomie, go.
Post by: bones129 on February 09, 2016, 01:38:08 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 09, 2016, 06:36:32 AM
Post by: slackcat on February 09, 2016, 06:41:01 AM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 09, 2016, 06:58:30 AM
I absolutely love the idea that higher ed is the cause of the perceived evils of our time. Keep them dumb and keep them pure. That's the key to tranquility.
I didn't say that, and there is a difference bw education and indoctrination.
Post by: CNS on February 09, 2016, 07:53:22 AM
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 09, 2016, 08:28:30 AM
Post by: chuckjames on February 09, 2016, 09:27:10 AM
I absolutely love the idea that higher ed is the cause of the perceived evils of our time. Keep them dumb and keep them pure. That's the key to tranquility.
I didn't say that, and there is a difference bw education and indoctrination.
Chant, can I get you on record with your boy 'Lemy on whether the science saying cigarettes are bad for a person is true or not? Are you an abestos truther too? Or is it all made up science to indoctrinate us, and ruin the free market?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 09, 2016, 10:34:32 AM
And if you actually had lots of Jewish friends you'd know that, because nobody knows more good Jewish jokes than Jewish people.
Did I say I had lots of Jewish friends? I don't recall saying or typing that out but I may be wrong. I know I owe everything I am professionally and my wife and kids to two Jewish gentlemen. One of them has a goatee, rides a Harley, boxes, and would beat the crap out of you if you said you associated Jews with bankers.
Where does the threat of physical violence fall on the "honest civil discourse" spectrum?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 09, 2016, 10:36:17 AM
Post by: CNS on February 09, 2016, 10:58:24 AM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 09, 2016, 11:40:11 AM
I absolutely love the idea that higher ed is the cause of the perceived evils of our time. Keep them dumb and keep them pure. That's the key to tranquility.
I didn't say that, and there is a difference bw education and indoctrination.
Chant, can I get you on record with your boy 'Lemy on whether the science saying cigarettes are bad for a person is true or not? Are you an abestos truther too? Or is it all made up science to indoctrinate us, and ruin the free market?
I think cigarettes are bad for you. At the very least, they make you and your car and your breath stink and give you disgusting teeth. Asbestos - I guess it depends? Asbestos is a great insulator and fire retardant and can be perfectly safe, right? What are you getting at?
Post by: sys on February 09, 2016, 12:19:45 PM
Sigh. With all the real world evidence to the contrary, how has it come to this point that "young people" view socialism more favorably than capitalism? I blame the indoctrination of universities and public schools and just the generational dumbing down of Americans.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/02/05/millennials-have-a-higher-opinion-of-socialism-than-of-capitalism/?utm_content=buffer2e19a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/02/05/millennials-have-a-higher-opinion-of-socialism-than-of-capitalism/?utm_content=buffer2e19a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer)
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-young-democrats-love-bernie-sanders/
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 09, 2016, 02:12:36 PM
Sigh. With all the real world evidence to the contrary, how has it come to this point that "young people" view socialism more favorably than capitalism? I blame the indoctrination of universities and public schools and just the generational dumbing down of Americans.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/02/05/millennials-have-a-higher-opinion-of-socialism-than-of-capitalism/?utm_content=buffer2e19a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/02/05/millennials-have-a-higher-opinion-of-socialism-than-of-capitalism/?utm_content=buffer2e19a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer)
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-young-democrats-love-bernie-sanders/
Thanks for that link. Synopsis: Younger voters tend to be morons who don't really know: (a) what they want, (b) what socialism means, or (c) what the candidate they're supporting really stands for. Yeah, that makes sense. Now that we don't really have a draft anymore, can we please raise the voting age to the point at which most children finally have to leave the nest and start living like a grownup? 25? I'd accept 23.
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on February 09, 2016, 02:20:07 PM
Sigh. With all the real world evidence to the contrary, how has it come to this point that "young people" view socialism more favorably than capitalism? I blame the indoctrination of universities and public schools and just the generational dumbing down of Americans.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/02/05/millennials-have-a-higher-opinion-of-socialism-than-of-capitalism/?utm_content=buffer2e19a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/02/05/millennials-have-a-higher-opinion-of-socialism-than-of-capitalism/?utm_content=buffer2e19a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer)
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-young-democrats-love-bernie-sanders/
Thanks for that link. Synopsis: Younger voters tend to be morons who don't really know: (a) what they want, (b) what socialism means, or (c) what the candidate they're supporting really stands for. Yeah, that makes sense. Now that we don't really have a draft anymore, can we please raise the voting age to the point at which most children finally have to leave the nest and start living like a grownup? 25? I'd accept 23.
So, do people who do not live off their parents after age 18 get to vote early?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 09, 2016, 02:47:52 PM
Sigh. With all the real world evidence to the contrary, how has it come to this point that "young people" view socialism more favorably than capitalism? I blame the indoctrination of universities and public schools and just the generational dumbing down of Americans.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/02/05/millennials-have-a-higher-opinion-of-socialism-than-of-capitalism/?utm_content=buffer2e19a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/02/05/millennials-have-a-higher-opinion-of-socialism-than-of-capitalism/?utm_content=buffer2e19a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer)
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-young-democrats-love-bernie-sanders/
Thanks for that link. Synopsis: Younger voters tend to be morons who don't really know: (a) what they want, (b) what socialism means, or (c) what the candidate they're supporting really stands for. Yeah, that makes sense. Now that we don't really have a draft anymore, can we please raise the voting age to the point at which most children finally have to leave the nest and start living like a grownup? 25? I'd accept 23.
So, do people who do not live off their parents after age 18 get to vote early?
They should, but that seems pretty tough to administer. There are probably 16yos who are mature enough to vote, too, but we set a minimum age. My point is that the minimum age ought to be raised.
Post by: CNS on February 09, 2016, 02:53:07 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 09, 2016, 02:53:29 PM
Post by: DQ12 on February 09, 2016, 02:59:26 PM
I get Bernie's appeal and I think it's disingenuous to say you do not understand it. You may disagree with his politics (I certainly do), but dismissing his support as uninformed is a little hypocritical -- it's not like the GOP's base is comprised of rocket surgeons (see: trump).
Post by: star seed 7 on February 09, 2016, 03:06:47 PM
Post by: CNS on February 09, 2016, 03:09:49 PM
Old people have no rough ridin' clue what's going on and don't care about the future anyway
Also, super scared of everything.
Post by: catastrophe on February 09, 2016, 03:17:00 PM
Young voters certainly feel more entitled than earlier generations (what do you expect when you tell every single kid they can be whatever they want), but they are probably not wrong in their belief that if things don't change soon the next 20-40 years could be pretty crappy.
I would personally like Bernie to be prez just so he can push through one or two proposals to break up the mega banks and increase taxes on the super wealthy.
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 09, 2016, 03:18:26 PM
Post by: CNS on February 09, 2016, 03:30:32 PM
Kinda curious how Trump is more capable than Bernie of running the same country into the ground?
Pubs have both houses now.
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 09, 2016, 03:31:23 PM
Kinda curious how Trump is more capable than Bernie of running the same country into the ground?
Pubs have both houses now.
And yet Obama has been perfectly capable.
Post by: CNS on February 09, 2016, 03:33:43 PM
Kinda curious how Trump is more capable than Bernie of running the same country into the ground?
Pubs have both houses now.
And yet Obama has been perfectly capable.
Good grief.
How so?
Post by: sys on February 09, 2016, 03:36:31 PM
so he can push through one or two proposals to break up the mega banks.
how and why do you think this would benefit the country?
Post by: mocat on February 09, 2016, 03:39:40 PM
Kinda curious how Trump is more capable than Bernie of running the same country into the ground?
Pubs have both houses now.
And yet Obama has been perfectly capable.
:lol:
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 09, 2016, 03:44:45 PM
Kinda curious how Trump is more capable than Bernie of running the same country into the ground?
Pubs have both houses now.
And yet Obama has been perfectly capable.
Good grief.
How so?
They gots gay people scissoring each other and aborting their bastard babies with Obamacare money!
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 09, 2016, 03:58:38 PM
Kinda curious how Trump is more capable than Bernie of running the same country into the ground?
Pubs have both houses now.
And yet Obama has been perfectly capable.
Good grief.
How so?
Let's see... Successfully doubled the national debt from 10 to 20 trillion (that is simply amazing). Rammed through Obamacare. Now regulating CO2 in addition to actual pollution, driving up cost of electricity. Blocked Keystone pipeline based purely on AGW ideology, costing tens of thousands of construction jobs. Effectively refusing to enforce borders, importing poverty by the millions. Economy has created about 9 million jobs under Obama's presidency - but the population has grown by about 15 million. Labor force participation at lowest level in 40 years. Middle east even more mumped up than usual (and that's really saying something). Negotiated a "deal" with Iran to unfreeze hundreds of billions of dollars while virtually assuring their continued development of nuclear weapons.
That's just off the top of my head.
And yes, Bernie could absolutely make this even worse if he tries to implement his redistributive policies.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 09, 2016, 04:16:33 PM
Post by: CNS on February 09, 2016, 04:18:53 PM
Bunch of party/team talking points
Bunch of party/team talking points
Bunch of party/team talking points
Employment is under 5%
Bunch of party/team talking points
Predicting future with less info than those who brokered the deal
Does that cover everything?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 09, 2016, 04:22:43 PM
Congress manages the money.
Bunch of party/team talking points
Bunch of party/team talking points
Bunch of party/team talking points
Employment is under 5%
Bunch of party/team talking points
Predicting future with less info than those who brokered the deal
Does that cover everything?
:lol: Amazing. I'll just focus on one of these for now. How, exactly, has the "unemployment rate" dropped to 5% if we have created 6 million fewer jobs than the population growth? Hint, look to what I said about labor force participation rate.
Post by: CNS on February 09, 2016, 04:25:03 PM
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 09, 2016, 04:27:05 PM
Post by: catastrophe on February 09, 2016, 04:31:22 PM
so he can push through one or two proposals to break up the mega banks.
how and why do you think this would benefit the country?
When a private bank is "too big to fail," it means that the executives have very little accountability in what they do with other folks' money. If they do well, they give themselves ridiculous bonuses. If they screw up, it causes enough of a national crisis that the government has to prop them back up.
It is actually more of a capitalist idea than a socialist one IMO because it is pro competition.
Post by: catastrophe on February 09, 2016, 04:32:21 PM
Post by: gatoveintisiete on February 09, 2016, 04:32:43 PM
All of the news media whores are all "reporting" that the unemployment rate is 4.9% as of this week. I have no clue if they were blackmailed or not, though.
Are you disengenuously playing team politics pointing out a 4.9% unemployment number that is bastardized by politicians and does not reflect our employment situation accurately, or are you just stupid?
Post by: CNS on February 09, 2016, 04:33:12 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 09, 2016, 04:34:28 PM
so he can push through one or two proposals to break up the mega banks.
how and why do you think this would benefit the country?
When a private bank is "too big to fail," it means that the executives have very little accountability in what they do with other folks' money. If they do well, they give themselves ridiculous bonuses. If they screw up, it causes enough of a national crisis that the government has to prop them back up.
It is actually more of a capitalist idea than a socialist one IMO because it is pro competition.
Reducing bank regulations would go quite a bit further in promoting bank competition. I don't think the government should be "breaking up" private businesses. If they're actually private. That's where the "no more subsidies and bailouts" thing comes in to play.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 09, 2016, 04:34:58 PM
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 09, 2016, 04:35:46 PM
All of the news media whores are all "reporting" that the unemployment rate is 4.9% as of this week. I have no clue if they were blackmailed or not, though.
Are you disengenuously playing team politics pointing out a 4.9% unemployment number that is bastardized by politicians and does not reflect our employment situation accurately, or are you just stupid?
He's not stupid, just lazy or trolling.
Post by: CNS on February 09, 2016, 04:36:02 PM
All of the news media whores are all "reporting" that the unemployment rate is 4.9% as of this week. I have no clue if they were blackmailed or not, though.
Are you disengenuously playing team politics pointing out a 4.9% unemployment number that is bastardized by politicians and does not reflect our employment situation accurately, or are you just stupid?
Hey, I am just repeating what the media whores are all reporting after their back room blackmail sesh's. Admittedly, I have not analyzed their blackmail reported numbers through my decoder ring I got from The National Review.
Post by: gatoveintisiete on February 09, 2016, 04:40:52 PM
All of the news media whores are all "reporting" that the unemployment rate is 4.9% as of this week. I have no clue if they were blackmailed or not, though.
Are you disengenuously playing team politics pointing out a 4.9% unemployment number that is bastardized by politicians and does not reflect our employment situation accurately, or are you just stupid?
Hey, I am just repeating what the media whores are all reporting after their back room blackmail sesh's. Admittedly, I have not analyzed their blackmail reported numbers through my decoder ring I got from The National Review.
Lemming.
Post by: CNS on February 09, 2016, 04:42:00 PM
Post by: catastrophe on February 09, 2016, 04:43:29 PM
Yep, I am sure that the unemployment rate dropped from around 10% to around 5% because govt jobs.
I'm not commenting on any particular president's accomplishments. Besides, they typically do report private sector growth as a figure so it is easily tracked.
Post by: catastrophe on February 09, 2016, 04:45:40 PM
so he can push through one or two proposals to break up the mega banks.
how and why do you think this would benefit the country?
When a private bank is "too big to fail," it means that the executives have very little accountability in what they do with other folks' money. If they do well, they give themselves ridiculous bonuses. If they screw up, it causes enough of a national crisis that the government has to prop them back up.
It is actually more of a capitalist idea than a socialist one IMO because it is pro competition.
Reducing bank regulations would go quite a bit further in promoting bank competition. I don't think the government should be "breaking up" private businesses. If they're actually private. That's where the "no more subsidies and bailouts" thing comes in to play.
You may disagree with it, but the government has effectively been "breaking up" private institutions for a long time. That's why any major company merger requires the approval of the Department of Justice to determine whether it would be anti-competition.
