Poll of the Day > Does Bernie Sanders have too many fringe opinions to actually win the election?

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4
slacker03150 02/13/20 3:09:32 AM #51:	wolfy42 posted... All of that could be done with someone who is moderate, but we never even get a real chance to vote for someone like that. Obamacare was a republican healthcare plan. It had 0 republican votes for it and has been attacked ever since. Garland was a moderate choice for the bench. He was still stonewalled. When you already give up your position to fight for the middle the extreme group pulls you further in their direction. We need someone who can fight for the other direction and settle for an actual middle ground. --- I am awesome and so are you. Lenny gone but not forgotten. - 12/10/2015 <cite>slacker03150 posted [p:934310784] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>wolfy42 posted... </cite> <quote>All of that could be done with someone who is moderate, but we never even get a real chance to vote for someone like that.</quote>Obamacare was a republican healthcare plan. It had 0 republican votes for it and has been attacked ever since. Garland was a moderate choice for the bench. He was still stonewalled. When you already give up your position to fight for the middle the extreme group pulls you further in their direction. We need someone who can fight for the other direction and settle for an actual middle ground. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 02/13/20 3:12:34 AM #52:	slacker03150 posted... Obamacare was a republican healthcare plan. It had 0 republican votes for it and has been attacked ever since. Garland was a moderate choice for the bench. He was still stonewalled. When you already give up your position to fight for the middle the extreme group pulls you further in their direction. We need someone who can fight for the other direction and settle for an actual middle ground. yep Obama actually tried to meet conservatives halfway time and time again, and every time they just took advantage of that to get what they wanted They do not represent the majority of Americans and we are not going to bend over backwards to appease them because everything they do is in bad faith --- Lemonheads <cite>Mead posted [p:934310824] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>slacker03150 posted... </cite> <quote>Obamacare was a republican healthcare plan. It had 0 republican votes for it and has been attacked ever since. Garland was a moderate choice for the bench. He was still stonewalled. When you already give up your position to fight for the middle the extreme group pulls you further in their direction. We need someone who can fight for the other direction and settle for an actual middle ground.</quote> yep Obama actually tried to meet conservatives halfway time and time again, and every time they just took advantage of that to get what they wanted They do not represent the majority of Americans and we are not going to bend over backwards to appease them because everything they do is in bad faith </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
shipwreckers 02/13/20 3:34:51 AM #53:	Mead posted... yep Obama actually tried to meet conservatives halfway time and time again, and every time they just took advantage of that to get what they wanted They do not represent the majority of Americans and we are not going to bend over backwards to appease them because everything they do is in bad faith Well, in defense of both sides, many promises were made under the ACA that were not realistic at all (e.g. "If you like your current health care, you can keep it" / etc.). The insurance companies were forced to compensate for new mandatory coverage, like pre-existing conditions (so premiums almost universally increased). Meanwhile, more newly-covered people than ever were lining up for actual healthcare (so actual hospital bills almost universally increased). Both of these factors in tandem REDUCED the speed and quality of obtainable coverage almost across-the-board, since the healthcare labor force was already stretched BEFORE the policy changed. In other words, there isn't really anything "AFFORDABLE" about the Affordable Care Act. The money had to be pulled out of the asses of working-class taxpayers. Therefore, it's understandable how there was some resistance (regardless of who originally thought it up.) --- Money is overrated... <cite>shipwreckers posted [p:934311214] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>Mead posted... </cite> <quote>yep Obama actually tried to meet conservatives halfway time and time again, and every time they just took advantage of that to get what they wanted They do not represent the majority of Americans and we are not going to bend over backwards to appease them because everything they do is in bad faith</quote> Well, in defense of both sides, many promises were made under the ACA that were not realistic at all (e.g. "If you like your current health care, you can keep it" / etc.). The insurance companies were forced to compensate for new mandatory coverage, like pre-existing conditions (so premiums almost universally increased). Meanwhile, more newly-covered people than ever were lining up for actual healthcare (so actual hospital bills almost universally increased). Both of these factors in tandem REDUCED the speed and quality of obtainable coverage almost across-the-board, since the healthcare labor force was already stretched BEFORE the policy changed. In other words, there isn't really anything "AFFORDABLE" about the Affordable Care Act. The money had to be pulled out of the asses of working-class taxpayers. Therefore, it's understandable how there was some resistance (regardless of who originally thought it up.) </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 02/13/20 3:45:53 AM #54:	shipwreckers posted... Well, in defense of both sides, many promises were made under the ACA that were not realistic at all (e.g. "If you like your current health care, you can keep it" / etc.). The insurance companies were forced to compensate for new mandatory coverage, like pre-existing conditions (so premiums almost universally increased). Meanwhile, more newly-covered people than ever were lining up for actual healthcare (so actual hospital bills almost universally increased). Both of these factors in tandem REDUCED the speed and quality of obtainable coverage almost across-the-board, since the healthcare labor force was already stretched BEFORE the policy changed. In other words, there isn't really anything "AFFORDABLE" about the Affordable Care Act. The money had to be pulled out of the asses of working-class taxpayers. Therefore, it's understandable how there was some resistance (regardless of who originally thought it up.) all the more reason that it should have been a single payer system from the beginning instead of trying to meet conservatives halfway with a plan modeled after Romneys --- Lemonheads <cite>Mead posted [p:934311382] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>shipwreckers posted... </cite> <quote>Well, in defense of both sides, many promises were made under the ACA that were not realistic at all (e.g. "If you like your current health care, you can keep it" / etc.). The insurance companies were forced to compensate for new mandatory coverage, like pre-existing conditions (so premiums almost universally increased). Meanwhile, more newly-covered people than ever were lining up for actual healthcare (so actual hospital bills almost universally increased). Both of these factors in tandem REDUCED the speed and quality of obtainable coverage almost across-the-board, since the healthcare labor force was already stretched BEFORE the policy changed. In other words, there isn't really anything "AFFORDABLE" about the Affordable Care Act. The money had to be pulled out of the asses of working-class taxpayers. Therefore, it's understandable how there was some resistance (regardless of who originally thought it up.)</quote> all the more reason that it should have been a single payer system from the beginning instead of trying to meet conservatives halfway with a plan modeled after Romneys </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
YoukaiSlayer 02/13/20 3:47:49 AM #55:	I think health care problems actually start in court. It's the insane malpractice insurance costs that sort of necessitate all this bullshit when realistically there shouldn't be any. A doctor should be able to very cheaply and quickly defend himself in court against those claims. That'd make it so that doctors don't have to see 50 bajillion people every day for 15 minutes max, which make being a doctor a much more rewarding and less miserable job, which would result in more doctors, all of whom have more time per patient massively increasing time efficiency, reducing burnout, and massively minimizing mistakes. They'd be able to work through the backlog of patients reducing the number of sick people, while still making more overall money than now because none of it (or very little) is going to malpractice insurance companies. Doctor's make more money, to do less work, and more patients are cured faster, with less mistakes, at less cost. Of course the court system is just broken in general. The time and money it takes to go to court is just morally wrong. Justice shouldn't be a factor of how much money you have and how long you can afford to wait. --- I'm ninja (you can't see me) <cite>YoukaiSlayer posted [p:934311407] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>I think health care problems actually start in court. It's the insane malpractice insurance costs that sort of necessitate all this bullshit when realistically there shouldn't be any. A doctor should be able to very cheaply and quickly defend himself in court against those claims. That'd make it so that doctors don't have to see 50 bajillion people every day for 15 minutes max, which make being a doctor a much more rewarding and less miserable job, which would result in more doctors, all of whom have more time per patient massively increasing time efficiency, reducing burnout, and massively minimizing mistakes. They'd be able to work through the backlog of patients reducing the number of sick people, while still making more overall money than now because none of it (or very little) is going to malpractice insurance companies. Doctor's make more money, to do less work, and more patients are cured faster, with less mistakes, at less cost. Of course the court system is just broken in general. The time and money it takes to go to court is just morally wrong. Justice shouldn't be a factor of how much money you have and how long you can afford to wait. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
