(08-09-2015, 08:06 AM)Maggot Wrote: S.S. is a tax, FICA is a tax. The money is spent before they get it. There is absolutely no chance for reform and soon if this goes on entire paychecks will be donated for the "good" of the people. It goes to the bottomless bucket as fast as it can go but comes out much faster.

People no matter how "rich" they are still deserve the money they have put in.

"O" disagrees, take from the haves (even when they deserve/earned it) and give it to the have not's! He don't care if the have not's or even the illegal's have never put a dime in the fund they still get it! Ain't life grand, for them!

There needs to be another separate FNWBSGSS Tax added on to the workers' "paychecks" to support the have not's. Fuckin Never Worked But Still Get Social Security Tax!

Now that's a Entitlement!

Bernie Sanders for President?

I didn't know much about Bernie, other than he's a 73-year-old Democratic Socialist hoping for the 2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination.

And, he's drawing the largest campaign tour crowds of any candidate in either party (though two of his speeches were unfortunately hijacked by Black Lives Matter activists recently).

So, I watched some interviews with the Vermont Senator this morning to get a better feel for Hillary's strongest competitor.

-Sanders believes that health care is a fundamental human right which should be provided by the government, as should tuition-free college.

-He wants a $15 minimum wage nationwide and opposes jobs going overseas for cheaper labor. He supports Unions.

-He's a non-religious Jew who supports abortion rights and supports the Jewish State of Israel (but also supports a two-state solution, Palestinian independence, and the P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran).

-He's a strong supporter of Pope Francis.

-He does not support open borders, and he feels that climate change is a key foreign policy issue and threat to national security.

Here's a good interview video which covers most of his platform/positions.

Well now, "Bernie" seems quite the most balanced level headed candidate so far! (I like him)

Now lets see what dirt the "media" can/will dig up on him.

Unfortunately, (now being PC "incorrect") his "age" may be a deterrent for many. As next year he'll be "74"! And in Jan of 17, he'll be "75", and if elected, "8" years in office would make him 83/84, kinda questionable age for some. So . . . . . . .

America is a socialist government now anyways. Why not? Freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose.

I can't think of any free developed country that isn't already a combination of both capitalistic and socialist models. Pure capitalism would mean no state or federal owned/run schools, hospitals, roads, benefits, etc...

But, Sanders definitely wants to expand the portion of the U.S. economy which conforms to a socialist model and uses European countries -- especially Scandinavian ones -- as a baseline for some of his socialist proposals.

Bernie Sanders wants to see a redistribution of wealth in this country. He thinks that it's obscene that more than 90% of the wealth in this country is owned by less than 10% of the population. He disagrees with most of the trade agreements in place, and with using foreign labor.

I think Bernie sees some things a whole lot like Mr. Trump - before Trump "evolved" and became a Republican presidential hopeful, that is.

-- They've both passionately contended that, in the current environment, politicians can be bought and the money-driven system enables corruption (Bernie as an observer and Donald as a participant).

-- They've both supported a "single payer health care system"; state-funded truly universal health care - whereby Obama-Care is a step in the right direction, but not far enough.

-- Bernie is 100% "pro-choice" when it comes to abortion, and Donald previously proclaimed himself to be "very pro-choice" as well.

Bernie Sanders -- Aggressive Stance on Campaign Finance Reform

Bernie Sanders abhors the PACs and how big money controls politics and politicians. He supports the DISCLOSE Act, which would make campaign finances more transparent and ban U.S. corporations controlled by foreign interests from making political expenditures.

He wants to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which the Supreme Court overturned McCain-Feingold restrictions on political spending by corporations and unions as a violation of the First Amendment. (I know Username agrees with Bernie on this issue; me too.)



Anyway, Bernie Sanders is an interesting guy. What a hugely different election it will be if Mr. Sanders somehow gets the Democratic nomination instead of Mrs. Clinton.

Sanders is the longest serving Independent congressperson. As an Independent, he doesn't exactly fit the standard Democrat mold. Just like Rand Paul, as a Libertarian, doesn't really fit the standard Republican mold. Based on what I've read and heard from Bernie, his views on The Patriot Act, NSA surveillance, and foreign intervention line-up very closely with Rand's, in fact.

(08-07-2015, 10:18 AM)Jimbone Wrote:

(08-06-2015, 10:03 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Carson is accusing Hillary Clinton of trying to destroy the country for her own benefit.

He says she uses idiots; he doesn't seem to like that she's "secular".



He's not very compelling on the debate stage, IMO.

Aussie, I found another one for you. HotD is clearly using racial code words. Throwing the word 'accusing' around? Only a racist would say something like that about a black man.

Then she has the audacity to say he's not compelling. Of course you know what that really means, right aussie? She's really saying 'He's not very compelling FOR A BLACK MAN on the debate stage, IMO.'.

You're so right aussie, racism really is everywhere when you know what to look for.

AND she used the word reek/wreak. That's my word. How dare she!

(08-09-2015, 06:23 PM)Maggot Wrote: America is a socialist government now anyways. Why not? Freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose.

It means, never having to say you're sorry.

(08-07-2015, 04:16 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(08-07-2015, 03:59 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

(08-07-2015, 03:14 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: You claimed that Trump was down 10 points but still had the lead, cabron.

Then, you contended that must be due to him "gaining ground" due to his favor-buying claim.

So, yeah, that was in fact your flat and flawed math at work, regardless of what new/different claims or sources you're tossing about now.

I said I read somewhere he dropped 10 points Vieaja.

Yeah, puto, then you used what you read as a factual baseline to support your illogical previous contention.