Post by: Kat Kid on February 09, 2016, 04:51:15 PM
Sanders is popular for the same reason Trump is. They both feed off the fact that people are pissed off with the current system. Both would break the mold of POTUS, but at least with Bernie I'm not afraid he would actually run the county into the ground in a 4-year term. Most of Bernie's crazy ideas require lots of help from congress; he is unlikely to get too far off the rails.
Young voters certainly feel more entitled than earlier generations (what do you expect when you tell every single kid they can be whatever they want), but they are probably not wrong in their belief that if things don't change soon the next 20-40 years could be pretty crappy.
I would personally like Bernie to be prez just so he can push through one or two proposals to break up the mega banks and increase taxes on the super wealthy.
Baby boomers are more entitled than millennials.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: CNS on February 09, 2016, 04:53:05 PM
Post by: sys on February 09, 2016, 04:59:50 PM
When a private bank is "too big to fail," it means that the executives have very little accountability in what they do with other folks' money. If they do well, they give themselves ridiculous bonuses. If they screw up, it causes enough of a national crisis that the government has to prop them back up.
It is actually more of a capitalist idea than a socialist one IMO because it is pro competition.
as you may know, sifi banks in no way have little accountability with regards to how they manage capital. they face exceedingly exacting regulation designed to prevent (among other things) the occurrence of another liquidity crisis. are you simply philosophically against this regulation or you do believe that less-regulated smaller banks would constitute a more robust system?
Post by: sys on February 09, 2016, 05:06:08 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/opinion/dont-break-up-the-banks-theyre-not-our-real-problem.html
Post by: sys on February 09, 2016, 05:26:00 PM
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-01-15/democrats-buy-bernie-sanders-s-snake-oil-on-banks
in all seriousness, if bloomberg won the presidency, he'd have to divest himself of all of his various media enterprises? i hope that doesn't keep him from running.
Post by: catastrophe on February 09, 2016, 05:28:39 PM
When a private bank is "too big to fail," it means that the executives have very little accountability in what they do with other folks' money. If they do well, they give themselves ridiculous bonuses. If they screw up, it causes enough of a national crisis that the government has to prop them back up.
It is actually more of a capitalist idea than a socialist one IMO because it is pro competition.
as you may know, sifi banks in no way have little accountability with regards to how they manage capital. they face exceedingly exacting regulation designed to prevent (among other things) the occurrence of another liquidity crisis. are you simply philosophically against this regulation or you do believe that less-regulated smaller banks would constitute a more robust system?
I agree we are not at a particular risk of a crisis identical to 2008, but one of the issues with regulations is that you often don't understand the problem until after it happens. Plus, like the article briefly mentioned, there is an argument that the banks effectively have too much say over what the regulations will be due to their political influence.
Another thing is that the more the government regulates, the closer you get to an actual socialist model (which most Bern critics seem to disapprove of).
I personally do believe that less regulated, smaller banks would be the ideal. But that is more due to my pro-competition views than any hard evidence.
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on February 09, 2016, 08:15:47 PM
Post by: mocat on February 09, 2016, 09:43:37 PM
Post by: catastrophe on February 09, 2016, 09:51:59 PM
Post by: CNS on February 09, 2016, 10:00:39 PM
Post by: wetwillie on February 09, 2016, 10:02:25 PM
Post by: Cartierfor3 on February 09, 2016, 10:03:55 PM
Post by: sys on February 09, 2016, 11:08:08 PM
Quote
The two worst places to be in American politics Wednesday morning: the breakfast table of Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren.
good line.
Post by: CNS on February 10, 2016, 06:42:08 AM
Post by: slackcat on February 10, 2016, 01:19:06 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 10, 2016, 01:46:50 PM
Kinda curious how Trump is more capable than Bernie of running the same country into the ground?
Pubs have both houses now.
And yet Obama has been perfectly capable.
Good grief.
How so?
Let's see... Successfully doubled the national debt from 10 to 20 trillion (that is simply amazing). Rammed through Obamacare. Now regulating CO2 in addition to actual pollution, driving up cost of electricity. Blocked Keystone pipeline based purely on AGW ideology, costing tens of thousands of construction jobs. Effectively refusing to enforce borders, importing poverty by the millions. Economy has created about 9 million jobs under Obama's presidency - but the population has grown by about 15 million. Labor force participation at lowest level in 40 years. Middle east even more mumped up than usual (and that's really saying something). Negotiated a "deal" with Iran to unfreeze hundreds of billions of dollars while virtually assuring their continued development of nuclear weapons.
That's just off the top of my head.
And yes, Bernie could absolutely make this even worse if he tries to implement his redistributive policies.
Looks like consumers have dodged another of Obama's unlawful and harmful policies, for now.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/09/supreme-court-puts-the-brakes-on-the-epas-clean-power-plan/?postshare=3911455067610338&tid=ss_tw (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/09/supreme-court-puts-the-brakes-on-the-epas-clean-power-plan/?postshare=3911455067610338&tid=ss_tw)
Essentially, the Clean Power Plan (note it's a "Plan" as opposed to an "Act" or, you know, something lawfully passed through Congress) would have imposed significant new CO2 emission restrictions on power plants, driving electric rates through the roof.
In what has become a pretty common theme, the Obama Administration didn't really care whether it was legal or not - they just announced the plan and were counting on it being too well-implemented to reverse by the time courts got around to striking it down or scaling it back. The old "eff the law - the law is what we say it is, and we still win even if a court reverses us a few years down the road" approach.
Thankfully, in a rather unexpected turn of events, the Supreme Court just ruled that the CPP cannot be implemented until after lower courts have had an opportunity to rule. the SC similarly blocked Obama's illegal efforts to massively expand amnesty to illegal immigrants. Too bad they didn't do the same for Obamacare...
Post by: CNS on February 10, 2016, 01:52:11 PM
Post by: Ptolemy on February 10, 2016, 02:15:12 PM
To be fair, I am not a fan of the executive order spree that seems to be the preferred way of doing biz for the last few presidents. I do blame congress, the level of partisan separation, and the thought that the best way to govern is to not even listen to or engage the other party. If congress wasn't a crap storm the office of the president wouldn't have had to wrangle a way to accomplish something(good or bad). Congress is now more of a place to go hang out, troll ppl on twitter, and just make sure that if the other party has a president in power that they don't ever get anything they want.
Actually, given that Democrats have lost more than 1000 seats in government since Obama has started his wreck-capitalism-campaign...
Since Obama took office Democrats have lost:
** 14 Senate seats
** 69 House seats
** 12 governorships
** 910 state legislature seats
That’s over 1,000 seats lost.
You are witnessing a wave.
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 10, 2016, 02:15:48 PM
To be fair, I am not a fan of the executive order spree that seems to be the preferred way of doing biz for the last few presidents. I do blame congress, the level of partisan separation, and the thought that the best way to govern is to not even listen to or engage the other party. If congress wasn't a crap storm the office of the president wouldn't have had to wrangle a way to accomplish something(good or bad). Congress is now more of a place to go hang out, troll ppl on twitter, and just make sure that if the other party has a president in power that they don't ever get anything they want.
I'm pretty much okay with this, assuming the executive order thing stops.
Post by: catastrophe on February 10, 2016, 02:21:28 PM
Post by: Ptolemy on February 10, 2016, 02:22:02 PM
To be fair, I am not a fan of the executive order spree that seems to be the preferred way of doing biz for the last few presidents. I do blame congress, the level of partisan separation, and the thought that the best way to govern is to not even listen to or engage the other party. If congress wasn't a crap storm the office of the president wouldn't have had to wrangle a way to accomplish something(good or bad). Congress is now more of a place to go hang out, troll ppl on twitter, and just make sure that if the other party has a president in power that they don't ever get anything they want.
I'm pretty much okay with this, assuming the executive order thing stops.
What exactly has the Republican Congress stopped Obama on? They fully funded: Obama's amnesty program, Obamacare again and again and again, vote in favor of his judicial appointments, have abided by Harry Reid and Obama's desire to end the filibuster rule for judicial appointments, allowed his fast and furious and IRS scandals to go without an independent counsel, the ONE guy in the senate, Cruz, that tried to de-fund the ACA got demonized by the establishment...!!! The reason there is an insurgent campaign that is unseating the establishment RINO's is because they refuse to try to stop Obama. Hell, the only way the EPA got stopped/delayed on raising our utility rates is because 29 states sued to stop him.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 10, 2016, 02:22:43 PM
To be fair, I am not a fan of the executive order spree that seems to be the preferred way of doing biz for the last few presidents. I do blame congress, the level of partisan separation, and the thought that the best way to govern is to not even listen to or engage the other party. If congress wasn't a crap storm the office of the president wouldn't have had to wrangle a way to accomplish something(good or bad). Congress is now more of a place to go hang out, troll ppl on twitter, and just make sure that if the other party has a president in power that they don't ever get anything they want.
Actually, given that Democrats have lost more than 1000 seats in government since Obama has started his wreck-capitalism-campaign...
Since Obama took office Democrats have lost:
** 14 Senate seats
** 69 House seats
** 12 governorships
** 910 state legislature seats
That’s over 1,000 seats lost.
You are witnessing a wave.
:lol:
Post by: chuckjames on February 10, 2016, 02:27:19 PM
Lincoln killed it with executive orders, btw.
Lincoln also killed at not caring about the 8th amendment.
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 10, 2016, 02:46:48 PM
To be fair, I am not a fan of the executive order spree that seems to be the preferred way of doing biz for the last few presidents. I do blame congress, the level of partisan separation, and the thought that the best way to govern is to not even listen to or engage the other party. If congress wasn't a crap storm the office of the president wouldn't have had to wrangle a way to accomplish something(good or bad). Congress is now more of a place to go hang out, troll ppl on twitter, and just make sure that if the other party has a president in power that they don't ever get anything they want.
I'm pretty much okay with this, assuming the executive order thing stops.
What exactly has the Republican Congress stopped Obama on? They fully funded: Obama's amnesty program, Obamacare again and again and again, vote in favor of his judicial appointments, have abided by Harry Reid and Obama's desire to end the filibuster rule for judicial appointments, allowed his fast and furious and IRS scandals to go without an independent counsel, the ONE guy in the senate, Cruz, that tried to de-fund the ACA got demonized by the establishment...!!! The reason there is an insurgent campaign that is unseating the establishment RINO's is because they refuse to try to stop Obama. Hell, the only way the EPA got stopped/delayed on raising our utility rates is because 29 states sued to stop him.
12/24/2009: Senate, 58 D / 40 R
03/21/2010: House, 253 D / 177 R
Post by: GregKSU1027 on February 10, 2016, 02:49:36 PM
Post by: ednksu on February 10, 2016, 02:53:01 PM
:blank:Lincoln killed it with executive orders, btw.
Lincoln also killed at not caring about the 8th amendment.
Post by: kso_FAN on February 10, 2016, 03:17:38 PM
https://twitter.com/jgrovum/status/697527444732059649
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 10, 2016, 03:36:47 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 10, 2016, 04:30:32 PM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 10, 2016, 04:32:36 PM
Quick question for those who feel the bern: I currently pay about 40% of my income in the form of one tax or another, including 22% to the federal government (that's total tax / AGI). How much more of my income will Bernie take? I need something more specific than "according to my ability."
I doubt it changes much. Your federal tax burden would probably increase by about 10-15%, so instead of 22% of your overall income it would be 25-26%. That's assuming Bernie could ever get congress to approve his tax increases in the first place.
Post by: mocat on February 10, 2016, 04:33:44 PM
Post by: chuckjames on February 10, 2016, 04:55:05 PM
Quick question for those who feel the bern: I currently pay about 40% of my income in the form of one tax or another, including 22% to the federal government (that's total tax / AGI). How much more of my income will Bernie take? I need something more specific than "according to my ability."
yea i dont think your tax liability will drastically increase..and the only increase you would see is to pay for single payer healthcare...but then you dont have to worry about health insurance so it will be a net gain or close to it (i know you think youll get shitty cover through single payer, not arguing that).
Post by: chuckjames on February 10, 2016, 04:56:04 PM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 10, 2016, 05:04:21 PM
Quick question for those who feel the bern: I currently pay about 40% of my income in the form of one tax or another, including 22% to the federal government (that's total tax / AGI). How much more of my income will Bernie take? I need something more specific than "according to my ability."
yea i dont think your tax liability will drastically increase..and the only increase you would see is to pay for single payer healthcare...but then you dont have to worry about health insurance so it will be a net gain or close to it (i know you think youll get shitty cover through single payer, not arguing that).
The problem with that argument for me is that my employer pays for my healthcare, and I really doubt I'd get a raise that covers the amount they've been paying.
Post by: chuckjames on February 10, 2016, 05:13:25 PM
Quick question for those who feel the bern: I currently pay about 40% of my income in the form of one tax or another, including 22% to the federal government (that's total tax / AGI). How much more of my income will Bernie take? I need something more specific than "according to my ability."
yea i dont think your tax liability will drastically increase..and the only increase you would see is to pay for single payer healthcare...but then you dont have to worry about health insurance so it will be a net gain or close to it (i know you think youll get shitty cover through single payer, not arguing that).
The problem with that argument for me is that my employer pays for my healthcare, and I really doubt I'd get a raise that covers the amount they've been paying.
Nope Not a chance.
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 10, 2016, 05:31:46 PM
if you are relatively wealthy and you support Bernie, do the "lazy and looking for free crap" memes apply to you? or is it confirmed only people without a job that support this guy? trying to get a sense of this deal
I think it means you are willing to work for less money so
Post by: catastrophe on February 10, 2016, 05:37:48 PM
Post by: catastrophe on February 10, 2016, 05:42:09 PM
Quick question for those who feel the bern: I currently pay about 40% of my income in the form of one tax or another, including 22% to the federal government (that's total tax / AGI). How much more of my income will Bernie take? I need something more specific than "according to my ability."
He's mainly going to raise the crap out of the top marginal tax rates, so you probably won't feel much of a difference. But 40% paid in taxes? That better be including more than income tax.