shipwreckers 02/13/20 4:11:33 AM #56:	Mead posted... all the more reason that it should have been a single payer system from the beginning instead of trying to meet conservatives halfway with a plan modeled after Romneys Agreed. If you're gonna to do it, do it right. By trying to straddle the fence, both sides of the aisle got a half-ass solution. --- Money is overrated... <cite>shipwreckers posted [p:934311776] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>Mead posted... </cite> <quote>all the more reason that it should have been a single payer system from the beginning instead of trying to meet conservatives halfway with a plan modeled after Romneys</quote> Agreed. If you're gonna to do it, do it right. By trying to straddle the fence, both sides of the aisle got a half-ass solution. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
YoukaiSlayer 02/13/20 5:31:51 AM #57:	shipwreckers posted... Agreed. If you're gonna to do it, do it right. By trying to straddle the fence, both sides of the aisle got a half-ass solution. Would it have actually been possible to not do a half assed solution though? The president isn't supposed to have the power to just impose their will upon lawmaking. If they did it'd just get reversed in 4-8 years when the other side wins, probably before the program really had enough time to gain any traction. --- I'm ninja (you can't see me) <cite>YoukaiSlayer posted [p:934313001] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>shipwreckers posted... </cite> <quote>Agreed. If you're gonna to do it, do it right. By trying to straddle the fence, both sides of the aisle got a half-ass solution.</quote>Would it have actually been possible to not do a half assed solution though? The president isn't supposed to have the power to just impose their will upon lawmaking. If they did it'd just get reversed in 4-8 years when the other side wins, probably before the program really had enough time to gain any traction. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 02/13/20 5:36:43 AM #58:	YoukaiSlayer posted... Would it have actually been possible to not do a half assed solution though? The president isn't supposed to have the power to just impose their will upon lawmaking. If they did it'd just get reversed in 4-8 years when the other side wins, probably before the program really had enough time to gain any traction. Public opinion matters. Despite controlling every branch of government for two years republicans were unable to repeal the ACA because constituents were so overwhelmingly against them doing so --- Lemonheads <cite>Mead posted [p:934313071] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>YoukaiSlayer posted... </cite> <quote>Would it have actually been possible to not do a half assed solution though? The president isn't supposed to have the power to just impose their will upon lawmaking. If they did it'd just get reversed in 4-8 years when the other side wins, probably before the program really had enough time to gain any traction.</quote> Public opinion matters. Despite controlling every branch of government for two years republicans were unable to repeal the ACA because constituents were so overwhelmingly against them doing so </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kyuubi4269 02/13/20 5:37:01 AM #59:	YoukaiSlayer posted... The president isn't supposed to have the power to just impose their will upon lawmaking. If they did it'd just get reversed in 4-8 years when the other side wins, probably before the program really had enough time to gain any traction. That's what already happens. Of course the government shouldn't be making plans that extend their term in the first place. --- Doctor Foxx posted... The demonizing of soy has a lot to do with xenophobic ideas. <cite>Kyuubi4269 posted [p:934313082] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>YoukaiSlayer posted...</cite> <quote>The president isn't supposed to have the power to just impose their will upon lawmaking. If they did it'd just get reversed in 4-8 years when the other side wins, probably before the program really had enough time to gain any traction.</quote> That's what already happens. Of course the government shouldn't be making plans that extend their term in the first place.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
YoukaiSlayer 02/13/20 6:56:23 AM #60:	The issue then becomes time. Most issues can't be solved in 4 years. Even if I became god emperor of america and everyone magically had to obey my will, a lot of these things would still take longer than 4 years to resolve, so it just feels pointless. On the other hand, every candidate seems way too scary for me to want to give them more power than they already have so I don't really have solutions other than just revamp politics from the ground up but even then I honestly don't trust the average person to be making political decisions so it all feels pretty doomed from my perspective. Basically if I feel like the will of the rich/government is wrong, but I also feel like the will of the people is wrong, wtf is to be done? --- I'm ninja (you can't see me) <cite>YoukaiSlayer posted [p:934314288] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>The issue then becomes time. Most issues can't be solved in 4 years. Even if I became god emperor of america and everyone magically had to obey my will, a lot of these things would still take longer than 4 years to resolve, so it just feels pointless. On the other hand, every candidate seems way too scary for me to want to give them more power than they already have so I don't really have solutions other than just revamp politics from the ground up but even then I honestly don't trust the average person to be making political decisions so it all feels pretty doomed from my perspective. Basically if I feel like the will of the rich/government is wrong, but I also feel like the will of the people is wrong, wtf is to be done? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FrndNhbrHdCEman 02/13/20 5:15:37 PM #61:	SunWuKung420 posted... Hence when you miss the moon, you're among the stars. And over his head. TheWitchMorgana posted... hell win because zeus doesnt like him Zeus is a Democrat. Swung by the genius of Donald Trump. --- Official nosy neighbor and gossip https://imgur.com/uGKwGsK <cite>FrndNhbrHdCEman posted [p:934337035] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>SunWuKung420 posted... </cite> <quote>Hence when you miss the moon, you're among the stars.</quote>And over his head. TheWitchMorgana posted... </cite> <quote>hell win because zeus doesnt like him</quote>Zeus is a Democrat. Swung by the genius of Donald Trump. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Yellow 02/14/20 6:29:38 PM #62:	His policies are his strongest and defining advantage, individually they all poll well. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EQsmBBNXYAYHajI?format=png&name=small There are two things that would keep Bernie from beating Trump. Both are the centrist Democrats. Either they shoehorn in Bloomberg or Buttigieg, both have zero chance beating Trump, or the popularity boost they gave to Trump, giving him a record high approval rating, after failing to impeach Trump fucks over any Democrat. (Who could have seen it coming?) If you looked at the polls pre-acquittal, Bernie destroyed Trump in the rust belt. The McResistance that hammers away at every feeling he hurts, attacking him with horrible points, has actually done a great job of making him look like the bigger man. They've put on a mastery in incompetence. When a European asks why we're plagued with far right politicians you can point the finger at people like Nancy Pelosi CNN MSNBC and The Washington Post, who almost orchestrated his campaign. --- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZNqaAh6iLU <cite>Yellow posted [p:934386420] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>His policies are his strongest and defining advantage, individually they all poll well. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EQsmBBNXYAYHajI?format=png&name=small There are two things that would keep Bernie from beating Trump. Both are the centrist Democrats. Either they shoehorn in Bloomberg or Buttigieg, both have zero chance beating Trump, or the popularity boost they gave to Trump, giving him a record high approval rating, after failing to impeach Trump fucks over any Democrat. (Who could have seen it coming?) If you looked at the polls pre-acquittal, Bernie destroyed Trump in the rust belt. The McResistance that hammers away at every feeling he hurts, attacking him with horrible points, has actually done a great job of making him look like the bigger man. They've put on a mastery in incompetence. When a European asks why we're plagued with far right politicians you can point the finger at people like Nancy Pelosi CNN MSNBC and The Washington Post, who almost orchestrated his campaign. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