And, by the way, whether the 10 point drop is true or not has no bearing on your flawed and flat mathematical conclusion, nor does it bolster or detract from your baseless favor-buying correlation.

But keeping running in circles spin master.

Looks like the ole spin master chalks up another one. Trumps lead increased after the debate.

(08-10-2015, 11:24 AM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: Looks like the ole spin master chalks up another one. Trumps lead increased after the debate.

That's true.

And, how does that match up to that "10 point drop" you were going on just a couple of days ago? That's right, it doesn't.



Keep spinning, dizzy man.

(08-10-2015, 11:31 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(08-10-2015, 11:24 AM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: Looks like the ole spin master chalks up another one. Trumps lead increased after the debate.

That's true.

And, how does that match up to that "10 point drop" you were going on just a couple of days ago? That's right, it doesn't.



Keep spinning, dizzy man.

Just seems as though some folks may have been on the fence about him and jumped on the Trump wagon after the debate doesn't it? *laughs maniacally as he spins in circles*

(08-10-2015, 11:45 AM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: Just seems as though some folks may have been on the fence about him and jumped on the Trump wagon after the debate doesn't it? *laughs maniacally as he spins in circles*

Well, no. You're either delusional, or you're a very clumsy spinner, Gunnar.

Trump's support level stayed about the same according to the NBC/Survey Monkey poll that was conducted 24 hours after the debate, which is about what I would have expected. People who support Trump don't expect him to be anything other than Trump IMO.

In terms of fence hopping, Cruz and Fiorina and Carson fared well and appear to have pulled some support away from Bush and Walker, according to that poll.

OH for the hey day of midget bowling, what fun!!

(08-10-2015, 12:07 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(08-10-2015, 11:45 AM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: Just seems as though some folks may have been on the fence about him and jumped on the Trump wagon after the debate doesn't it? *laughs maniacally as he spins in circles*

Well, no. You're either delusional, or you're a very clumsy spinner, Gunnar.

Trump's support level stayed about the same according to the NBC/Survey Monkey poll that was conducted 24 hours after the debate, which is about what I would have expected. People who support Trump don't expect him to be anything other than Trump IMO.

In terms of fence hopping, Cruz and Fiorina and Carson faired well and appear to have pulled some support away from Bush and Walker, according to that poll.

So he increased his lead without gaining any additional support. Interesting math.

Okay, now I'm convinced that you're not (only) delusional or a clumsy spinner, but primarily just plain slow (or too stubborn to see straight).

It's not even new math Gunnar, just basic math and logic.

Trump stayed about the same in terms of support 22-23%; he did not increase his lead - he still leads by about 10.

Cruz increased his support and went up a few points. Cruz is now polling second - he's about 10 points behind Trump (which is where Bush was sitting before the debate).

(08-10-2015, 12:35 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Okay, now I'm convinced that you're not (only) delusional or a clumsy spinner, but primarily just plain slow (or too stubborn to see straight).

It's not even new math Gunnar, just basic math and logic.

Trump stayed about the same in terms of support 22-23%; he did not increase his lead - he still leads by about 10.

Cruz increased his support and went up a few points. Cruz is now polling second - he's about 10 points behind Trump (which is where Bush was sitting before the debate).

You hate it when i'm right. We both know it. As "slow and flawed" as I may be, I found this rather funny.

(08-09-2015, 07:32 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Bernie Sanders -- Aggressive Stance on Campaign Finance Reform

Bernie Sanders abhors the PACs and how big money controls politics and politicians. He supports the DISCLOSE Act, which would make campaign finances more transparent and ban U.S. corporations controlled by foreign interests from making political expenditures.

He wants to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which the Supreme Court overturned McCain-Feingold restrictions on political spending by corporations and unions as a violation of the First Amendment. (I know Username agrees with Bernie on this issue; me too.)

My daughter and I were discussing the debate the other day and she said "ya' know, this is insane. I'm sure George Washington never envisioned basically a two-party system".

BOOM!!! Ten minute rant from mom on the evil of money in politics.

Well, on those occasions when you're right, I enjoy agreeing with you and do so readily. I wish I'd have an opportunity to do it more often Gunnar.

We haven't been debating a difference of opinion here, we've been talking about you misrepresenting, misunderstanding or misstating simple facts in order to fit what you claim "all the people did", you slow stubborn mule!

But, it's been fun going back and forth with you all the same.

I'm sure this is insane for many reasons but I would actually prefer that somehow, campaign financing was somehow "filtered" through some institution and distributed equally among the candidates (with some "cap" on the amount that could be spent on any given campaign).

I *think* I'm saying that the government should dole out the money equally to the candidates so that special interests wouldn't garner any benefit by donating huge sums....because whatever they donated would go to everyone running!! Probably have to put some limit on the number of candidates or every Tom, Dick and Maggot might get in the race.

Plus, as you move down the line from President to Senator to Representative...it gets even more unmanageable. Donations would probably dry up like California right now.

I'm not sure how it could/would work but it's actually something I wouldn't mind some of my tax dollars supporting. Then again, I don't think ANYBODY needs $220+ million to run a campaign. Jesus. The money these people raise/spend is ridiculous.

Don't mind me. Just thinking out loud/formatting my platform for when I make by run for the presidency.

(08-10-2015, 01:45 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Well, on those occasions when you're right, I enjoy agreeing with you and do so readily. I wish I'd have an opportunity to do it more often Gunnar.

We haven't been debating a difference of opinion here, we've been talking about you misrepresenting, misunderstanding or misstating simple facts in order to fit what you claim "all the people did", you slow stubborn mule!

But, it's been fun going back and forth with you all the same.

"All of the people on the Trump fence" you mis-quoting to suit your own purpose woman.