Post by: Institutional Control on February 10, 2016, 05:46:21 PM
Quick question for those who feel the bern: I currently pay about 40% of my income in the form of one tax or another, including 22% to the federal government (that's total tax / AGI). How much more of my income will Bernie take? I need something more specific than "according to my ability."
He's mainly going to raise the crap out of the top marginal tax rates, so you probably won't feel much of a difference. But 40% paid in taxes? That better be including more than income tax.
K-S-U always puts his sales tax, property tax, FICO, & social security into his "income tax" figures.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 10, 2016, 06:19:37 PM
Quick question for those who feel the bern: I currently pay about 40% of my income in the form of one tax or another, including 22% to the federal government (that's total tax / AGI). How much more of my income will Bernie take? I need something more specific than "according to my ability."
He's mainly going to raise the crap out of the top marginal tax rates, so you probably won't feel much of a difference. But 40% paid in taxes? That better be including more than income tax.
K-S-U always puts his sales tax, property tax, FICO, & social security into his "income tax" figures.
Also likes to use "almost over 50%" a lot too
Post by: sys on February 10, 2016, 06:33:15 PM
Even when he wins he loses. Hillary took the majority of delegates. :ROFL:
not accurate.
Post by: chuckjames on February 10, 2016, 07:13:56 PM
Quick question for those who feel the bern: I currently pay about 40% of my income in the form of one tax or another, including 22% to the federal government (that's total tax / AGI). How much more of my income will Bernie take? I need something more specific than "according to my ability."
He's mainly going to raise the crap out of the top marginal tax rates, so you probably won't feel much of a difference. But 40% paid in taxes? That better be including more than income tax.
K-S-U always puts his sales tax, property tax, FICO, & social security into his "income tax" figures.
Also likes to use "almost over 50%" a lot too
What about the Gas Tax??? Thats gotta put him over the 50% mark.
Post by: Ptolemy on February 10, 2016, 08:13:36 PM
Why is the wallet depicted as a blue circle?
He's actually reaching for the coin in the next primary coin flip with Hildebeast screaming, "Mine!"
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 10, 2016, 08:39:46 PM
Quick question for those who feel the bern: I currently pay about 40% of my income in the form of one tax or another, including 22% to the federal government (that's total tax / AGI). How much more of my income will Bernie take? I need something more specific than "according to my ability."
He's mainly going to raise the crap out of the top marginal tax rates, so you probably won't feel much of a difference. But 40% paid in taxes? That better be including more than income tax.
K-S-U always puts his sales tax, property tax, FICO, & social security into his "income tax" figures.
Sorry - should have been more clear. My effective federal income tax rate alone is 22%. That's total fed income tax / AGI. Add in state tax, FICA, property tax, etc. and I'm pushing 40%.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 10, 2016, 08:42:01 PM
Quick question for those who feel the bern: I currently pay about 40% of my income in the form of one tax or another, including 22% to the federal government (that's total tax / AGI). How much more of my income will Bernie take? I need something more specific than "according to my ability."
yea i dont think your tax liability will drastically increase..and the only increase you would see is to pay for single payer healthcare...but then you dont have to worry about health insurance so it will be a net gain or close to it (i know you think youll get shitty cover through single payer, not arguing that).
Right - so if Bern gets his way, I'll pay higher taxes for the same exact "free" healthcare everybody who isn't paying as much gets, and it'll be like going to the VA. That doesn't sound fair, from my perspective.
Post by: bucket on February 10, 2016, 08:43:32 PM
To be fair, I am not a fan of the executive order spree that seems to be the preferred way of doing biz for the last few presidents. I do blame congress, the level of partisan separation, and the thought that the best way to govern is to not even listen to or engage the other party. If congress wasn't a crap storm the office of the president wouldn't have had to wrangle a way to accomplish something(good or bad). Congress is now more of a place to go hang out, troll ppl on twitter, and just make sure that if the other party has a president in power that they don't ever get anything they want.
I'm pretty much okay with this, assuming the executive order thing stops.
Obama has enacted fewer executive orders than any president per year, on average, since the great Grover Cleveland.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/every-presidents-executive-actions-in-one-chart/
Post by: star seed 7 on February 10, 2016, 08:49:40 PM
Quick question for those who feel the bern: I currently pay about 40% of my income in the form of one tax or another, including 22% to the federal government (that's total tax / AGI). How much more of my income will Bernie take? I need something more specific than "according to my ability."
yea i dont think your tax liability will drastically increase..and the only increase you would see is to pay for single payer healthcare...but then you dont have to worry about health insurance so it will be a net gain or close to it (i know you think youll get shitty cover through single payer, not arguing that).
Right - so if Bern gets his way, I'll pay higher taxes for the same exact "free" healthcare everybody who isn't paying as much gets, and it'll be like going to the VA. That doesn't sound fair, from my perspective.
that's the price you pay for living in a civilized society. taxes go to all sorts of things you (and i!) don't use, not sure why you so butthurt about it.
Post by: sys on February 10, 2016, 09:12:12 PM
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 10, 2016, 09:17:19 PM
To be fair, I am not a fan of the executive order spree that seems to be the preferred way of doing biz for the last few presidents. I do blame congress, the level of partisan separation, and the thought that the best way to govern is to not even listen to or engage the other party. If congress wasn't a crap storm the office of the president wouldn't have had to wrangle a way to accomplish something(good or bad). Congress is now more of a place to go hang out, troll ppl on twitter, and just make sure that if the other party has a president in power that they don't ever get anything they want.
I'm pretty much okay with this, assuming the executive order thing stops.
Obama has enacted fewer executive orders than any president per year, on average, since the great Grover Cleveland.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/every-presidents-executive-actions-in-one-chart/
It isn't the quantity, it's the quality, or lack there of.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 10, 2016, 09:22:20 PM
Quick question for those who feel the bern: I currently pay about 40% of my income in the form of one tax or another, including 22% to the federal government (that's total tax / AGI). How much more of my income will Bernie take? I need something more specific than "according to my ability."
yea i dont think your tax liability will drastically increase..and the only increase you would see is to pay for single payer healthcare...but then you dont have to worry about health insurance so it will be a net gain or close to it (i know you think youll get shitty cover through single payer, not arguing that).
Right - so if Bern gets his way, I'll pay higher taxes for the same exact "free" healthcare everybody who isn't paying as much gets, and it'll be like going to the VA. That doesn't sound fair, from my perspective.
that's the price you pay for living in a civilized society. taxes go to all sorts of things you (and i!) don't use, not sure why you so butthurt about it.
I don't think society would be any less civilized if everyone paid a flat 12% federal income tax.
Post by: gatoveintisiete on February 10, 2016, 10:11:21 PM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 11, 2016, 06:03:06 AM
i'm pretty butthurt about all of my taxes that get spent on other people's kids. i'll admit.
I justify it by telling myself that I really don't want to be surrounded by people even dumber than they already are.
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 11, 2016, 07:46:18 AM
Post by: CNS on February 11, 2016, 07:48:31 AM
Post by: Ptolemy on February 11, 2016, 10:13:42 AM
Can we go back to the part where @Ptolemy thought a Republican controlled Congress failed to stop Obamacare?
Not talking about when it was passed via reconciliation into law. Was referring to the numerous omnibus spending bills passed under a Republican controlled congress that had opportunities to defund it. Remember Cruz shutting down government? (Sheesh!)
Post by: chuckjames on February 11, 2016, 10:54:44 AM
Quick question for those who feel the bern: I currently pay about 40% of my income in the form of one tax or another, including 22% to the federal government (that's total tax / AGI). How much more of my income will Bernie take? I need something more specific than "according to my ability."
yea i dont think your tax liability will drastically increase..and the only increase you would see is to pay for single payer healthcare...but then you dont have to worry about health insurance so it will be a net gain or close to it (i know you think youll get shitty cover through single payer, not arguing that).
Right - so if Bern gets his way, I'll pay higher taxes for the same exact "free" healthcare everybody who isn't paying as much gets, and it'll be like going to the VA. That doesn't sound fair, from my perspective.
And I don't think it's fair that some people are born rich, while others are born poor...alas life ain't fair.
Post by: chuckjames on February 11, 2016, 10:57:13 AM
Lemy is a sock, and a bad one at that. Don't engage. It is just talking points with non rational thought mixed in with links from lol land.
Took me far too long to realize this.
Post by: michigancat on February 11, 2016, 10:59:58 AM
Post by: CNS on February 11, 2016, 11:07:04 AM
Post by: Asteriskhead on February 11, 2016, 11:17:07 AM
I mean, companies weren't legally required to offer any health insurance for the last thirty years and most still did. Why would that change just because the mechanism that funds it shifts?
because the sky is falling.
Post by: sys on February 11, 2016, 11:25:52 AM
I mean, companies weren't legally required to offer any health insurance for the last thirty years and most still did. Why would that change just because the mechanism that funds it shifts?
because employees would probably prefer to have increased salaries rather than redundant health care.
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 11, 2016, 11:28:25 AM
I mean, companies weren't legally required to offer any health insurance for the last thirty years and most still did. Why would that change just because the mechanism that funds it shifts?
because employees would probably prefer to have increased salaries rather than redundant health care.
And employers would rather pay a salary than deal with the administrative headache of negotiating and offering the health care.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 11, 2016, 11:39:43 AM
Quick question for those who feel the bern: I currently pay about 40% of my income in the form of one tax or another, including 22% to the federal government (that's total tax / AGI). How much more of my income will Bernie take? I need something more specific than "according to my ability."
yea i dont think your tax liability will drastically increase..and the only increase you would see is to pay for single payer healthcare...but then you dont have to worry about health insurance so it will be a net gain or close to it (i know you think youll get shitty cover through single payer, not arguing that).
Right - so if Bern gets his way, I'll pay higher taxes for the same exact "free" healthcare everybody who isn't paying as much gets, and it'll be like going to the VA. That doesn't sound fair, from my perspective.
And I don't think it's fair that some people are born rich, while others are born poor...alas life ain't fair.
True, life isn't fair. that doesn't mean the government should heap one unfairness on top of another. Just because many people are born poor doesn't make it "fair" to seize a higher percentage of other people's money to "even things out." It also doesn't work, but that's another issue.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 11, 2016, 11:43:45 AM
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 11, 2016, 12:27:03 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 11, 2016, 12:31:50 PM
Post by: Dub on February 11, 2016, 01:18:52 PM
Post by: CNS on February 11, 2016, 01:20:31 PM
I'm sure there will be plenty of docs who step outside the single payer spectrum on a cash/subscription basis. Therefore rich people will still have better care.
There are already doctors doing this. There are at least two on the radio in KC now advertising a subscription/concierge service. They don't do insurance, etc. I guarantee this service will increase for those who feel like the system will not provide them gap coverage for what they want.
Post by: Dub on February 11, 2016, 01:23:09 PM
I'm sure there will be plenty of docs who step outside the single payer spectrum on a cash/subscription basis. Therefore rich people will still have better care.
There are already doctors doing this. There are at least two on the radio in KC now advertising a subscription/concierge service. They don't do insurance, etc. I guarantee this service will increase for those who feel like the system will not provide them gap coverage for what they want.
Yeah, it started becoming more common in the last 5 years with declining reimbursement. Private practice has been going by the wayside anyway with either people converting to that system or being bought out by hospitals to stay alive. Cash pay much more common among specialties (Psych, etc.)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 11, 2016, 04:17:54 PM
I'm sure there will be plenty of docs who step outside the single payer spectrum on a cash/subscription basis. Therefore rich people will still have better care.
Already happening. But I don't really like the idea of paying for both my good healthcare and other people's shitty healthcare. We already have Medicaid.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 12, 2016, 05:46:51 PM
All of the news media whores are all "reporting" that the unemployment rate is 4.9% as of this week. I have no clue if they were blackmailed or not, though.
Bern gets it right. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/11/bernie_sanders_who_can_deny_real_unemployment_is_close_to_10.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/11/bernie_sanders_who_can_deny_real_unemployment_is_close_to_10.html)
Romney sure has done a shitty job these past 8 years....
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 12, 2016, 06:23:41 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 12, 2016, 06:28:41 PM
Even when he wins he loses. Hillary took the majority of delegates. :ROFL:
It's been a couple of days, have you figured out how delegates work yet?
Post by: wetwillie on February 12, 2016, 06:35:15 PM
Post by: CNS on February 12, 2016, 06:35:35 PM
Post by: wetwillie on February 12, 2016, 06:37:26 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 12, 2016, 06:39:50 PM
Post by: wetwillie on February 12, 2016, 06:45:55 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 12, 2016, 07:33:30 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 12, 2016, 07:35:35 PM
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 12, 2016, 07:51:31 PM
Quick question for those who feel the bern: I currently pay about 40% of my income in the form of one tax or another, including 22% to the federal government (that's total tax / AGI). How much more of my income will Bernie take? I need something more specific than "according to my ability."
You aren't in the bracket he is aiming at.
Post by: catastrophe on February 12, 2016, 08:21:01 PM
Post by: Ptolemy on February 12, 2016, 11:21:29 PM
Quick question for those who feel the bern: I currently pay about 40% of my income in the form of one tax or another, including 22% to the federal government (that's total tax / AGI). How much more of my income will Bernie take? I need something more specific than "according to my ability."
You aren't in the bracket he is aiming at.
JFC you libs! If the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit. Our national debt would continue to explode.
Please place this information in your stove-flue and light it on fire for pleasure!
Post by: star seed 7 on February 13, 2016, 09:37:36 AM
Post by: catastrophe on February 13, 2016, 10:50:41 AM
What
I think he's saying he makes over $1 million a year.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 13, 2016, 12:08:02 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 13, 2016, 12:08:57 PM
I know it's not original. Still really funny.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 13, 2016, 09:24:19 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 13, 2016, 11:03:45 PM
Bernie openly says he's raising everybody's taxes. Once he's exposed to people outside the deluded left, he's toast. He might as well say he sympathizes with chomos.
That's why it would be amazingly lucky for the GOP if he's nominated, but they're not that lucky.