shipwreckers 02/14/20 7:42:30 PM #63:	Yellow posted... or the popularity boost they gave to Trump, giving him a record high approval rating, after failing to impeach Trump fucks over any Democrat. (Who could have seen it coming?) Well, actually nearly EVERYONE saw it coming. If you remember, even Nancy Pelosi herself resisted impeachment at first (knowing that with a Republican-controlled senate, there's no way in hell it would actually work). But, she got so much pressure from her own party, she didn't want to risk losing HER OWN popularity (because hey, she's gotta look out for herself, right? Since there are literally no term limits whatsoever for Senators, she's gotta play by her own party's rules or risk losing her own re-election, no matter how absurdly foolish her party's views are). So yeah..., trumps acquittal surprised pretty much nobody. --- Money is overrated... <cite>shipwreckers posted [p:934389372] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>Yellow posted... </cite> <quote>or the popularity boost they gave to Trump, giving him a record high approval rating, after failing to impeach Trump fucks over any Democrat. (Who could have seen it coming?)</quote> Well, actually nearly EVERYONE saw it coming. If you remember, even Nancy Pelosi herself resisted impeachment at first (knowing that with a Republican-controlled senate, there's no way in hell it would actually work). But, she got so much pressure from her own party, she didn't want to risk losing HER OWN popularity (because hey, she's gotta look out for herself, right? Since there are literally no term limits whatsoever for Senators, she's gotta play by her own party's rules or risk losing her own re-election, no matter how absurdly foolish her party's views are). So yeah..., trumps acquittal surprised pretty much nobody. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
shipwreckers 02/15/20 4:22:31 AM #64:	Well, this just got..., interesting. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bernie-sanders-essay/ That's kinky, Bernie. Real kinky... --- Money is overrated... <cite>shipwreckers posted [p:934404087] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>Well, this just got..., interesting. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bernie-sanders-essay/ That's kinky, Bernie. Real kinky... </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
YoukaiSlayer 02/15/20 9:09:13 AM #65:	shipwreckers posted... Well, this just got..., interesting. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bernie-sanders-essay/ That's kinky, Bernie. Real kinky... I don't understand. It's factually true that some people of both genders have rape fantasies. If anything the article says he finds it concerning. Also it was written 48 years ago right? --- I'm ninja (you can't see me) <cite>YoukaiSlayer posted [p:934408436] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>shipwreckers posted... </cite> <quote>Well, this just got..., interesting. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bernie-sanders-essay/ That's kinky, Bernie. Real kinky...</quote>I don't understand. It's factually true that some people of both genders have rape fantasies. If anything the article says he finds it concerning. Also it was written 48 years ago right? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
miki_sauvester 02/15/20 10:54:54 AM #66:	I hope Bernie wins the nomination. The Bernie vs Trump debates should be fun. <cite>miki_sauvester posted [p:934411187] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>I hope Bernie wins the nomination. The Bernie vs Trump debates should be fun.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Noop_Noop 02/15/20 10:57:30 AM #67:	Y'all remember when Bernie was in that hippie commune and then got kicked out because he refused to work and just wanted to be taken care of for free? Because goddamn doesn't that sound just the like the old fucker and every one of his supporters. --- I am your shepherd cloaked in obscenity. Heed these sickening words: I worship only what you bleed. <cite>Noop_Noop posted [p:934411276] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>Y'all remember when Bernie was in that hippie commune and then got kicked out because he refused to work and just wanted to be taken care of for free? Because goddamn doesn't that sound just the like the old fucker and every one of his supporters. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 02/15/20 11:05:55 AM #68:	shipwreckers posted... Well, this just got..., interesting. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bernie-sanders-essay/ That's kinky, Bernie. Real kinky... 1972, and I dont really see anything wrong with what he wrote --- Lemonheads <cite>Mead posted [p:934411557] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>shipwreckers posted... </cite> <quote>Well, this just got..., interesting. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bernie-sanders-essay/ That's kinky, Bernie. Real kinky...</quote> 1972, and I dont really see anything wrong with what he wrote </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 02/15/20 4:05:09 PM #69:	--- Lemonheads <cite>Mead posted [p:934422513] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote> </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 02/15/20 4:39:58 PM #70:	Well actually the left and many of the candidates running have just gotten further and further left so now Bernie Sanders really just seems like par for the course and is less relevant than he was in 2016 <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:934423887] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>Well actually the left and many of the candidates running have just gotten further and further left so now Bernie Sanders really just seems like par for the course and is less relevant than he was in 2016 </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The_tall_midget 02/15/20 5:02:57 PM #71:	Bernie is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He's too socialist to appeal to the less fringe people of the party, but he's not fringe enough for the crazies that are overtaking the party and that believe that everything should be free, and that anyone who has more money than they do, should be taxed until they're as poor and inconsequential as they are. And that's despite the crazies we've recently seen on the project Veritas videos that we KNOW for a fact are part of his campaign. --- Bernie Sanders partisan has now slapped a 15-year-old for supporting Trump. The tolerant left strikes again. <cite>The_tall_midget posted [p:934424812] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>Bernie is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He's too socialist to appeal to the less fringe people of the party, but he's not fringe enough for the crazies that are overtaking the party and that believe that everything should be free, and that anyone who has more money than they do, should be taxed until they're as poor and inconsequential as they are. And that's despite the crazies we've recently seen on the project Veritas videos that we KNOW for a fact are part of his campaign. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Yellow 02/15/20 5:06:07 PM #72:	OhhhJa posted... Well actually the left and many of the candidates running have just gotten further and further left so now Bernie Sanders really just seems like par for the course and is less relevant than he was in 2016 The moderate ones are taking billionaire money. The moderate opinion isn't logical or popular. When Democrats/Liberals realize that there are a ton of people without healthcare, or going bankrupt from medical bills, they don't go "I want to go with the guy who will cut that number in half" No, they want someone who will actually solve the fucking problem. You're not finding a Republican or moderate who will cure us of our privatized health insurance scheme, with about 40,000 people on death row annually. --- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZNqaAh6iLU <cite>Yellow posted [p:934424939] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted... </cite> <quote>Well actually the left and many of the candidates running have just gotten further and further left so now Bernie Sanders really just seems like par for the course and is less relevant than he was in 2016</quote>The moderate ones are taking billionaire money. The moderate opinion isn't logical or popular. When Democrats/Liberals realize that there are a ton of people without healthcare, or going bankrupt from medical bills, they don't go "I want to go with the guy who will cut that number in half" No, they want someone who will actually solve the fucking problem. You're not finding a Republican or moderate who will cure us of our privatized health insurance scheme, with about 40,000 people on death row annually. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