Post by: bones129 on February 14, 2016, 01:04:55 AM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 14, 2016, 07:51:02 AM
Post by: mocat on February 14, 2016, 10:02:05 AM
Post by: Katpappy on February 14, 2016, 12:51:26 PM
Bottom line is Bernie is not electable. He'd like to be, but he's not.Hey, I'll vote for him... just not sure if Jewish or not.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 14, 2016, 02:23:55 PM
Democrats everywhere are pissed about it fsd, i agree.
No they arent, they're ecstatic
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 18, 2016, 03:31:24 PM
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/269823-obama-hope-designer-endorses-sanders (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/269823-obama-hope-designer-endorses-sanders)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Farticle_full%2Fpublic%2Fblogs%2Fsandersshirt_021816.jpg&hash=6ac908d2f3fe6e5ec3c945a9ef00f779a8d80a76)
Post by: star seed 7 on February 18, 2016, 03:39:36 PM
Post by: BrokenSky1113 on February 18, 2016, 03:42:39 PM
Do you think Shepard Fairey is for real, or a GOP plant? Why is his art "supporting" Obama and Bernie so clearly modeled on communist propaganda?
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/269823-obama-hope-designer-endorses-sanders (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/269823-obama-hope-designer-endorses-sanders)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Farticle_full%2Fpublic%2Fblogs%2Fsandersshirt_021816.jpg&hash=6ac908d2f3fe6e5ec3c945a9ef00f779a8d80a76)
All propaganda shares certain themes throughout history.
Post by: star seed 7 on February 18, 2016, 03:45:53 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 18, 2016, 03:48:07 PM
Do you think Shepard Fairey is for real, or a GOP plant? Why is his art "supporting" Obama and Bernie so clearly modeled on communist propaganda?
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/269823-obama-hope-designer-endorses-sanders (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/269823-obama-hope-designer-endorses-sanders)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Farticle_full%2Fpublic%2Fblogs%2Fsandersshirt_021816.jpg&hash=6ac908d2f3fe6e5ec3c945a9ef00f779a8d80a76)
All propaganda shares certain themes throughout history.
Okkkay? Are you really denying that Shepard Fairy's work does not have an especially close affinity to communist propaganda? I think he has actually admitted as much in interviews.
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 18, 2016, 03:49:16 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 18, 2016, 03:50:58 PM
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 18, 2016, 03:51:55 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 18, 2016, 03:53:01 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 18, 2016, 03:53:15 PM
Do you think Shepard Fairey is for real, or a GOP plant? Why is his art "supporting" Obama and Bernie so clearly modeled on communist propaganda?
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/269823-obama-hope-designer-endorses-sanders (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/269823-obama-hope-designer-endorses-sanders)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Farticle_full%2Fpublic%2Fblogs%2Fsandersshirt_021816.jpg&hash=6ac908d2f3fe6e5ec3c945a9ef00f779a8d80a76)
Yeah, he really mumped Obama in 2008.
Post by: michigancat on February 18, 2016, 03:56:12 PM
Do you think Shepard Fairey is for real, or a GOP plant? Why is his art "supporting" Obama and Bernie so clearly modeled on communist propaganda?
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/269823-obama-hope-designer-endorses-sanders (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/269823-obama-hope-designer-endorses-sanders)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Farticle_full%2Fpublic%2Fblogs%2Fsandersshirt_021816.jpg&hash=6ac908d2f3fe6e5ec3c945a9ef00f779a8d80a76)
Yeah, he really mumped Obama in 2008.
LOL
My biggest problem with it is it's just too busy. SOMETIMES LESS IS MORE, SHEP!
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 18, 2016, 04:06:03 PM
Appropriate
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 18, 2016, 04:08:22 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 18, 2016, 04:24:52 PM
"No credible economic research supports economic impacts of these magnitudes."
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/18/11041838/bernienomics-wonks For LIB!
Post by: CNS on February 18, 2016, 04:54:13 PM
Seems very new age nazi to me.Agreed
Post by: star seed 7 on February 18, 2016, 04:55:39 PM
Or maybe I'm thinking of the P.A.G.A.N. rallies from Dragnet
:lol:
Post by: Katpappy on February 18, 2016, 09:32:35 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 18, 2016, 09:34:05 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 18, 2016, 09:48:25 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 18, 2016, 09:54:45 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 18, 2016, 10:05:31 PM
Plus, I thought of the Bohemian Grove thing as soon as I hit post, and BG CoC is much more appropriate.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 19, 2016, 03:53:50 PM
Quote
As he campaigns for the Democratic nomination for president, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) often sounds like he’s running as much against me as he is the other candidates. I have never met the senator, but I know from listening to him that we disagree on plenty when it comes to public policy.
Even so, I see benefits in searching for common ground and greater civility during this overly negative campaign season. That’s why, in spite of the fact that he often misrepresents where I stand on issues, the senator should know that we do agree on at least one — an issue that resonates with people who feel that hard work and making a contribution will no longer enable them to succeed.
The senator is upset with a political and economic system that is often rigged to help the privileged few at the expense of everyone else, particularly the least advantaged. He believes that we have a two-tiered society that increasingly dooms millions of our fellow citizens to lives of poverty and hopelessness. He thinks many corporations seek and benefit from corporate welfare while ordinary citizens are denied opportunities and a level playing field.
I agree with him.
Democrats and Republicans have too often favored policies and regulations that pick winners and losers. This helps perpetuate a cycle of control, dependency, cronyism and poverty in the United States. These are complicated issues, but it’s not enough to say that government alone is to blame. Large portions of the business community have actively pushed for these policies.
Consider the regulations, handouts, mandates, subsidies and other forms of largesse our elected officials dole out to the wealthy and well-connected. The tax code alone contains $1.5 trillion in exemptions and special-interest carve-outs. Anti-competitive regulations cost businesses an additional $1.9 trillion every year. Perversely, this regulatory burden falls hardest on small companies, innovators and the poor, while benefitting many large companies like ours. This unfairly benefits established firms and penalizes new entrants, contributing to a two-tiered society.
Whenever we allow government to pick winners and losers, we impede progress and move further away from a society of mutual benefit. This pits individuals and groups against each other and corrupts the business community, which inevitably becomes less focused on creating value for customers. That’s why Koch Industries opposes all forms of corporate welfare — even those that benefit us. (The government’s ethanol mandate is a good example. We oppose that mandate, even though we are the fifth-largest ethanol producer in the United States.)
It may surprise the senator to learn that our framework in deciding whether to support or oppose a policy is not determined by its effect on our bottom line (or by which party sponsors the legislation), but by whether it will make people’s lives better or worse.
With this in mind, the United States’ next president must be willing to rethink decades of misguided policies enacted by both parties that are creating a permanent underclass.
Our criminal justice system, which is in dire need of reform, is another issue where the senator shares some of my concerns. Families and entire communities are being ripped apart by laws that unjustly destroy the lives of low-level and nonviolent offenders.
Today, if you’re poor and get caught possessing and selling pot, you could end up in jail. Your conviction will hold you back from many opportunities in life. However, if you are well-connected and have ample financial resources, the rules change dramatically. Where is the justice in that?
Arbitrary restrictions limit the ability of ex-offenders to get housing, student or business loans, credit cards, a meaningful job or even to vote. Public policy must change if people are to have the chance to succeed after making amends for their transgressions. At Koch Industries we’re practicing our principles by “banning the box.” We have voluntarily removed the question about prior criminal convictions from our job application.
At this point you may be asking yourself, “Is Charles Koch feeling the Bern?”
Hardly.
I applaud the senator for giving a voice to many Americans struggling to get ahead in a system too often stacked in favor of the haves, but I disagree with his desire to expand the federal government’s control over people’s lives. This is what built so many barriers to opportunity in the first place.
Consider America’s War on Poverty. Since its launch under President Lyndon Johnson in 1964, we have spent roughly $22 trillion, yet our poverty rate remains at 14.8 percent. Instead of preventing, curing and relieving the causes and symptoms of poverty (the goals of the program when it began), too many communities have been torn apart and remain in peril while even more tax dollars pour into this broken system.
It is results, not intentions, that matter. History has proven that a bigger, more controlling, more complex and costlier federal government leaves the disadvantaged less likely to improve their lives.
When it comes to electing our next president, we should reward those candidates, Democrat or Republican, most committed to the principles of a free society. Those principles start with the right to live your life as you see fit as long as you don’t infringe on the ability of others to do the same. They include equality before the law, free speech and free markets and treating people with dignity, respect and tolerance. In a society governed by such principles, people succeed by helping others improve their lives.
I don’t expect to agree with every position a candidate holds, but all Americans deserve a president who, on balance, can demonstrate a commitment to a set of ideas and values that will lead to peace, civility and well-being rather than conflict, contempt and division. When such a candidate emerges, he or she will have my enthusiastic support.
Post by: michigancat on February 19, 2016, 05:29:29 PM
As for the war on poverty, are there examples of ecomonomies more committed to a "free society" than the US that have done better over this span?
Post by: sys on February 19, 2016, 05:41:29 PM
I honestly like a lot of what Charles Koch says.
yeah, me too.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 19, 2016, 07:32:19 PM
I honestly like a lot of what Charles Koch says. But isn't changing the tax code an example of government fixing things?
As for the war on poverty, are there examples of ecomonomies more committed to a "free society" than the US that have done better over this span?
If you clog a toilet with your own crap, is plunging the toilet more crap?
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on February 24, 2016, 03:40:42 PM
https://twitter.com/HOTtahhMolly/status/702603245462671360
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on February 24, 2016, 07:56:49 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: star seed 7 on February 24, 2016, 09:01:00 PM
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 24, 2016, 09:10:28 PM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on February 24, 2016, 09:16:04 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 24, 2016, 09:20:14 PM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on February 24, 2016, 09:23:13 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 25, 2016, 01:33:16 AM
Great marketing strategy by Bernie! Really nailing his demographic.(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160225%2F2cb8c9ed1d0e0b77ab2e4aa5eeb2b246.jpg&hash=0fcb21a149d74080bd58d87813fde80c7023da9c)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is that someone's rough ridin' hand? :barf:
Post by: mocat on February 25, 2016, 01:40:50 AM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on February 25, 2016, 08:47:10 AM
Post by: Tobias on February 25, 2016, 08:54:42 AM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 25, 2016, 09:31:29 AM
Post by: CNS on February 25, 2016, 09:31:52 AM
cns' grass is solely for steaks and burgers
This is not correct.
Brisket too.
Post by: Tobias on February 25, 2016, 09:36:27 AM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 25, 2016, 09:47:28 AM
I was running through the neighborhood last night past a home worth maybe $500k. Had a Bernie sign out front. I LOL'd.
Why?
Post by: mocat on February 25, 2016, 10:22:25 AM
Post by: mocat on February 25, 2016, 10:22:53 AM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on February 25, 2016, 10:23:19 AM
Just some idiot trying to get free stuffProbably. He's probably house poor.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 25, 2016, 10:24:35 AM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 25, 2016, 10:30:59 AM
I was running through the neighborhood last night past a home worth maybe $500k. Had a Bernie sign out front. I LOL'd.
Why?
Don't really know. I just saw the sign and laughed. The only other times I've ever seen a Bernie sign have been bumper stickers on shitbox cars. People are certainly entitled to be both wealthy and believe that the government should take more of their money, and their neighbors' money, to redistribute.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 25, 2016, 10:32:38 AM
Somehow he shouldn't be allowed to vote
Pretty sure this guy's got a job and paying income tax. Yeah, he should get to vote.
Post by: CNS on February 25, 2016, 10:33:20 AM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 25, 2016, 11:00:06 AM
Post by: chuckjames on February 25, 2016, 03:54:33 PM
ProgLib retired lifetime gov't employee family members live the Bern . . . And their giant SUV's
Are there alot of Federal employees that live in JoCo? Or are you just saying in general?
Post by: star seed 7 on February 25, 2016, 03:55:54 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 25, 2016, 11:18:29 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 25, 2016, 11:26:22 PM
I'm a non poor Bernie supporter that drives an SUV. I fail to see the irony.
Aren't you a camp counselor?
Post by: MakeItRain on February 25, 2016, 11:56:38 PM
I'm a non poor Bernie supporter that drives an SUV. I fail to see the irony.
Aren't you a camp counselor?
Yeah, exactly. I get EBT and live in section eight housing ten months a year.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 26, 2016, 09:13:41 AM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 26, 2016, 09:17:12 AM
He's an isolanist weirdo
Post by: star seed 7 on February 26, 2016, 10:56:04 AM
I'm a non poor Bernie supporter that drives an SUV. I fail to see the irony.
Hey me too :cheers:
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 26, 2016, 11:07:30 AM
I'm a non poor Bernie supporter that drives an SUV. I fail to see the irony.
Aren't you a camp counselor?
Yeah, exactly. I get EBT and live in section eight housing ten months a year.
I didn't say that. But aren't you a camp counselor?
Post by: michigancat on February 26, 2016, 11:09:59 AM
Post by: mocat on February 26, 2016, 11:11:01 AM
we could probably nail down the most common car driven by most of the candidates' supporters if we put our heads together
Post by: star seed 7 on February 26, 2016, 11:17:15 AM
I'm a non poor Bernie supporter that drives an SUV. I fail to see the irony.
Aren't you a camp counselor?
Yeah, exactly. I get EBT and live in section eight housing ten months a year.
I didn't say that. But aren't you a camp counselor?
I'm interested in seeing where this leads, I hope mir plays along
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 26, 2016, 11:19:48 AM
Post by: michigancat on February 26, 2016, 11:23:59 AM
Post by: star seed 7 on February 26, 2016, 11:24:30 AM
Post by: MakeItRain on February 26, 2016, 12:28:40 PM
I'm a non poor Bernie supporter that drives an SUV. I fail to see the irony.
Aren't you a camp counselor?
Yeah, exactly. I get EBT and live in section eight housing ten months a year.
I didn't say that. But aren't you a camp counselor?
No
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 26, 2016, 12:31:03 PM
I'm a non poor Bernie supporter that drives an SUV. I fail to see the irony.
Aren't you a camp counselor?
Yeah, exactly. I get EBT and live in section eight housing ten months a year.