YoukaiSlayer 02/15/20 5:09:54 PM #73:	The healthcare system needs more of a cure than just access. It's whole design and function is just hilariously broken. --- I'm ninja (you can't see me) <cite>YoukaiSlayer posted [p:934425079] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>The healthcare system needs more of a cure than just access. It's whole design and function is just hilariously broken. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The_tall_midget 02/15/20 5:28:52 PM #74:	Yellow posted... No, they want someone who will actually solve the fucking problem. You're not finding a Republican or moderate who will cure us of our privatized health insurance scheme, with about 40,000 people on death row annually. And I think it's funny that you think that the Dems will fix the problem. May I remind you that Obama was the one who came up with the "best" idea to make healthcare more available and Obamacare was a spectacular failure? Yellow, I 100% agree that the healthcare system is a shit show that is not only expensive, but also inefficient. But if you actually THINK that a single of those candidates will fix the issue... I have bad news for you. Not happening. --- Bernie Sanders partisan has now slapped a 15-year-old for supporting Trump. The tolerant left strikes again. <cite>The_tall_midget posted [p:934425774] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>Yellow posted... </cite> <quote>No, they want someone who will actually solve the fucking problem. You're not finding a Republican or moderate who will cure us of our privatized health insurance scheme, with about 40,000 people on death row annually.</quote> And I think it's funny that you think that the Dems will fix the problem. May I remind you that Obama was the one who came up with the "best" idea to make healthcare more available and Obamacare was a spectacular failure? Yellow, I 100% agree that the healthcare system is a shit show that is not only expensive, but also inefficient. But if you actually THINK that a single of those candidates will fix the issue... I have bad news for you. Not happening. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Yellow 02/15/20 5:37:54 PM #75:	Point in case, Obama took a moderate approach and it wasn't good enough. --- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZNqaAh6iLU <cite>Yellow posted [p:934426067] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>Point in case, Obama took a moderate approach and it wasn't good enough. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Blighboy 02/15/20 6:44:56 PM #76:	The best decision Republicans ever made was to double down on their more extreme opinions and adopt a win at all costs attitude. It has done literally nothing but benefit them since Obama was elected. The idea that Dems should do the opposite is frankly lunacy. In a country where 60% of people aren't even voting, you don't win by trying to appeal to the mythical swing voter. You win by engaging more people. --- I have no idea whether or not he's a racist, but apparently there are recordings of him using racial slurs so it's a distinct possibility. <cite>Blighboy posted [p:934428458] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>The best decision Republicans ever made was to double down on their more extreme opinions and adopt a win at all costs attitude. It has done literally nothing but benefit them since Obama was elected. The idea that Dems should do the opposite is frankly lunacy. In a country where 60% of people aren't even voting, you don't win by trying to appeal to the mythical swing voter. You win by engaging more people. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Noop_Noop 02/15/20 7:36:09 PM #77:	Blighboy posted... The best decision Republicans ever made was to double down on their more extreme opinions and adopt a win at all costs attitude. It has done literally nothing but benefit them since Obama was elected. The idea that Dems should do the opposite is frankly lunacy. In a country where 60% of people aren't even voting, you don't win by trying to appeal to the mythical swing voter. You win by engaging more people. but the dems have been doubling down on their more extreme opinions, and the left is fucking imploding --- I am your shepherd cloaked in obscenity. Heed these sickening words: I worship only what you bleed. <cite>Noop_Noop posted [p:934430301] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>Blighboy posted... </cite> <quote>The best decision Republicans ever made was to double down on their more extreme opinions and adopt a win at all costs attitude. It has done literally nothing but benefit them since Obama was elected. The idea that Dems should do the opposite is frankly lunacy. In a country where 60% of people aren't even voting, you don't win by trying to appeal to the mythical swing voter. You win by engaging more people.</quote> but the dems have been doubling down on their more extreme opinions, and the left is fucking imploding </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 02/15/20 8:01:42 PM #78:	Blighboy posted... The best decision Republicans ever made was to double down on their more extreme opinions and adopt a win at all costs attitude. It has done literally nothing but benefit them since Obama was elected. The idea that Dems should do the opposite is frankly lunacy. In a country where 60% of people aren't even voting, you don't win by trying to appeal to the mythical swing voter. You win by engaging more people. The Republicans haven't really done that though. Trump may be a blowhard but he is pretty moderate in many ways compared to many other Republicans. I think that's partially why he was able to get a lot of independent voters. He didn't come across as the average Republican blathering about gay marriage and abortion. Probably was also why he encountered a lot of resistance from his own party and was basically forced to claim to be Christian <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:934431249] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>Blighboy posted... </cite> <quote>The best decision Republicans ever made was to double down on their more extreme opinions and adopt a win at all costs attitude. It has done literally nothing but benefit them since Obama was elected. The idea that Dems should do the opposite is frankly lunacy. In a country where 60% of people aren't even voting, you don't win by trying to appeal to the mythical swing voter. You win by engaging more people.</quote>The Republicans haven't really done that though. Trump may be a blowhard but he is pretty moderate in many ways compared to many other Republicans. I think that's partially why he was able to get a lot of independent voters. He didn't come across as the average Republican blathering about gay marriage and abortion. Probably was also why he encountered a lot of resistance from his own party and was basically forced to claim to be Christian </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Blighboy 02/15/20 9:08:05 PM #79:	Noop_Noop posted... but the dems have been doubling down on their more extreme opinions, and the left is fucking imploding Because they're pushing back against it. That's my point. For every "leftist" politician you get three Hillary Clinton clones propped up. For which there is very obviously no demand. OhhhJa posted... The Republicans haven't really done that though. Ok boomer --- I have no idea whether or not he's a racist, but apparently there are recordings of him using racial slurs so it's a distinct possibility. <cite>Blighboy posted [p:934433715] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>Noop_Noop posted... </cite> <quote>but the dems have been doubling down on their more extreme opinions, and the left is fucking imploding</quote>Because they're pushing back against it. That's my point. For every "leftist" politician you get three Hillary Clinton clones propped up. For which there is very obviously no demand. OhhhJa posted... </cite> <quote>The Republicans haven't really done that though.</quote>Ok boomer </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 02/15/20 9:51:50 PM #80:	Blighboy posted... Ok boomer People who say this sound like edgy teenagers <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:934435476] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>Blighboy posted... </cite> <quote>Ok boomer</quote>People who say this sound like edgy teenagers </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Blighboy 02/15/20 10:17:41 PM #81:	People who get Ok boomer'd sound like boomers --- I have no idea whether or not he's a racist, but apparently there are recordings of him using racial slurs so it's a distinct possibility. <cite>Blighboy posted [p:934436547] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>People who get Ok boomer'd sound like boomers </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Gaawa_chan 02/15/20 10:52:58 PM #82:	Historically the Democrats has spent the past 50 years or so dashing to the Right on economics. Pushback from the FDR Left is something that Sanders has supported for a long time, but he never could have gotten off the ground without the internet to help him build a network of support. The Democratic party had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the Left both on civil and fiscal policies... it's just that up until Sanders, the Left had no luck at all on the economic front, and this is in great part due to how Democrat politicians have conducted themselves in these past 50 years. I won't bother giving a history lesson over the discrepancy; this post is going to be too long as it is. There are divisive Left positions that Sanders has historically supported (and seems to still do) but they aren't hills he's going to die on due to lack of support, so he doesn't bring them up much. That, coupled with what I'm