I didn't say that. But aren't you a camp counselor?
No
Oh sorry. I guess you used to be.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 26, 2016, 12:32:55 PM
I'm a non poor Bernie supporter that drives an SUV. I fail to see the irony.
Aren't you a camp counselor?
Yeah, exactly. I get EBT and live in section eight housing ten months a year.
I didn't say that. But aren't you a camp counselor?
No
Oh sorry. I guess you used to be.
Yeah about a decade and a half ago
Post by: chuckjames on February 26, 2016, 12:45:44 PM
Post by: michigancat on February 28, 2016, 02:44:11 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 28, 2016, 03:05:39 PM
so fun!
Eff yeah cRusty
Post by: MakeItRain on February 28, 2016, 03:43:53 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160228%2F43cc6ca2678ea478cb7af074e8f3a779.jpg&hash=6fd5a57315aba15ca986d69fc21a7d63422a87fe)
Yes, the worst :curse:
Post by: MakeItRain on February 28, 2016, 04:17:48 PM
http://time.com/4240323/tulsi-gabbard-bernie-sanders-dnc/
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 29, 2016, 09:05:27 AM
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 29, 2016, 10:39:37 AM
Post by: michigancat on February 29, 2016, 10:48:00 AM
On my way back from TX a dude with a Bernie sticker got caught trying to drive through the KTAG lane without a KTAG. Didn't have any cash or credit card. Held up the line for no crap 8 minutes before they directed him to the side and let other people go by.
That's what happens when someone drives through w/o a k-tag? it should just let them through and take a photo of their license plate and send them a ticket.
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 29, 2016, 10:53:40 AM
On my way back from TX a dude with a Bernie sticker got caught trying to drive through the KTAG lane without a KTAG. Didn't have any cash or credit card. Held up the line for no crap 8 minutes before they directed him to the side and let other people go by.
That's what happens when someone drives through w/o a k-tag? it should just let them through and take a photo of their license plate and send them a ticket.
You should consider a new line of work in the tollway business.
Post by: Tobias on February 29, 2016, 10:54:04 AM
Post by: michigancat on February 29, 2016, 10:58:34 AM
On my way back from TX a dude with a Bernie sticker got caught trying to drive through the KTAG lane without a KTAG. Didn't have any cash or credit card. Held up the line for no crap 8 minutes before they directed him to the side and let other people go by.
That's what happens when someone drives through w/o a k-tag? it should just let them through and take a photo of their license plate and send them a ticket.
You should consider a new line of work in the tollway business.
it's what's already done on the Golden Gate Bridge, they probably already have it figured out.
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 29, 2016, 10:59:40 AM
On my way back from TX a dude with a Bernie sticker got caught trying to drive through the KTAG lane without a KTAG. Didn't have any cash or credit card. Held up the line for no crap 8 minutes before they directed him to the side and let other people go by.
That's what happens when someone drives through w/o a k-tag? it should just let them through and take a photo of their license plate and send them a ticket.
You should consider a new line of work in the tollway business.
it's what's already done on the Golden Gate Bridge, they probably already have it figured out.
Not surprising.
Post by: MakeItRain on February 29, 2016, 11:05:25 AM
On my way back from TX a dude with a Bernie sticker got caught trying to drive through the KTAG lane without a KTAG. Didn't have any cash or credit card. Held up the line for no crap 8 minutes before they directed him to the side and let other people go by.
That's what happens when someone drives through w/o a k-tag? it should just let them through and take a photo of their license plate and send them a ticket.
I once had a stolen cc and I forgot to update my new number with ktag and that's exactly what they did. There are also ktag lanes that don't have the arm, so this system is no doubt in use.
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 29, 2016, 11:13:21 AM
On my way back from TX a dude with a Bernie sticker got caught trying to drive through the KTAG lane without a KTAG. Didn't have any cash or credit card. Held up the line for no crap 8 minutes before they directed him to the side and let other people go by.
That's what happens when someone drives through w/o a k-tag? it should just let them through and take a photo of their license plate and send them a ticket.
I once had a stolen cc and I forgot to update my new number with ktag and that's exactly what they did. There are also ktag lanes that don't have the arm, so this system is no doubt in use.
It is not in use (yet).
Post by: MakeItRain on February 29, 2016, 12:49:33 PM
On my way back from TX a dude with a Bernie sticker got caught trying to drive through the KTAG lane without a KTAG. Didn't have any cash or credit card. Held up the line for no crap 8 minutes before they directed him to the side and let other people go by.
That's what happens when someone drives through w/o a k-tag? it should just let them through and take a photo of their license plate and send them a ticket.
I once had a stolen cc and I forgot to update my new number with ktag and that's exactly what they did. There are also ktag lanes that don't have the arm, so this system is no doubt in use.
It is not in use (yet).
So you can just drive through the booths without arms and you won't get charged? I suppose in my case the transponder worked but the card wasn't valid so the arm raised anyway.
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 29, 2016, 12:50:42 PM
On my way back from TX a dude with a Bernie sticker got caught trying to drive through the KTAG lane without a KTAG. Didn't have any cash or credit card. Held up the line for no crap 8 minutes before they directed him to the side and let other people go by.
That's what happens when someone drives through w/o a k-tag? it should just let them through and take a photo of their license plate and send them a ticket.
I once had a stolen cc and I forgot to update my new number with ktag and that's exactly what they did. There are also ktag lanes that don't have the arm, so this system is no doubt in use.
It is not in use (yet).
So you can just drive through the booths without arms and you won't get charged? I suppose in my case the transponder worked but the card wasn't valid so the arm raised anyway.
I don't know the consequences of that action but I bet michigancat does.
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 29, 2016, 02:03:17 PM
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 29, 2016, 02:10:05 PM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 29, 2016, 02:46:49 PM
Post by: catastrophe on February 29, 2016, 03:18:02 PM
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/12795348_10156658425090515_4068516131907693056_n.jpg?oh=ee418b039598f90c4eea97f97b09c1bd&oe=575BE16B)
Weird point. "You clearly weren't educated well enough so you should go back to school before lecturing us on the importance of going to school."
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on February 29, 2016, 03:27:16 PM
Post by: CNS on February 29, 2016, 03:28:17 PM
Bernie seems like a man after my own heart with that tweet. :love:
Also, the student loan thing.
Post by: CNS on March 01, 2016, 09:47:31 AM
Quote
Sanders -- who enjoys the most positive favorable rating of any presidential candidate in the field, according to the poll -- tops all three Republicans by wide margins: 57% to 40% against Cruz, 55% to 43% against Trump, and 53% to 45% against Rubio. Sanders fares better than Clinton in each match-up among men, younger voters and independents.
Quote
As noted above, Sanders holds the most positive favorability rating of any of the top candidates for president: 60% of registered voters view him positively, 33% negatively. He is the only candidate seen favorably by a majority of voters, and one of four who are seen more positively than negatively.
Quote
Washington (CNN)Both of the remaining Democratic candidates for president easily top Republican front-runner Donald Trump in hypothetical general election match-ups, according to a new CNN/ORC Poll.
Post by: MakeItRain on March 01, 2016, 09:54:47 AM
Post by: CNS on March 01, 2016, 09:55:46 AM
The political establishment gives no fucks about the wants of the people.
That is obvious for many reasons, but reinforced given the top quote in my last post.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 08, 2016, 09:29:20 PM
Illegal War in Balkans-YES
War in Afghanistan-YES
War in Iraq-YES
Hardly radical voting record wise, voting party (money) 90 plus percent of the time.
Just a pandering, war loving Dem.
Sad
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 08, 2016, 10:06:30 PM
There's still a chance the Dems might nominate a socialist for president! :pray:
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 08, 2016, 10:11:48 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on March 08, 2016, 10:39:58 PM
:excited: :excited: :excited: WHAT NOW MOTHERFUCKERS :excited: :excited: :excited:
Post by: sys on March 08, 2016, 10:54:26 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 08, 2016, 10:59:36 PM
MIR was watching CNN and you wouldn't like what they said about Hillary's victory in MS
Something about how black people just love the Clintons (for some unfathomable reason)?
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 08, 2016, 11:11:05 PM
Don't have the exact quote but yes, and emphasizing Bernie hasn't done well with them.
Are black people anti-Semites?
Post by: MakeItRain on March 09, 2016, 10:24:36 AM
MIR was watching CNN and you wouldn't like what they said about Hillary's victory in MS
I was losing my rough ridin' mind. Donna Brazille made the astute point that black people in Michigan don't vote like black people in Mississippi but they essentially ignored her and and were like "nah all coons are the same, they decided at the meeting that they would back newly Southern Black Baptist Hillary."
Post by: MakeItRain on March 09, 2016, 10:26:51 AM
Don't have the exact quote but yes, and emphasizing Bernie hasn't done well with them.
Are black people anti-Semites?
Yep, every single one. That one was decided at the meeting on September 7, 1977. This is known by the negro underground as the 9-7 compact.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 09, 2016, 10:32:48 AM
Post by: Tobias on March 09, 2016, 10:44:02 AM
That one was decided at the meeting on September 7, 1977. This is known by the negro underground as the 9-7 compact.
:love:
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 09, 2016, 10:46:30 AM
Post by: sys on March 09, 2016, 11:27:02 AM
I was losing my rough ridin' mind. Donna Brazille made the astute point that black people in Michigan don't vote like black people in Mississippi but they essentially ignored her and and were like "nah all coons are the same, they decided at the meeting that they would back newly Southern Black Baptist Hillary."
i mean they voted for her a little less. but they still voted overwhelmingly for clinton.
Post by: star seed 7 on March 09, 2016, 12:15:26 PM
Quote
I will respond as a black voter (and registered independent) who admires Bernie Sanders and would vote for him in a general election, but would've supported HRC yesterday. I will obviously be generalizing heavily below in order to provide a some more context re: racial politics you may not be familiar with.
(1) Fundamentally, Bernie's campaign does not seem to understand how the liberalism of black democrats differs from that of their white counterparts. Specifically, culture-war issues play a much smaller role, because that is one place where black and white Democrats do not align perfectly.
Religion is just one facet of this difference, but I'll highlight it here because it's the easiest one. In 2008, many of my liberal friends were surprised to hear Barack Obama profess devout Christian faith and an opposition to gay marriage. Some assumed both were simply political calculations designed to improve his electability. I would say this is a misread of Obama as a person and a politician. (His "Amazing Grace" speech in the aftermath of the Charleston shootings last year should have erased all doubts regarding his genuine religiosity.) His religious belief, and his opposition (and later evolution) on marriage equality, are pretty standard among America's black professional/political class.
The reality is that "black liberalism" has historically existed hand-in-hand with religious belief, whereas "white liberalism" often exists in opposition to it. In black America, the church is widely perceived as a liberating force - the seed from which the Civil Rights Movement grew. White democrats tend to see it as a source of oppression, particularly during the past decade's fight for LGBT rights. The "alliance" between socially liberal whites and culturally conservative minorities continues to exist, because minorities are not as politically invested in the social issues that have defined the culture war over the last three decades. So while black Americans as a group are actually fairly religious and socially conservative, we differ from white liberals and white conservatives in that these culture-war issues are less likely to influence how we vote.
So in this case at least, it's helpful to think about the other question: not "why don't black democrats find Bernie appealing?" but rather, "why do white democrats like him so much?" My impression has been that for many of Bernie's (mostly young, largely white) voters, Bernie's social liberalism (including his irreligiosity) is a big part of his appeal. He has reaped the benefits of staking out positions on the liberal side of the culture war. But culture war issues don't pay as many dividends in a heavily Protestant black electorate (or a heavily Catholic brown electorate).
Please understand: I'm not saying that that social issues have helped Hillary and harmed Bernie's standing among black voters. I'm saying that they have helped Bernie among white voters but have done him no good among black voters. It just doesn't factor that heavily in the political calculus.
(2) So then, what is motivating black voters, if not culture-war issues? I will suggest the following (seemingly contradictory) statement: within the Democratic Party, black voters feel political insecurity and economic optimism that white voters do not.
Politically: black Americans have historically been excluded from the basic egalitarian social contract which (in theory) defines this country. Free speech, the right to worship in peace, due process, equal protection under the law - for most of American history these were empty promises. The Civil Rights Movement was less than a lifetime ago, and in a world after Charleston, a world after Tamir Rice, a world where Donald Trump finds his biggest fans among white nationalists, a world where "voter ID" laws are being employed to disenfranchise poor blacks, those political victories seem very fragile. Bernie Sanders has admirable political responses to all those issues -- but he has been unable to demonstrate that he could prevail in a general election against a GOP candidate who might be openly hostile to black Americans. (Even Barack Obama had trouble earning black voters' support until he showed that he could win in a place like Iowa.) When a voter feels deeply threatened he/she is most likely to seek security in a candidate, and black voters see that security in the political juggernaut that is Hillary Clinton. I concur with /u/chefcgarcia 's post below: electability is the most important characteristic that black voters seek, because the GOP candidates are unacceptable.
Economically the history of black America has not been characterized by the 1:1 relationship between hard work and success which has motivated both the native born and immigrants alike. Americans tend to think of the "American dream" as a kind of birthright which is in danger of slipping away. Meanwhile many black Americans have historically perceived the American dream as a goal to strive for, a pleasant fiction, or an absolute lie. Bernie's entire argument is that things were once better, and are getting worse. He is not calling for a return to the past (as many Republicans are) but a rewrite of America's economic contract. Superficially, this argument should appeal to black Americans who have disproportionately been harmed by the economic inequalities he has highlighted. But here's the thing: black Americans perceive - with justification - that their (our) economic standing is getting better, and therefore are more willing to stay-the-course. (edit: see link for an article that explains this optimism better than I can.) Bernie's pitch misses the mark because he wants to overthrow a system that is finally starting to work, in order to help us reclaim something we never had.
(edit: To put it another way, black voters are frustrated by the economy too, but we are less nostalgic for the past and are more optimistic about the future. We do not feel the same sense of loss/dispossession/pessimism that is driving white voters toward Sanders and Trump.)
In contrast, Hillary Clinton has wisely lashed herself tightly to Barack Obama, who remains the most popular black politician of my lifetime. Further, her campaign is about social and economic inclusion rather than revolution. Black voters (like other minorities) are deeply unsettled by the the GOP's constant purity fights and increasingly narrow definitions of what it means to be a real Republican or a real American. Clinton's basic message - which is implicitly, 'we the people' means every single one of us - resonates with black voters and other minorities in a way that Bernie's majoritarian populism does not. It's a rallying cry for those at the margins.
(3) Last point. Bernie's minority outreach has unfortunately been woefully inadequate. For example: Cornel West - who described Obama as the "first n***erized black president" - is not an effective face for minority outreach! (Remember, Obama is still extremely popular among black voters). In 2008, Barack Obama relied on his wife to "make the sale" (so to speak). Bernie Sanders has yet to find an equivalently convincing surrogate.
As I said: I admire Bernie Sanders a great deal. And I think, with time, he could become a formidable GE candidate. But he's basically run out of time to become that candidate.
Post by: MakeItRain on March 09, 2016, 12:49:33 PM
Seriously though, I'd be curious to hear MIR's explanation for why black people are supporting Hillary so overwhelmingly over Bernie.
I was losing my rough ridin' mind. Donna Brazille made the astute point that black people in Michigan don't vote like black people in Mississippi but they essentially ignored her and and were like "nah all coons are the same, they decided at the meeting that they would back newly Southern Black Baptist Hillary."
i mean they voted for her a little less. but they still voted overwhelmingly for clinton.
KSUW, we are largely talking about southern black people. Southern black people, just like southern white people tend to be more conservative so southern democrats are evangelical moderates, Hillary is the moderate in the race. I don't know this but I feel like southern blacks are more provincial than northern and western blacks and there are people that see her and bubba as southern although I am more southern than she is and I hate the south. It is frustrating to me that things like mass incarceration of blacks aren't sticking to the Clintons like they should. It is also stunning that out of Sunday nights debate we heard chatter about Bernie Sanders ghetto comment but we didn't hear a damn thing about Hillary's clunky and transparently disingenuous answer to the question about the role God plays in her life. She has spent the better part of two months talking to people in southern black churches and she can't clearly identify the role God plays in her life.
Sys, yes she did do well with blacks in Michigan but it is worth noting, in the south and everywhere else for that matter that the black voting block is largely comprised of women. Black men were statistically insignificant in the CNN Michigan exit polling data, because the Clintons put most of us in jail amirite! I think the numbers of black people supporting Bernie would be stronger if like, with white people, black men had equal representation within the voting block of the race. The woman also explains why Hillary is polling better with southern blacks than Obama did in 2012, that and Edwards was still around the race when the south was in play.
Post by: 8manpick on March 09, 2016, 02:44:25 PM
https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/472fj6/why_isnt_bernie_sanders_doing_well_with_black/
Quote
Many reasons off the top of my head. Take it as you will:
Because we already know what it's like to have someone promise us the moon and leave us out to dry. Believe it or not, we actually have a great deal of experience with far left politicians and figureheads. MLK, it's argued, was a socialist. The Black Panthers were socialists. We've had these ideas and promises run up and down our communities from East to West coast, North to South.... It never pans out. We've seen assassinations, fraud, all sorts of dirty tricks... Oftentimes though, it's as simple as politicians flat out lying to us. Bernie Sanders isn't new. So all these promises sound great and all, but they all sound like pipe dreams.
Who is he? No, not saying "black people haven't heard of Bernie Sanders", I mean, who is Bernie Sanders? He's this guy from Vermont apparently that claims he was very active in the Civil Rights movement but has been auspiciously absent from just about every black struggle since then. Suddenly he's on the national stage and all these people are saying, "well, he was there with you in the 60's so you should be with him now". Uh huh, and where has he been since? I honestly can't believe people would actually try and say what Sanders and his supporters say to black people with a straight face. Like we owe him something. Here's the truth, a LOT of people were involved in the CRM. Many went on to lead illustrious careers in politics and government. Some became real usurpers and phonies, others never stopped working for the community. Others simply moved on. The ones that the black community supports the most are people who went on to politics and government and never stopped working for the Black community. They represent us to this day. They give back to our communities. They speak out for us etc etc.... Suddenly Sanders wants to come around after 50 so years and cash in on some credit he has from the 60's and his supporters are demanding support as if he's been a champion of our community all this time? Nah son. Doesn't work that way.
His supporters, again, have done him no favors. His supporters are rabid. Especially true online. When the BLM thing happened, holy crap, the racism and venom was unbelievable. These people were supposed to be progressive too... But all you read was how stupid we were, n-word this and coon that. Even now, those same people are making passive aggressive (or flat out aggressive) comments towards black people for not supporting bernie enough or those who say they support Hillary. Black people are on the Internet, folks. We see exactly what you see when we read the comments section on news sites, on Reddit, on tumblr, on Twitter, on Instagram or on Facebook etc.
Black people aren't as liberal as a lot of people think we are. We just don't vote republican. But we are HUGE on church. We aren't comfortable supporting gay rights and we really aren't comfortable with atheism. Again, Idk if there's sources (I'm sure there should be- look at how CA went for Prop 8 in 2008 on basically the backs of black turnout) for this but I'm just speaking as someone who IS black and IS active in his community and has been all his life. As far as politics go, we're pretty moderate, if not straight conservative.
We LOVE the Clinton's. Again. We LOVE the Clinton's. Bill is the nigga and Hillary is a G haha but seriously, they're basically heroes for us and honorary black people to many black people. And it's rightfully earned. People always point to the crime laws as how we should be against them, but there ignorant of the fact that WE SUPPORTED THOSE CRIME LAWS. Man, the 90's were CRAZY. People were getting smoked for wearing Starter jackets and getting jacked for shoes. You couldn't go into certain neighborhoods or parts of the city if you didn't know someone who would vouch for you. And if you had on the wrong color, it was wraps. People were getting killed left and right. Innocent people too. Sitting in their living rooms watching tv and little kids were catching stray bullets through the eyes. The 80's and 90's were HELL. We were pissed off that the government wasn't helping us. Of course we wanted these gangsters and thugs locked up... WTF? Are we HAPPY that the laws unintended consequences ended up locking more of us up disproportionately? No. But no one can say with a straight face that, when those laws were written, Bill Clinton's goal was to lock up all black people. And Hillary's super predator comments? Bruh, that crap was real! It's surreal to watch urban white yuppies tell us what we should be outraged about. You never lived in our hoods. There sure as crap were young ass kids in middle school and high school that were out bangin and they were stone cold killers. Let me repeat that one more time: there absolutely were people on the streets, young ass kids too, that would have no qualms with jacking a couple, shooting an old lady through the lung and watching her bleed out. I'm talking about stoniest of the cold killers. Baby killers. Infant killers. Some of these thugs had no soul bruh, the brutality is something I've noticed a lot of white Americans are just completely ignorant or unaware of. That crap was absolutely accurate! And every time I hear crap like this from Bernie supporters my only reaction is, "damn... You really don't know". Dude, the 80's and 90's were HORRIBLE for black people and the ONLY people in government that seemed to care were the Clinton's. They fought HARD and passed the gun laws. They passed the crime bills that cleaned up our streets (albeit with terrible unintended consequences). They tried their best and they fought hard for us when no one else really did. Everybody was still wet off Reagan and was trying to be the next Ron. I know this is neutral politics and I'm trying to be on my best behavior, but F--- Ronald Reagan tho. Seriously. The reason me saying that matters is because, to a lot to black people, the Clinton's were the ones who had our backs after that guy ripped our communities to shreds and ruined us. Back to the point, we see the mud Bernie supporters are trying to sling on Hillary (and Bill to some extent), and it's just more of the same crap we saw in the early 90's. But Clinton had our backs in the 90's and we had his at the voting booth. And we got her back too now. She's not the same lady she was back then. She's older, obviously. But is ANYONE the same person they were 25 years ago? I'd hope not.
Just my perspective. Take it or leave it.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 09, 2016, 02:48:14 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on March 09, 2016, 03:32:13 PM
Wow, so much explaining. #tryingtohard
Yes, both of those are obnoxious
Post by: sys on March 09, 2016, 04:36:46 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on March 09, 2016, 11:58:39 PM
Post by: gatoveintisiete on March 10, 2016, 12:11:46 AM
Post by: sys on March 10, 2016, 01:04:49 AM
Who's ignoring it? What exactly are you looking for me to say here?
you don't have to say anything. i'm just commenting on why cnn and the others keep talking about it.
Post by: MakeItRain on March 10, 2016, 02:51:03 PM
Who's ignoring it? What exactly are you looking for me to say here?
you don't have to say anything. i'm just commenting on why cnn and the others keep talking about it.
I don't care that they talk about it I care that they insist on ignoring any nuance on the subject. White people can have geographical voting patterns but apparently black people can't, we're a monolith and we need people to tell us who is best for us.
Post by: SdK on March 10, 2016, 02:58:44 PM
Seriously though, I'd be curious to hear MIR's explanation for why black people are supporting Hillary so overwhelmingly over Bernie.Why the eff does MIR need to explain that to you?
Post by: SdK on March 10, 2016, 03:01:10 PM
I'd like to retract the profanity.Seriously though, I'd be curious to hear MIR's explanation for why black people are supporting Hillary so overwhelmingly over Bernie.Why the eff does MIR need to explain that to you?
Post by: MakeItRain on March 10, 2016, 03:02:04 PM
Seriously though, I'd be curious to hear MIR's explanation for why black people are supporting Hillary so overwhelmingly over Bernie.Why the eff does MIR need to explain that to you?
He doesn't strike me as a reader so why not "ask a black dude?"
Post by: MakeItRain on March 10, 2016, 03:04:04 PM
Post by: sys on March 10, 2016, 03:05:25 PM
Who's ignoring it? What exactly are you looking for me to say here?
you don't have to say anything. i'm just commenting on why cnn and the others keep talking about it.
I don't care that they talk about it I care that they insist on ignoring any nuance on the subject. White people can have geographical voting patterns but apparently black people can't, we're a monolith and we need people to tell us who is best for us.
blacks are only about 14% of the population, iirc. by the time you delve into age, gender and geographic patterns you're talking about fairly small numbers. i mean, it is interesting that young black people are close to 50/50 sanders/clinton, and old black people are hugely clinton. but how relevant are those breakdowns to predictions?
Post by: MakeItRain on March 10, 2016, 06:02:21 PM
Who's ignoring it? What exactly are you looking for me to say here?
you don't have to say anything. i'm just commenting on why cnn and the others keep talking about it.
I don't care that they talk about it I care that they insist on ignoring any nuance on the subject. White people can have geographical voting patterns but apparently black people can't, we're a monolith and we need people to tell us who is best for us.
blacks are only about 14% of the population, iirc. by the time you delve into age, gender and geographic patterns you're talking about fairly small numbers. i mean, it is interesting that young black people are close to 50/50 sanders/clinton, and old black people are hugely clinton. but how relevant are those breakdowns to predictions?
I agree with all of that, but if you're going to talk about it there has to be some advanced thought. It's 24/7 cable news, properly discuss it or leave it alone.
Post by: SdK on March 10, 2016, 07:29:23 PM
Ahhh ok. While I have you, why does this one black guy at my work wear a cowboy hat?Seriously though, I'd be curious to hear MIR's explanation for why black people are supporting Hillary so overwhelmingly over Bernie.Why the eff does MIR need to explain that to you?
He doesn't strike me as a reader so why not "ask a black dude?"
And why does this other black guy sit by himself?
And this other black guy, why does he drink vanilla coke everyday like I do?
Post by: SdK on March 10, 2016, 07:38:11 PM
Cowboy hat guy is a KU fan. Go figure. So disregard that question.Ahhh ok. While I have you, why does this one black guy at my work wear a cowboy hat?Seriously though, I'd be curious to hear MIR's explanation for why black people are supporting Hillary so overwhelmingly over Bernie.Why the eff does MIR need to explain that to you?
He doesn't strike me as a reader so why not "ask a black dude?"
And why does this other black guy sit by himself?
And this other black guy, why does he drink vanilla coke everyday like I do?
Post by: Emo EMAW on March 11, 2016, 08:56:33 AM
Who's ignoring it? What exactly are you looking for me to say here?
you don't have to say anything. i'm just commenting on why cnn and the others keep talking about it.
I don't care that they talk about it I care that they insist on ignoring any nuance on the subject. White people can have geographical voting patterns but apparently black people can't, we're a monolith and we need people to tell us who is best for us.
blacks are only about 14% of the population, iirc. by the time you delve into age, gender and geographic patterns you're talking about fairly small numbers. i mean, it is interesting that young black people are close to 50/50 sanders/clinton, and old black people are hugely clinton. but how relevant are those breakdowns to predictions?
I agree with all of that, but if you're going to talk about it there has to be some advanced thought. It's 24/7 cable news, properly discuss it or leave it alone.
I never see any advanced thought in the subjects I find interesting. They don't have time for advanced thought on anything.
Post by: MakeItRain on March 15, 2016, 08:16:49 PM
dead ass candidacy
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 15, 2016, 09:21:10 PM
Soon the angry neerdowell dems will learn the party is a hoax and find something else to devote their abnormal amountso of free time to. Maybe they can collect vhs porn now that collecting vinyl is overdone.
Post by: stunted on March 16, 2016, 12:27:36 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on March 16, 2016, 09:10:22 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 16, 2016, 09:25:55 PM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on March 16, 2016, 09:40:49 PM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on March 16, 2016, 09:43:39 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on March 16, 2016, 09:50:21 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 16, 2016, 09:57:14 PM
This thread was started on January 10th. You would be the only dumb eff who can't see that he's far exceeded anyone's expectation. Yeah, I'd say he's definitely here.
1st runner up in a cripple fight, quite the coming out party for that septanegerian
Post by: stunted on March 17, 2016, 01:02:52 AM
This thread was started on January 10th. You would be the only dumb eff who can't see that he's far exceeded anyone's expectation. Yeah, I'd say he's definitely here.