about to cover next, is what sets him apart. Sanders has such a devout following compared to other candidates not just because of the policies he supports; it's that he's supported them consistently. Sanders does not do what almost every other Democratic candidate has done; he doesn't engage in election pivoting. His political positions do not change based upon what group he is speaking to or where he is in the country or whether he's in a primary or general election, etc. Look, for example, at Elizabeth Warren. She's a classic example of the pivoting Democrat in this election (so was Kamala Harris, who was even worse than Warren about it). She talks Left very well when she's in office or early on in elections, and then becomes Hillary Clinton 2.0 later on. In this day and age it's harder to get away with pivoting because the dishonesty of it is so easy to prove via recordings/paper trails on the internet. Politicians who pivot cannot be trusted to even TRY to fulfill ANY of the policies they claim that they want to implement, and supporters of Sanders believe that Sanders is the only one who can be trusted not to pivot- aka, not to lie about his policy positions. And let's be very clear here; this lack of trust in candidates other than Sanders is something that neoliberals cultivated themselves. Obama's pivot from his election promises to his performance when he was given a supermajority in 2008 was a massive wake-up call for people on the Left; it cemented the idea that people without progressive records who take corporate money can never, EVER be trusted to do ANYTHING that they say they will. What this means is that it doesn't really matter how much the other candidates SAY they are on the Left; if their records don't show it, it is now assumed that they are lying, and if they pivot like Warren has, then they are PROVEN to have lied and they lose support. It's not just a matter of whether or not someone professes to support Left positions; it's whether or not they can be trusted to be telling the truth when they say that, and most Democrat politicians cannot be. So Sanders still is set apart, both by his positions AND by the fact that he has a record of consistently supporting said positions, which is arguably far more important than any other factor. Even Donald Trump pivoted after getting into office, though that shouldn't surprise anyone considering the git lies nonstop. --- Hi <cite>Gaawa_chan posted [p:934438157] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>Historically the Democrats has spent the past 50 years or so dashing to the Right on economics. Pushback from the FDR Left is something that Sanders has supported for a long time, but he never could have gotten off the ground without the internet to help him build a network of support. The Democratic party had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the Left both on civil and fiscal policies... it's just that up until Sanders, the Left had no luck at all on the economic front, and this is in great part due to how Democrat politicians have conducted themselves in these past 50 years. I won't bother giving a history lesson over the discrepancy; this post is going to be too long as it is. There are divisive Left positions that Sanders has historically supported (and seems to still do) but they aren't hills he's going to die on due to lack of support, so he doesn't bring them up much. That, coupled with what I'm about to cover next, is what sets him apart. Sanders has such a devout following compared to other candidates not just because of the policies he supports; it's that he's supported them consistently. Sanders does not do what almost every other Democratic candidate has done; he doesn't engage in election pivoting. His political positions do not change based upon what group he is speaking to or where he is in the country or whether he's in a primary or general election, etc. Look, for example, at Elizabeth Warren. She's a classic example of the pivoting Democrat in this election (so was Kamala Harris, who was even worse than Warren about it). She talks Left very well when she's in office or early on in elections, and then becomes Hillary Clinton 2.0 later on. In this day and age it's harder to get away with pivoting because the dishonesty of it is so easy to prove via recordings/paper trails on the internet. Politicians who pivot cannot be trusted to even TRY to fulfill ANY of the policies they claim that they want to implement, and supporters of Sanders believe that Sanders is the only one who can be trusted not to pivot- aka, not to lie about his policy positions. And let's be very clear here; this lack of trust in candidates other than Sanders is something that neoliberals cultivated themselves. Obama's pivot from his election promises to his performance when he was given a supermajority in 2008 was a massive wake-up call for people on the Left; it cemented the idea that people without progressive records who take corporate money can never, EVER be trusted to do ANYTHING that they say they will. What this means is that it doesn't really matter how much the other candidates SAY they are on the Left; if their records don't show it, it is now assumed that they are lying, and if they pivot like Warren has, then they are PROVEN to have lied and they lose support. It's not just a matter of whether or not someone professes to support Left positions; it's whether or not they can be trusted to be telling the truth when they say that, and most Democrat politicians cannot be. So Sanders still is set apart, both by his positions AND by the fact that he has a record of consistently supporting said positions, which is arguably far more important than any other factor. Even Donald Trump pivoted after getting into office, though that shouldn't surprise anyone considering the git lies nonstop. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 02/15/20 11:35:13 PM #83:	Blighboy posted... People who get Ok boomer'd sound like boomers It's definitely a good go to if you don't have any kind of argument to make that has any real substance <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:934439692] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>Blighboy posted... </cite> <quote>People who get Ok boomer'd sound like boomers</quote> It's definitely a good go to if you don't have any kind of argument to make that has any real substance </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
shipwreckers 02/16/20 2:05:10 AM #84:	OhhhJa posted... It's definitely a good go to if you don't have any kind of argument to make that has any real substance It kinda reminds me of the "Cool Story Bro" days. I remember CSB getting so bad, people would get modded just for mentioning it. --- Money is overrated... <cite>shipwreckers posted [p:934444281] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>OhhhJa posted... </cite> <quote>It's definitely a good go to if you don't have any kind of argument to make that has any real substance</quote> It kinda reminds me of the "Cool Story Bro" days. I remember CSB getting so bad, people would get modded just for mentioning it. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 02/16/20 3:12:28 AM #85:	Gaawa_chan posted... very long post of words Ive never really heard it put that way and I think youre spot on about it Makes me distrust mayor Pete more than I already do --- Lemonheads <cite>Mead posted [p:934445545] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>Gaawa_chan posted... </cite> <quote>very long post of words</quote> Ive never really heard it put that way and I think youre spot on about it Makes me distrust mayor Pete more than I already do </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The_tall_midget 02/16/20 8:46:32 AM #86:	shipwreckers posted... It kinda reminds me of the "Cool Story Bro" days. I remember CSB getting so bad, people would get modded just for mentioning it. I also remember Gamefaqs modding people for saying "U MAD?" But apparently an equivalent like "ok boomer" which is meant as a direct insult and trolling attempt, is apparently perfectly acceptable. To be honest, you can usually gauge a person's intellect (or lack thereof) by their usage of "ok boomer." --- Bernie Sanders partisan has now slapped a 15-year-old for supporting Trump. The tolerant left strikes again. <cite>The_tall_midget posted [p:934450322] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>shipwreckers posted... </cite> <quote>It kinda reminds me of the "Cool Story Bro" days. I remember CSB getting so bad, people would get modded just for mentioning it.</quote> I also remember Gamefaqs modding people for saying "U MAD?" But apparently an equivalent like "ok boomer" which is meant as a direct insult and trolling attempt, is apparently perfectly acceptable. To be honest, you can usually gauge a person's intellect (or lack thereof) by their usage of "ok boomer." </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Blighboy 02/16/20 10:56:53 AM #87:	The_tall_midget posted... To be honest, you can usually gauge a person's intellect (or lack thereof) by I'm pretty sure this phrase is in the Boomer constitution lmfao Followed by whatever petty shit triggered them today --- I have no idea whether or not he's a racist, but apparently there are recordings of him using racial slurs so it's a distinct possibility. <cite>Blighboy posted [p:934453641] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>The_tall_midget posted... </cite> <quote>To be honest, you can usually gauge a person's intellect (or lack thereof) by</quote>I'm pretty sure this phrase is in the Boomer constitution lmfao Followed by whatever petty shit triggered them today </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
shipwreckers 02/16/20 9:32:44 PM #88:	The_tall_midget posted... I also remember Gamefaqs modding people for saying "U MAD?" But apparently an equivalent like "ok boomer" which is meant as a direct insult and trolling attempt, is apparently perfectly acceptable. To be honest, you can usually gauge a person's intellect (or lack thereof) by their usage of "ok boomer." Blighboy posted... I'm pretty sure this phrase is in the Boomer constitution lmfao Followed by whatever petty shit triggered them today To be fair, internet shitposting never fades away. It just gets repackaged with each passing year / trend. In 5 years, Millennials will have their own generational insults abounding (which, to be fair is kinda happening already). --- Money is overrated... <cite>shipwreckers posted [p:934479138] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>The_tall_midget posted... </cite> <quote>I also remember Gamefaqs modding people for saying "U MAD?" But apparently an equivalent like "ok boomer" which is meant as a direct insult and trolling attempt, is apparently perfectly acceptable. To be honest, you can usually gauge a person's intellect (or lack thereof) by their usage of "ok boomer."</quote> Blighboy posted... </cite> <quote>I'm pretty sure this phrase is in the Boomer constitution lmfao Followed by whatever petty shit triggered them today</quote> To be fair, internet shitposting never fades away. It just gets repackaged with each passing year / trend. In 5 years, Millennials will have their own generational insults abounding (which, to be fair is kinda happening already). </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 02/17/20 12:04:16 AM #89:	"I'll take the envelope on the left, the one so far left it has no hope of being elected." TheWitchMorgana posted... hell win because zeus doesnt like him Which is why he won in 2016... oh wait. wolfy42 posted... moderate progressive Given the connotations, moderate progressive is an oxymoron. YoukaiSlayer posted... I do kind of agree that the two party system just fucking sucks for actually getting anything done. The whole us vs them aspect of it just halts almost all progress. The primaries being an issue as well. When each side wants to progress in a different direction, there's broadly little room for getting anything done to anybody's satisfaction. That said, the vast majority of big legislation that needs doing gets passed all the time, as does a lot of stuff that doesn't need doing but the government will do it anyway. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. <cite>Zeus posted [p:934485723] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote> "I'll take the envelope on the left, the one so far left it has no hope of being elected." TheWitchMorgana posted... </cite> <quote>hell win because zeus doesnt like him</quote> Which is why he won in 2016... oh wait. wolfy42 posted... </cite> <quote>moderate progressive</quote> Given the connotations, moderate progressive is an oxymoron. YoukaiSlayer posted... </cite> <quote>I do kind of agree that the two party system just fucking sucks for actually getting anything done. The whole us vs them aspect of it just halts almost all progress. The primaries being an issue as well.</quote> When each side wants to progress in a different direction, there's broadly little room for getting anything done to anybody's satisfaction. That said, the vast majority of big legislation that needs doing gets passed all the time, as does a lot of stuff that doesn't need doing but the government will do it anyway. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 02/17/20 12:12:30 AM #90:	slacker03150 posted... Obamacare was a republican healthcare plan. It had 0 republican votes for it and has been attacked ever since. Garland was a moderate choice for the bench. He was still stonewalled. When you already give up your position to fight for the middle the extreme group pulls you further in their direction. We need someone who can fight for the other direction and settle for an actual middle ground. The ACA wasn't a "Republican healthcare plan," which is why Republicans fought against it. It was based on a plan by ONE Republican and it was a plan that wasn't in keeping with the rest of the party. And calling Garland a moderate is laughable, considering he was a staunch opponent of the Second Amendment and that alone should have disqualified him. As for extremes, the Republicans have been the party of capitulation for decades, considering that they've folded repeatedly and betrayed supporters by failing to pursue campaign promises regarding key issues like immigration which is a large part of Trump winning. shipwreckers posted... Well, in defense of both sides, many promises were made under the ACA that were not realistic at all (e.g. "If you like your current health care, you can keep it" / etc.). It wasn't a matter of it not being realistic, it was an outright lie used to push through the controversial legislation. shipwreckers posted... Agreed. If you're gonna to do it, do it right. By trying to straddle the fence, both sides of the aisle got a half-ass solution. Because when you struggle with a lesser thing passed, that's clearly a sign you need to try for something even more extreme that nobody will support! --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist. <cite>Zeus posted [p:934485992] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>slacker03150 posted... </cite> <quote>Obamacare was a republican healthcare plan. It had 0 republican votes for it and has been attacked ever since. Garland was a moderate choice for the bench. He was still stonewalled. When you already give up your position to fight for the middle the extreme group pulls you further in their direction. We need someone who can fight for the other direction and settle for an actual middle ground.</quote> The ACA wasn't a "Republican healthcare plan," which is why Republicans fought against it. It was based on a plan by ONE Republican and it was a plan that wasn't in keeping with the rest of the party. And calling Garland a moderate is laughable, considering he was a staunch opponent of the Second Amendment and that alone should have disqualified him. As for extremes, the Republicans have been the party of capitulation for decades, considering that they've folded repeatedly and betrayed supporters by failing to pursue campaign promises regarding key issues like immigration which is a large part of Trump winning. shipwreckers posted... </cite> <quote>Well, in defense of both sides, many promises were made under the ACA that were not realistic at all (e.g. "If you like your current health care, you can keep it" / etc.).</quote> It wasn't a matter of it not being realistic, it was an outright lie used to push through the controversial legislation. shipwreckers posted... </cite> <quote>Agreed. If you're gonna to do it, do it right. By trying to straddle the fence, both sides of the aisle got a half-ass solution.</quote> Because when you struggle with a lesser thing passed, that's clearly a sign you need to try for something even more extreme that nobody will support! </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
shipwreckers 02/22/20 9:31:06 PM #91:	I still don't understand why we can't find a balance between "capitalism" and "socialism." On paper, both systems have GOOD concepts. People helping others in need (socialism) is a good thing. People keeping their hard-earned money (capitalism) is a good thing. Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why can't we let the good portions of each contribute to our economic decisions (while fighting the detrimental extremes)? This isn't rhetorical. I sincerely wonder why it's so hard to find a balance here. --- Money is overrated... <cite>shipwreckers posted [p:934749002] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>I still don't understand why we can't find a balance between "capitalism" and "socialism." On paper, both systems have GOOD concepts. People helping others in need (socialism) is a good thing. People keeping their hard-earned money (capitalism) is a good thing. Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why can't we let the good portions of each contribute to our economic decisions (while fighting the detrimental extremes)? This isn't rhetorical. I sincerely wonder why it's so hard to find a balance here. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 02/22/20 9:52:13 PM #92:	We already have many socialist programs in the US it really isnt that big of a deal --- Lemonheads <cite>Mead posted [p:934749853] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>We already have many socialist programs in the US it really isnt that big of a deal </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