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/xTcnSOEKegBnYhGahW/200_s.gif)
Post by: stunted on March 17, 2016, 08:03:13 AM
Post by: mocat on March 17, 2016, 11:14:30 AM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 17, 2016, 01:42:07 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on March 17, 2016, 02:00:23 PM
if far exceeding expectations was the prize, donald trump would be the winner! your guy loses again! :lol:
I don't think anyone would doubt that trump has went far beyond anyone thought including himself. I don't know what "your guy loses again! :lol:" means though. Are they playing pickle ball against each other or something? I don't think this is sports and games.
Post by: stunted on March 17, 2016, 02:25:25 PM
Post by: CNS on March 17, 2016, 06:00:29 PM
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Post by: MakeItRain on March 17, 2016, 11:40:05 PM
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on March 18, 2016, 08:05:23 AM
Post by: Asteriskhead on March 18, 2016, 08:20:29 AM
WTF is pickle ball? Never heard of it.
it is kinda like tennis, but not.
Post by: star seed 7 on March 18, 2016, 09:54:48 AM
WTF is pickle ball? Never heard of it.
Me neither, but I didn't want mir to yell at me for asking
Post by: MakeItRain on March 18, 2016, 10:46:16 AM
WTF is pickle ball? Never heard of it.
Me neither, but I didn't want mir to yell at me for asking
WTF did you losers play in dual sports class in high school? Gaaaaah :curse:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lincolnparkdistrict.com%2Flincolnparkdistrict%2Fimg%2Fslideshows%2Fpickleball.jpg&hash=d2a0f57586ac4684628d2003968fc1ec32449f04)
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cityofslt.us%2Fimages%2Fpages%2FN855%2Fpickleball-court.jpg&hash=49080ef45909b8ad33e11b3370b744de2ec508ad)
https://youtu.be/JgljuzMdSh0
Post by: Brock Landers on March 18, 2016, 11:37:17 AM
Post by: star seed 7 on March 18, 2016, 11:37:56 AM
Post by: Cartierfor3 on March 18, 2016, 11:39:01 AM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 18, 2016, 11:41:58 AM
where did MIR go to school? Like Ireland or something?
Garden City and Dodge City are strange places.
Post by: Gooch on March 18, 2016, 11:43:34 AM
Oh boy lumping him in with Dodge City is going to get you slapped.where did MIR go to school? Like Ireland or something?
Garden City and Dodge City are strange places.
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 18, 2016, 11:45:16 AM
Oh boy lumping him in with Dodge City is going to get you slapped.where did MIR go to school? Like Ireland or something?
Garden City and Dodge City are strange places.
I would bet Dodge City has a pickleball class, too.
Post by: wetwillie on March 18, 2016, 11:46:20 AM
Post by: Cartierfor3 on March 18, 2016, 11:47:29 AM
1. Boys PE
2. Team Games
3. Weight Lifting
4. Aerobics
5. Lifetime Sports
I think that was it. I dunno maybe lifetime sports played pickleball.
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on March 18, 2016, 11:52:31 AM
Also, WTF is Lifetime Sports?
Pickleball looks like some guy said "Let's mix tennis with wiffleball." And then another guy (Dobber) said, "Yeah but we have to use ping-pong paddles and let's make an area called 'The Kitchen' so we can tell all the girls they have to stay in that area."
Post by: star seed 7 on March 18, 2016, 11:56:15 AM
IIRC correctly the PE options at my high school in OP were:
1. Boys PE
2. Team Games
3. Weight Lifting
4. Aerobics
5. Lifetime Sports
I think that was it. I dunno maybe lifetime sports played pickleball.
I think ours were similar but no "team games" (but maybe there was?)
I was required to take weightlifting every semester cuz football
Post by: star seed 7 on March 18, 2016, 11:57:21 AM
Post by: Cartierfor3 on March 18, 2016, 11:59:48 AM
Guys like me (non-athlete type) took team games. It was basically supervised pick up basketball/softball/flag football etc. Athletes took weight lifting
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on March 18, 2016, 12:03:05 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 18, 2016, 12:04:27 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on March 18, 2016, 12:05:23 PM
Post by: Gooch on March 18, 2016, 12:07:13 PM
Well that was the 60'sI too only had "PE" class (not the 60's).
Post by: star seed 7 on March 18, 2016, 12:08:35 PM
Post by: michigancat on March 18, 2016, 12:28:09 PM
Post by: michigancat on March 18, 2016, 12:29:45 PM
did anyone play a variant of kickball, that might have been called mat-ball or something? The bases were mats, but you didn't have to run if you didn't want to and as many people as you wanted could be on a base at any given time. I remember it being awesome in jr. high.
Yeah!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matball
Post by: Asteriskhead on March 18, 2016, 12:31:13 PM
I'm pretty sure lifetime sports was just code for the class that went to the bowling alley
lifetime sports was a mix of that crap. golf, tennis, bowling, etc. pickle ball was played in that class too, but it must of hit the district between you graduating and me entering my sophomore year.
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on March 18, 2016, 12:33:22 PM
did anyone play a variant of kickball, that might have been called mat-ball or something? The bases were mats, but you didn't have to run if you didn't want to and as many people as you wanted could be on a base at any given time. I remember it being awesome in jr. high.
Yeah!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matball
Quote
ensuring that everyone gets to participate.
Pussification of America
Post by: star seed 7 on March 18, 2016, 12:33:38 PM
Post by: Tobias on March 18, 2016, 12:37:35 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on March 18, 2016, 12:39:36 PM
Post by: slobber on March 18, 2016, 12:40:00 PM
In pretty sure MIR grew up in hugoton FWIWSome people are from Johnson County, and some people are from Johnson...
Gonna win 'em all! (using Tapatalk)
Post by: Asteriskhead on March 18, 2016, 12:50:38 PM
did anyone play a variant of kickball, that might have been called mat-ball or something? The bases were mats, but you didn't have to run if you didn't want to and as many people as you wanted could be on a base at any given time. I remember it being awesome in jr. high.
Yeah!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matball
we used to play that in junior high, but the pe teacher couldn't get us to quit rocking kids in the head with the kick balls when they were running between mats, so they killed it.
Post by: star seed 7 on March 18, 2016, 12:55:30 PM
Post by: Gooch on March 18, 2016, 03:50:58 PM
Is Gooch a 'ta native? I have no idea where you are fromNope! not far from "ta tho. A little slice of heaven known as Halstead.
Post by: Gooch on March 18, 2016, 03:51:52 PM
Matball does sound funIt is. It was a staple of grade school PE for little Gooch.
Post by: MakeItRain on March 18, 2016, 06:46:45 PM
where did MIR go to school? Like Ireland or something?
Garden City and Dodge City are strange places.
Yo, WTFitS bro?
In pretty sure MIR grew up in hugoton FWIW
Nope, I won my first XC race in Hugoton tho
Elite Kansas geography postIn pretty sure MIR grew up in hugoton FWIWSome people are from Johnson County, and some people are from Johnson...
Gonna win 'em all! (using Tapatalk)
Post by: MakeItRain on March 18, 2016, 06:52:44 PM
IIRC correctly the PE options at my high school in OP were:
1. Boys PE
2. Team Games
3. Weight Lifting
4. Aerobics
5. Lifetime Sports
I think that was it. I dunno maybe lifetime sports played pickleball.
Similar for the ultra elite Garden City High School
1. Team life sports
2. Dual sports
3. fitness
4. Weightlifting
Mrs. Gooch clearly went to a one room schoolhouse in the gross SEKS hill county. Instead of a wide variety of p.e. classes, they had 'shinin classes.
Post by: wetwillie on March 26, 2016, 06:22:03 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on March 30, 2016, 01:52:53 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/hard-proof-that-hillary-clinton-has-been-losing-to-bernie-sanders-for-a-month-now_b_9567212.html
Post by: XocolateThundarr on March 30, 2016, 09:00:53 AM
Well that was the 60'sI too only had "PE" class (not the 60's).
Me too....
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 30, 2016, 09:49:02 AM
Not dead yet
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/hard-proof-that-hillary-clinton-has-been-losing-to-bernie-sanders-for-a-month-now_b_9567212.html
Still brain dead. I can see why zombies like him
Post by: catastrophe on March 30, 2016, 09:49:52 AM
Not dead yet
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/hard-proof-that-hillary-clinton-has-been-losing-to-bernie-sanders-for-a-month-now_b_9567212.html
The tone of that article sounds pretty desperate to prop up Sanders, but I definitely agree Hillary is going to get the better press throughout this race.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 03, 2016, 05:24:11 PM
Quote
For the kickoff of the 40th annual Chittenden County United Way fund-raising drive in Burlington, Vt., the sponsors considered themselves fortunate to have as guests Mayor Bernard Sanders of Burlington and Gov. Richard Snelling of Vermont.
But the charity workers heard the sort of things they wanted to hear from only one of their guests.
''I don't believe in charities,'' said Mayor Sanders, bringing a shocked silence to a packed hotel banquet room. The Mayor, who is a Socialist, went on to question the ''fundamental concepts on which charities are based'' and contended that government, rather than charity organizations, sho uld take over responsibilit y for social programs.
I like how honest Bernie is. I could get behind him. Except that he's a Marxist. Unfortunately that's a deal breaker for me.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 03, 2016, 06:20:48 PM
Post by: chum1 on April 03, 2016, 07:25:46 PM
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-really-hard-to-get-bernie-sanders-988-more-delegates/
Post by: ChiComCat on April 04, 2016, 08:49:56 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/09/19/nyregion/notes-on-people-some-disunity-along-the-united-way.html (http://www.nytimes.com/1981/09/19/nyregion/notes-on-people-some-disunity-along-the-united-way.html)QuoteFor the kickoff of the 40th annual Chittenden County United Way fund-raising drive in Burlington, Vt., the sponsors considered themselves fortunate to have as guests Mayor Bernard Sanders of Burlington and Gov. Richard Snelling of Vermont.
But the charity workers heard the sort of things they wanted to hear from only one of their guests.
''I don't believe in charities,'' said Mayor Sanders, bringing a shocked silence to a packed hotel banquet room. The Mayor, who is a Socialist, went on to question the ''fundamental concepts on which charities are based'' and contended that government, rather than charity organizations, sho uld take over responsibilit y for social programs.
I like how honest Bernie is. I could get behind him. Except that he's a Marxist. Unfortunately that's a deal breaker for me.
When he went into Liberty University to speak it was pretty amazing. I don't agree with him on everything but wish more politicians were as honest as he was
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 04, 2016, 09:32:07 AM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 04, 2016, 07:43:57 PM
Post by: chum1 on April 19, 2016, 11:41:58 PM
Post by: bones129 on April 20, 2016, 01:02:07 AM
Post by: wetwillie on April 20, 2016, 06:43:54 AM
Post by: stunted on June 06, 2016, 11:07:12 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on June 24, 2016, 10:45:16 AM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 24, 2016, 05:31:22 PM
Post by: wetwillie on June 24, 2016, 05:40:05 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on June 25, 2016, 02:16:37 AM
What did he do now?
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/bernie-sanders-says-he-will-vote-hillary-clinton-n598251
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 25, 2016, 12:40:10 PM
Post by: steve dave on June 25, 2016, 03:17:49 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on June 28, 2016, 09:17:28 PM
MIR, I know you hate Hill-dog and I'm guessing you also dislike trump. how do you want this thing to go?
Hillz, but I'm not voting for her. Eight more years of status quo is better than the alternative, I guess.
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on June 29, 2016, 11:30:47 AM
Post by: star seed 7 on June 29, 2016, 11:33:36 AM
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on June 29, 2016, 11:53:58 AM
How do you explain the philosophy of a non-quiter to a quiter
Does the second place runner keep running after they cross the finish line in second place?
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 29, 2016, 11:55:30 AM
How do you explain the philosophy of a non-quiter to a quiter
Does the second place runner keep running after they cross the finish line in second place?
No, but they still finish the race after the first place runner crosses.
Post by: star seed 7 on June 29, 2016, 12:03:47 PM
How do you explain the philosophy of a non-quiter to a quiter
Does the second place runner keep running after they cross the finish line in second place?
The finish line has not been crossed by anyone yet
Post by: yoga-like_abana on June 29, 2016, 12:26:51 PM
Post by: catastrophe on June 29, 2016, 12:27:14 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on June 29, 2016, 12:33:11 PM
seems like an attention whore to me
Congratulations, you share the same opinion as right wing wacko radio
Post by: ChiComCat on June 29, 2016, 12:49:05 PM
Until the convention they are all just "pledged" delegates. Last I checked (which admittedly was weeks ago) Bernie was not mathematically eliminated. I got the impression he wanted to push to get enough delegates that he could shame the superdelegates enough to turn some of them.
Bernie was mathematically eliminated with state delegates after California. He was mathematically eliminated earlier assuming all the superdelegates voted however they said they would (but weren't bound to).
I think Bernie has been staying in to see if the FBI indicts Hillary before the convention.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 29, 2016, 12:52:44 PM
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on June 29, 2016, 01:11:20 PM
I am going to tell you that if I was in a race and the first place person was like a mile ahead of me and I was like limping along about to pass out I would probably not finish the race (one time I "cheated" at the Wichita River Run and crossed a bunch of blocks off course).
Post by: star seed 7 on June 29, 2016, 01:13:52 PM
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on June 29, 2016, 01:16:01 PM
These are not the intrinsic values of a Kstate fan
"cheated" as in quote marks because I wasn't really cheating. It wasn't like I avoided a bunch of the course and then got first place or anything. Like, I don't even think they recorded my finishing place. It was just because someone talked me into doing it and I hate running.
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 29, 2016, 01:17:14 PM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 29, 2016, 01:17:59 PM
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 29, 2016, 01:34:45 PM
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on June 29, 2016, 01:47:09 PM
If I were in a race a mile behind first place, I'd still finish the race. If I were running for president in Bernie's situation, I'd have dropped out months ago, though.
What if you were limping and about to pass out and the total race was only 1.5 miles?