blu 02/22/20 10:05:04 PM #93:	Bernie is really just running on giving away free stuff. Hes as much of a caricature as trump is. his final answer in the Nevada debate shows that he is still a corrupt politician. Not wanting to follow process to gain an unfair advantage, trying to manipulate the people to see the process as rigged if he doesnt get nominated. <cite>blu posted [p:934750318] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>Bernie is really just running on giving away free stuff. Hes as much of a caricature as trump is. his final answer in the Nevada debate shows that he is still a corrupt politician. Not wanting to follow process to gain an unfair advantage, trying to manipulate the people to see the process as rigged if he doesnt get nominated. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 02/22/20 10:33:26 PM #94:	blu posted... Bernie is really just running on giving away free stuff. well every other major country on the planet gets along just fine by recognizing that healthcare is a human right so deal with it --- Lemonheads <cite>Mead posted [p:934751373] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>blu posted... </cite> <quote>Bernie is really just running on giving away free stuff.</quote> well every other major country on the planet gets along just fine by recognizing that healthcare is a human right so deal with it </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zareth 02/23/20 3:59:35 AM #95:	blu posted... Bernie is really just running on giving away free stuff. I don't care about free shit. I want Bernie to win as a Fuck You to billionaires and corporate owned politicians. --- It's okay, I have no idea who I am either. https://imgur.com/WOo6wcq <cite>Zareth posted [p:934760344] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>blu posted... </cite> <quote>Bernie is really just running on giving away free stuff.</quote>I don't care about free shit. I want Bernie to win as a Fuck You to billionaires and corporate owned politicians. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
blu 02/23/20 7:19:48 AM #96:	Mead posted... well every other major country on the planet gets along just fine by recognizing that healthcare is a human right so deal with it Other countries can do it doesnt mean were able to implement the system when already having a wildly different system already implemented. It would be much more complex than transitioning to using the metric system. <cite>blu posted [p:934762900] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>Mead posted... </cite> <quote>well every other major country on the planet gets along just fine by recognizing that healthcare is a human right so deal with it</quote> Other countries can do it doesnt mean were able to implement the system when already having a wildly different system already implemented. It would be much more complex than transitioning to using the metric system. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Lokarin 02/23/20 7:25:42 AM #97:	Why was the speaker that introduced Bernie in the last caucus ... not to be racist, she had green skin. Why are the lizard people not using their day makeup any more? --- "Salt cures Everything!" My YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/Nirakolov/videos <cite>Lokarin posted [p:934762991] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>Why was the speaker that introduced Bernie in the last caucus ... not to be racist, she had green skin. Why are the lizard people not using their day makeup any more? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ZeldaMutant 02/23/20 10:09:55 AM #98:	shipwreckers posted... I still don't understand why we can't find a balance between "capitalism" and "socialism." On paper, both systems have GOOD concepts. People helping others in need (socialism) is a good thing. People keeping their hard-earned money (capitalism) is a good thing. Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why can't we let the good portions of each contribute to our economic decisions (while fighting the detrimental extremes)? This isn't rhetorical. I sincerely wonder why it's so hard to find a balance here. Capitalism can't exist in a perpetual balance. Under capitalism, profits have to increase. If there's no economic growth to provide that increase, it has to come from elsewhere. The only remaining source are the needy, the poor and the working class. --- 96065 <cite>ZeldaMutant posted [p:934765930] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>shipwreckers posted... </cite> <quote>I still don't understand why we can't find a balance between "capitalism" and "socialism." On paper, both systems have GOOD concepts. People helping others in need (socialism) is a good thing. People keeping their hard-earned money (capitalism) is a good thing. Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why can't we let the good portions of each contribute to our economic decisions (while fighting the detrimental extremes)? This isn't rhetorical. I sincerely wonder why it's so hard to find a balance here.</quote>Capitalism can't exist in a perpetual balance. Under capitalism, profits have to increase. If there's no economic growth to provide that increase, it has to come from elsewhere. The only remaining source are the needy, the poor and the working class. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Unbridled9 02/23/20 10:36:08 AM #99:	shipwreckers posted... I still don't understand why we can't find a balance between "capitalism" and "socialism." On paper, both systems have GOOD concepts. People helping others in need (socialism) is a good thing. People keeping their hard-earned money (capitalism) is a good thing. Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why can't we let the good portions of each contribute to our economic decisions (while fighting the detrimental extremes)? This isn't rhetorical. I sincerely wonder why it's so hard to find a balance here. Because that's not what happens in reality. In reality a socialist government will exhibit massive amounts of control which results in mono-party systems, heavily restrictive laws, and an outright destruction of the private enterprise. Imagine, if you would, a cookie business. Said business wants to sell cookies and decides that coconut cookies would be a good investment. However they do not print a warning on the label saying 'contains coconut' because they believe that it's common sense that they contain coconut since they are coconut cookies. The government can sue them and demand a recall. If people demand cookies be tested to ensure health that's lab fees and a product loss. If your workers demand a wage increase that's a loss of revenue and if it becomes a federal law then there isn't even a chance to negotiate. Eventually you have to either lay off workers or increase the price of your cookies just to break even. All the while the government power grows and grows. When the government ends up seizing the means of production it becomes effectively the only business in town. There is little, if any, competition between businesses because all of the businesses are controlled by the government or so heavily regulated that they are effectively controlled. As a result they can charge whatever they desire, stifle any business that poses a threat with layer upon layer of regulation and law while ignoring the very same for their own companies and factories, provide as much product as they so desire (and it's a terrible idea to provide a large amount of product in said case), and channel wealth into programs that they desire (I.E. military, law enforcement, and embezzalment) especially since they control the media resulting in a population that can be easily misguided and misinformed. Anyone or anything that the government likes will be praised while anyone whom the government dislikes will be condemned. Don't you ever think it's odd that the people in socialist and communist countries who get exposed as corrupt and as embezzlers are the people who express opinions the government doesn't like? In a capitalist economy this does not happen. For example, MSNBC and Fox news are in direct competition with each other as well as multiple other news sources. As such they are heavily encouraged to provide a good product (news in this case) as well as serve as counter-balances to each other. If the government were to take over one of them then the other would provide contrary news for people to listen to. However if the government were to take over both then they could control the flow of media, especially since profit has been largely removed from the table. A common misconception is that things like road upkeep and fire houses are 'socialist programs'. They are not. These are things which are commonly utilized by everyone or are essential to providing a functioning society. As such it makes sense that tax money goes into funding such a thing as there would be little to no way to adequately charge people for their service. Especially since it can result in situations in which a fire brigade would let a persons house burn until they paid up which is dangerous and effectively charging under duress. Things like education provide a government option but other such things such as private schools and homeschooling exist which means the government cannot hold control over education. However if these things were to become communist then there would be little, if anything, to prevent the government from educating the youth to believe whatever they desire. If they decide that the populace would be better off believing that the Earth is flat, then they can do so and there will be no way to dissent as no one will know that there is even anything to dissent from. If the government decides to claim that Canada is a bunch of violent cannibals who gleefully attacked America unprovoked in the war of 1812 but were beaten back by the patriotic nationals there would be no one who would know enough about the war of 1812 or Canada who wasn't firmly under the governments thumb to control. It is true that one or two socialist programs can exist without ruining a capitalist society. However this is pretty much the same sense that you can eat tiny bits of cyanide without harming yourself (apple seeds). It's still dangerous and concerning. However it may not be an issue for much longer. Social media and many tech giants