Post by: yoga-like_abana on June 29, 2016, 01:55:07 PM
Sounds like they are in the right thenseems like an attention whore to me
Congratulations, you share the same opinion as right wing wacko radio
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 29, 2016, 02:11:02 PM
If I were in a race a mile behind first place, I'd still finish the race. If I were running for president in Bernie's situation, I'd have dropped out months ago, though.
What if you were limping and about to pass out and the total race was only 1.5 miles?
Just walk and it would be over in 15 minutes.
Post by: catastrophe on June 29, 2016, 02:49:45 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on June 29, 2016, 03:10:32 PM
Why would you drop out when you can spend another few months in the spotlight trying to get people to care about issues that matter to you?
This is the correct answer. It's about exposing people to his ideas.
Other people quit because it's better for the party for them to do so. Bernie does not care about the party, he's not even a democrat.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 29, 2016, 08:24:37 PM
Why would you drop out when you can spend another few months in the spotlight trying to get people to care about issues that matter to you?
This is the correct answer. It's about exposing people to his ideas.
Other people quit because it's better for the party for them to do so. Bernie does not care about the party, he's not even a democrat.
Like I said, delusional zealot
Post by: wetwillie on June 29, 2016, 08:29:43 PM
Post by: CNS on July 09, 2016, 06:37:58 AM
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Post by: MakeItRain on July 09, 2016, 01:33:23 PM
Post by: wetwillie on July 09, 2016, 02:07:25 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on July 09, 2016, 11:13:57 PM
Is the Green Party on all the state ballots?
nope
Post by: MakeItRain on July 12, 2016, 10:50:05 AM
Jill Stein apparently is recruiting bernie to take over the green party ticket according to the Guardian's twitter
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
:curse: nope
Damnit bernie how could you
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on July 12, 2016, 10:51:00 AM
Post by: SdK on July 12, 2016, 10:53:23 AM
Post by: SdK on July 12, 2016, 10:53:45 AM
Post by: wetwillie on July 12, 2016, 10:55:16 AM
Post by: SdK on July 12, 2016, 10:55:46 AM
Post by: mocat on July 12, 2016, 11:26:07 AM
Post by: SdK on July 12, 2016, 11:27:17 AM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 12, 2016, 12:39:52 PM
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/752860045084241920
Clown suiting the Berners should be his campaign m.o. going forward
Post by: CNS on July 12, 2016, 01:11:44 PM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on July 12, 2016, 01:15:10 PM
I don't think there will be a mass flow of support to Hill immediately. I don't think Bernie supporters are like other groups following the second place Dem in the past.They'll wallow to the next hand that will feed them, which would be Hillary.
Post by: CNS on July 12, 2016, 01:44:27 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 12, 2016, 01:51:02 PM
Sad
LOL at Feel the Berners! You've been played!
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 12, 2016, 01:53:06 PM
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 12, 2016, 01:54:03 PM
Total sell out. Berne: All talk-no walk.
Sad
LOL at Feel the Berners! You've been played!
Pretty accurate.
I imagine it will be like that for the conservative christians who support Trump.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 12, 2016, 01:54:32 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 12, 2016, 01:55:48 PM
Total sell out. Berne: All talk-no walk.
Sad
LOL at Feel the Berners! You've been played!
Pretty accurate.
I imagine it will be like that for the conservative christians who support Trump.
Have any former GOP candidates that were labeled "Conservative Christians" endorsed Trump, I honestly can't remember.
But nice redirect attempt.
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 12, 2016, 01:56:35 PM
Wacks, you are painting with a broad brush. There was an article in the guardian last week where the author noted he believes Bernie and Trump supporters are somewhat similar in one way, that they are sick of the way things have been and are angry about it. I agree. Not all of either group, but part. Bernie selling out doesn't mollify that group.
Inot the pit i've been saying they're the same candidate for months. It appears to pub voters are just more progressive than the dems.
Post by: gatoveintisiete on July 12, 2016, 02:07:45 PM
Post by: Cartierfor3 on July 12, 2016, 04:08:51 PM
Post by: wetwillie on July 12, 2016, 04:13:02 PM
Post by: chum1 on July 12, 2016, 04:21:46 PM
Post by: CNS on July 12, 2016, 04:25:17 PM
Bernie didn't get what he came for, but he is leaving with his hands full.
Post by: cfbandyman on July 12, 2016, 05:10:06 PM
Yeah, they paid for that endorsement. Hill not pushing some free'ish college for state schools, the Dems approved a party goal of taking weed off the sched 1 list, and rumors of $15/hr min wage.
Bernie didn't get what he came for, but he is leaving with his hands full.
Yup, which is pretty much why he stayed in as long as he did. He felt (and rightly so to a large degree) that he still had the ability to push the Dems/Hillary to accept a lot of what he was seeking, and therefore still in some decent ways still get (maybe) what him and his supporters were looking for, and it might allow for a significant amount of his supporters to stomach voting for Hillary.
Post by: chuckjames on July 12, 2016, 05:41:25 PM
(D) overrides principal and ideals every time. Meanwhile former GOP candidates continue to fight against Trump.
So did Rubio not endorse Trump, and Cruz is speaking at convention next week. Lots of fighting.
Post by: MakeItRain on July 12, 2016, 06:10:54 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 12, 2016, 06:14:54 PM
Post by: Canary on July 12, 2016, 06:19:06 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 12, 2016, 08:50:44 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 12, 2016, 09:41:05 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 12, 2016, 10:29:00 PM
How many blmtards will turn out for mass black incarceration Clinton. I'm guessing all of them. #blm[copsonlytho]
They'll be lining up down the street for Ms. "We'll bring them to heel".
Post by: MakeItRain on July 12, 2016, 10:33:39 PM
How many blmtards will turn out for mass black incarceration Clinton. I'm guessing all of them. #blm[copsonlytho]
#notamonolith
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 12, 2016, 10:36:38 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 12, 2016, 10:41:13 PM
#notamonolithUnlessisayso
Post by: MakeItRain on July 12, 2016, 10:48:44 PM
I'm sure the monolith appreciates your efforts to make the intentions of the entire movement more nebulous.
#notamonolithUnlessisayso
I'm sure there are thousands of those violent jigaboos waiting to kick my ass for stating the black lives matter movement isn't a one issue (kill cracker cops) movement. Sorry black folks for stepping out, I'll do better.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 12, 2016, 10:51:48 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 12, 2016, 10:55:31 PM
I'm sure the monolith appreciates your efforts to make the intentions of the entire movement more nebulous.
#notamonolithUnlessisayso
I'm sure there are thousands of those violent jigaboos waiting to kick my ass for stating the black lives matter movement isn't a one issue (kill cracker cops) movement. Sorry black folks for stepping out, I'll do better.
Notamonoliththo
Post by: sys on July 17, 2016, 08:53:56 PM
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/7/15/12200990/bernie-sanders-economy-rigged
very good article.
my job would be done by persons making $10/hour if it wasn't for regulation of the job qualifications. and it wouldn't exist at all if it wasn't for other regulations of very debatable value.
Post by: chum1 on July 17, 2016, 09:23:33 PM
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/7/15/12200990/bernie-sanders-economy-rigged
Wow.
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on July 29, 2016, 10:24:26 AM
https://twitter.com/DankMemePlug/status/757311571915706368
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 17, 2016, 09:59:12 AM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on November 17, 2016, 10:01:54 AM
Post by: MakeItRain on November 17, 2016, 10:04:55 AM
Just thinking about when Bernie railed on open borders. Then thinking about the Feel the Berners who are part of the meltdown protesting Trump.
You just randomly think about stuff like this? LOL, what a rough ridin' weirdo.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 17, 2016, 10:07:14 AM
Just thinking about when Bernie railed on open borders. Then thinking about the Feel the Berners who are part of the meltdown protesting Trump.
You just randomly think about stuff like this? LOL, what a rough ridin' weirdo.
Hot take from a rough ridin' weirdo.
Post by: star seed 7 on November 17, 2016, 10:10:17 AM
Just thinking about when Bernie railed on open borders. Then thinking about the Feel the Berners who are part of the meltdown protesting Trump.
You just randomly think about stuff like this? LOL, what a rough ridin' weirdo.
Probably an article about it on infowars today
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 17, 2016, 10:11:01 AM
Just thinking about when Bernie railed on open borders. Then thinking about the Feel the Berners who are part of the meltdown protesting Trump.
You just randomly think about stuff like this? LOL, what a rough ridin' weirdo.
Probably an article about it on infowars today
Original PAlib. Nice.
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on November 17, 2016, 10:12:30 AM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 27, 2016, 10:33:28 PM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/27/sanders_on_cuba_of_course_their_economy_is_terrible_but_they_have_good_health_care.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/27/sanders_on_cuba_of_course_their_economy_is_terrible_but_they_have_good_health_care.html)
That pretty much sums it all up. Liberal buds - this guy is your standard bearer. And he's a complete crank. Exhibit A for why you ought to reevaluate your political ideology.
Post by: star seed 7 on November 27, 2016, 10:38:21 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 27, 2016, 10:48:54 PM
#thinkprogress #neofascism #delusion
:ROFL:
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 27, 2016, 10:52:52 PM
Post by: wetwillie on November 27, 2016, 11:07:09 PM
Post by: cfbandyman on November 27, 2016, 11:37:20 PM
Post by: CNS on November 28, 2016, 10:42:47 AM
I mean, conservation is a good thing, but if you want a high mileage vehicle or think that alternative power isn't a fruitless effort, you are a tree hugger thanks to a similar action.
Post by: cfbandyman on November 28, 2016, 12:24:12 PM
It would be a shame for dumbasses to keep strawmanning until good ed and good HC are some sort of a talking point and wanting those is seen as wanting to be communists.
I mean, conservation is a good thing, but if you want a high mileage vehicle or think that alternative power isn't a fruitless effort, you are a tree hugger thanks to a similar action.
Too much sense in this post to be worthy of pit.
Post by: chum1 on December 02, 2016, 05:23:03 PM
https://twitter.com/HouseScience/status/804402881982066688
Post by: slackcat on December 03, 2016, 03:14:35 AM
LOL Bernie. :lol:
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 03, 2016, 06:31:41 PM
Post by: Tobias on January 04, 2017, 03:12:12 PM
Post by: chum1 on January 04, 2017, 04:29:56 PM
Post by: 0.42 on January 04, 2017, 04:35:25 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 06, 2017, 03:12:41 AM
Post by: camKSU on January 06, 2017, 09:28:06 AM
Is the sell out still claiming to be an Independent? :lol:
What was Sen. Sanders supposed to do that would have changed anything with the election results pertaining to "selling out", Dax?
Is the puppet still claiming not to be a puppet even though putin handed him the election?
Post by: MakeItRain on January 06, 2017, 04:14:14 PM
Is the sell out still claiming to be an Independent? :lol:
What was Sen. Sanders supposed to do that would have changed anything with the election results pertaining to "selling out", Dax?
Is the puppet still claiming not to be a puppet even though putin handed him the election?
You have to learn to laugh at dax without asking it questions
Post by: star seed 7 on January 06, 2017, 05:04:27 PM
Post by: MakeItRain on January 06, 2017, 05:13:13 PM
I've found some of the best lulz are when you ask dax for more detail
Reading all of the different ways he repeats himself?
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 07, 2017, 10:49:16 AM
Is the sell out still claiming to be an Independent? :lol:
What was Sen. Sanders supposed to do that would have changed anything with the election results pertaining to "selling out", Dax?
Is the puppet still claiming not to be a puppet even though putin handed him the election?
First off, the last three or four responses are like, why so serious? I expect that from MIR who is never going to get it.
But look at you CamSock aka New McCarthyite. First off is it irony that you bring up handing anything to anyone since the Dem nomination was handed to Bernie's (but he's a registered Independent and was elected by the people of his district as an Independent, but he ran as Democrat, and stumped for Hillary - Sell Out by every measure and definition. Only the three dumbasses who responded don't get that, apparently) competitor by the DNC or merely coincidence?
What was Sanders supposed to do in regards to the election results? How about not selling out even though the DNC completely mumped him over (but maybe they like to eff over duplicitous posers).
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 25, 2017, 06:54:21 PM
https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/878613695315812353
Post by: star seed 7 on June 25, 2017, 07:01:36 PM
Post by: wetwillie on June 25, 2017, 07:11:10 PM
Political witch hunt
He won't use his political influence to attempt to squash the investigation tho
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 25, 2017, 07:16:10 PM
Surprised?: No One (with any intelligence)
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 25, 2017, 07:21:24 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 25, 2017, 07:25:26 PM
:lol:
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 25, 2017, 08:00:21 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 25, 2017, 08:03:29 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 25, 2017, 08:28:03 PM
(https://i.imgflip.com/1ricgn.jpg)
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 26, 2017, 06:51:37 AM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 26, 2017, 12:37:29 PM
http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/25/watch-chuck-todd-ask-bernie-sanders-zero-questions-about-being-under-fbi-investigation-video/
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 26, 2017, 01:05:36 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 26, 2017, 01:40:52 PM
"Journalism"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/25/watch-chuck-todd-ask-bernie-sanders-zero-questions-about-being-under-fbi-investigation-video/
Mrs. Todd's communications and PR firm did $2 million dollars worth of work for Bernie.
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 26, 2017, 08:00:31 PM
Post by: slackcat on June 26, 2017, 10:11:19 PM
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 26, 2017, 10:24:33 PM
"Journalism"
http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/25/watch-chuck-todd-ask-bernie-sanders-zero-questions-about-being-under-fbi-investigation-video/
Mrs. Todd's communications and PR firm did $2 million dollars worth of work for Bernie.
He should get a refund
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on May 02, 2018, 06:47:27 PM
https://twitter.com/nobody_stop_me/status/991741815765241857?s=21
Post by: star seed 7 on May 02, 2018, 06:58:13 PM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on May 02, 2018, 07:00:27 PM
Post by: gatoveintisiete on May 02, 2018, 07:06:13 PM
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on May 02, 2018, 07:13:03 PM