have effectively created a monopoly in which their word is largely law. Most of them are based in a relatively small area with largely homogenous belief systems and a large staff of workers whom express identical ideals with no dissent allowed. With social media and the internet having become exceptionally important this results in them attempting to have a mass control of information and business. No one competes with companies like google and facebook because no one can and they can lock out anyone who dissents. Anyone who does will struggle at best to get a contrary opinion out while they are permitted to do basically whatever they desire with little fear of repercussion. This is why these companies are so willing to engage in censorship, deal with China, and other things. Because they can easily lock down most of the information to make it hard for the news to spread while working to increase their own wealth, ignore the standards that they set up so that they can become more wealthy, and be beholden to almost no one. Their monopoly effectively kills capitalism. You could even claim it's a pesudo-socialist system just with the monopoly, especially the ideological monopoly, replacing the government. That's why capitalism and socialism cannot effectively exist together in any meaningfully large capacity. Because capitalism demands competition while socialism demands monopolies, especially government-controlled ones. They are inherently opposed to each other. --- I am the gentle hand who heals, the happy smile who shields, and the foot that will kick your ***! - White Mage <cite>Unbridled9 posted [p:934766640] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>shipwreckers posted... </cite> <quote>I still don't understand why we can't find a balance between "capitalism" and "socialism." On paper, both systems have GOOD concepts. People helping others in need (socialism) is a good thing. People keeping their hard-earned money (capitalism) is a good thing. Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why can't we let the good portions of each contribute to our economic decisions (while fighting the detrimental extremes)? This isn't rhetorical. I sincerely wonder why it's so hard to find a balance here.</quote> Because that's not what happens in reality. In reality a socialist government will exhibit massive amounts of control which results in mono-party systems, heavily restrictive laws, and an outright destruction of the private enterprise. Imagine, if you would, a cookie business. Said business wants to sell cookies and decides that coconut cookies would be a good investment. However they do not print a warning on the label saying 'contains coconut' because they believe that it's common sense that they contain coconut since they are coconut cookies. The government can sue them and demand a recall. If people demand cookies be tested to ensure health that's lab fees and a product loss. If your workers demand a wage increase that's a loss of revenue and if it becomes a federal law then there isn't even a chance to negotiate. Eventually you have to either lay off workers or increase the price of your cookies just to break even. All the while the government power grows and grows. When the government ends up seizing the means of production it becomes effectively the only business in town. There is little, if any, competition between businesses because all of the businesses are controlled by the government or so heavily regulated that they are effectively controlled. As a result they can charge whatever they desire, stifle any business that poses a threat with layer upon layer of regulation and law while ignoring the very same for their own companies and factories, provide as much product as they so desire (and it's a terrible idea to provide a large amount of product in said case), and channel wealth into programs that they desire (I.E. military, law enforcement, and embezzalment) especially since they control the media resulting in a population that can be easily misguided and misinformed. Anyone or anything that the government likes will be praised while anyone whom the government dislikes will be condemned. Don't you ever think it's odd that the people in socialist and communist countries who get exposed as corrupt and as embezzlers are the people who express opinions the government doesn't like? In a capitalist economy this does not happen. For example, MSNBC and Fox news are in direct competition with each other as well as multiple other news sources. As such they are heavily encouraged to provide a good product (news in this case) as well as serve as counter-balances to each other. If the government were to take over one of them then the other would provide contrary news for people to listen to. However if the government were to take over both then they could control the flow of media, especially since profit has been largely removed from the table. A common misconception is that things like road upkeep and fire houses are 'socialist programs'. They are not. These are things which are commonly utilized by everyone or are essential to providing a functioning society. As such it makes sense that tax money goes into funding such a thing as there would be little to no way to adequately charge people for their service. Especially since it can result in situations in which a fire brigade would let a persons house burn until they paid up which is dangerous and effectively charging under duress. Things like education provide a government option but other such things such as private schools and homeschooling exist which means the government cannot hold control over education. However if these things were to become communist then there would be little, if anything, to prevent the government from educating the youth to believe whatever they desire. If they decide that the populace would be better off believing that the Earth is flat, then they can do so and there will be no way to dissent as no one will know that there is even anything to dissent from. If the government decides to claim that Canada is a bunch of violent cannibals who gleefully attacked America unprovoked in the war of 1812 but were beaten back by the patriotic nationals there would be no one who would know enough about the war of 1812 or Canada who wasn't firmly under the governments thumb to control. It is true that one or two socialist programs can exist without ruining a capitalist society. However this is pretty much the same sense that you can eat tiny bits of cyanide without harming yourself (apple seeds). It's still dangerous and concerning. However it may not be an issue for much longer. Social media and many tech giants have effectively created a monopoly in which their word is largely law. Most of them are based in a relatively small area with largely homogenous belief systems and a large staff of workers whom express identical ideals with no dissent allowed. With social media and the internet having become exceptionally important this results in them attempting to have a mass control of information and business. No one competes with companies like google and facebook because no one can and they can lock out anyone who dissents. Anyone who does will struggle at best to get a contrary opinion out while they are permitted to do basically whatever they desire with little fear of repercussion. This is why these companies are so willing to engage in censorship, deal with China, and other things. Because they can easily lock down most of the information to make it hard for the news to spread while working to increase their own wealth, ignore the standards that they set up so that they can become more wealthy, and be beholden to almost no one. Their monopoly effectively kills capitalism. You could even claim it's a pesudo-socialist system just with the monopoly, especially the ideological monopoly, replacing the government. That's why capitalism and socialism cannot effectively exist together in any meaningfully large capacity. Because capitalism demands competition while socialism demands monopolies, especially government-controlled ones. They are inherently opposed to each other. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead 02/23/20 11:01:26 AM #100:	Unbridled9 posted... That's why capitalism and socialism cannot effectively exist together in any meaningfully large capacity. Dude we have had tons of socialist programs in the US for decades and the news pundits never shut up about how great the economy is booming along. You have no idea what you are talking about. Capitalism cannot exist without limits because endless growth is in no way sustainable and it eventually becomes detrimental to the populace the system is intended to serve. --- Lemonheads <cite>Mead posted [p:934767398] in Does Berni... [t:78396737]...</cite> <quote>Unbridled9 posted... </cite> <quote>That's why capitalism and socialism cannot effectively exist together in any meaningfully large capacity.</quote> Dude we have had tons of socialist programs in the US for decades and the news pundits never shut up about how great the economy is booming along. You have no idea what you are talking about. Capitalism cannot exist without limits because endless growth is in no way sustainable and it eventually becomes detrimental to the populace the system is intended to serve. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4

Poll of the Day > Does Bernie Sanders have too many fringe opinions to actually win the election? (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > Does Bernie Sanders have too many fringe opinions to actually win the election?