Sanders with ridiculous lead in New Hampshire [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

Dresta

01-20-2016, 07:31 AM

Bernie vs. Trump

:bowdown:

Looks like America has finally given up its pretences, and is going for the populist demagogue vs. populist demagogue ticket; though, to be fair to Americans, it's basically either choose an outsider demagogue, or get a snide political criminal - not much in-between right now. Democratic politics is in a sad state all throughout the western world; tis about time people recognise this is a problem intrinsic to democratic politics, and that the (relatively) unrestricted rule of the mob is perhaps not the best way to go about things.

Can it be a coincidence that Western nations have become heavily-indebted, pay as you go systems of government, corrupted by finance, devoid of imagination, rootless, narcotised, culturally masochistic, and guilt-ridden moral wastelands all at the same time? I think not.

First thing they can do is repeal the 17th Amendment, which basically destroyed the distinction between having an upper and lower chamber. I never understood this indiscriminate love of democracy anyway - it was proposed to alleviate the lot of the masses, and yet has done no such thing, instead working better as a means for allowing the manipulative to convince the masses that what is against their interests is in their interest. It's like political elites, upon recognising that the ass had heretofore laboured under too great a burden, proposed to reform the system of transport by placing him in the cart instead. Thus no-one should be too surprised if we end up somewhere completely different from where was intended. Unless you make the faith-based a priori assumption that the understanding of the largest part of society is the soundest understanding available, you cannot unequivocally support democracy as a dogmatism (which is what we do in all western nations - "democracy" is an obsession, and yet it never seems to result in more people power). In the name of democracy we kick down the safeguards of liberty: the rule of law, jury trial, moral restraint, rights with corresponding duties, and so on.

brownmamba00

01-20-2016, 07:44 AM

Bernie for President

CeltsGarlic

01-20-2016, 07:58 AM

Good, Clinton is a horrific candidate who only has a shot because she's a woman and that's new and exciting.

As a lithuanian (we have women prez) you guys most definitely dont want it. Unless u like a leadership which fails to see consequences of empathy driven actions. That bitch decided to meet with Dalai Lama which led to China basically boycotting our country, till recent months, when smart men put things right again.

Rolando

01-20-2016, 08:23 AM

Bernie!

The best thing about him is that he will try and reverse the unprecedented level of influence of wealthy individuals and corporations.

I don't give a damn about social issues: Guns, Gay Marriage, Women's Rights, Mexicans....Blah Blah.....Couldn't care less either way.

Everybody is at each others throats because of money. If we can get the wealthy to pay the level of taxes that they used to, and if we keep corporations from shipping jobs overseas, things get a bit more reasonable for the average working man.

Hillary and Trump will never challenge the wealthy and powerful.

HitandRun Reggie

01-20-2016, 10:38 AM

She's not doing herself any favors by beating the gun control drum this early. NH has a HUGE gun ownership rate. It's the same mistake her husband made early into his presidency and gave the House to the Republicans, and even lost favorability in his own home state.

PistolPete

01-20-2016, 11:00 AM

Bernie!

The best thing about him is that he will try and reverse the unprecedented level of influence of wealthy individuals and corporations.

That's called Socialism. It has never worked in the History of Modern Civilization.

Derka

01-20-2016, 11:10 AM

That's called Socialism. It has never worked in the History of Modern Civilization.
Independents in New Hampshire may love that shit. Independents in Ohio, Michigan and other swing states really really don't.

MMM

01-20-2016, 11:13 AM

That's called Socialism. It has never worked in the History of Modern Civilization.

Not a socialist but socialism has been successfully in Canada and other European nations

Im Still Ballin

01-20-2016, 11:18 AM

Bernie doesn't have Trump's energy

He'd get Jeb'd

rufuspaul

01-20-2016, 11:22 AM

UK2K

01-20-2016, 11:24 AM

Independents in New Hampshire may love that shit. Independents in Ohio, Michigan and other swing states really really don't.

Only 14% of New Hampshire residents own guns.

That number is 20% in Ohio, and 29% in Michigan.

Take Your Lumps

01-20-2016, 11:27 AM

Bernie vs. Trump

:bowdown:

This is what I've been hoping for all along, the country needs to have an honest discourse about where we see ourselves going without many of the puppet masters getting in the way.

The GOP has outright rejected Bush III. If Bernie does really well in Iowa and then trounces Hillary in NH, it could get interesting.

I believe Trump secretly prefers to go up against Clinton II rather than another grassroots populist with momentum on his side.

2016 is starting to smell.....different.

Derka

01-20-2016, 11:35 AM

Only 14% of New Hampshire residents own guns.

That number is 20% in Ohio, and 29% in Michigan.
Okay. Appreciate the numbers but I wasn't really talking about gun ownership at all.

Take Your Lumps

01-20-2016, 11:35 AM

Anyone play around with their numbers on the Bernie healthcare plan savings calculator (https://valadian.github.io/SandersHealthcareCalculator/)?

Essentially, what his plan appears to boil down to is nullifying the private health insurance industry -- taking the massive profits they currently rake in on healthcare/drugs, and passing on that money as medicare savings to the vast majority of Americans. So, like the corporate socialism we currently employ but in reverse. The BAD kind of socialism.

I have two points of concern that I look forward to him explaining in the coming weeks/months:

1) How do we make sure we re-locate/re-train Americans currently working in the private insurance industry. I would imagine he'll have to have some sort of plan for this.
2) What will the tax structure look like for self-employed/1099 contractors?

HitandRun Reggie

01-20-2016, 11:42 AM

Only 14% of New Hampshire residents own guns.

That number is 20% in Ohio, and 29% in Michigan.

I dont believe that's true. NH is a big hunting state with fiercely independent attitudes. I'm seeing NH with a 30% gun ownership rate. For instance in 2009, NH sold about 15000+ guns for every 100,000 persons.

UK2K

01-20-2016, 11:43 AM

Okay. Appreciate the numbers but I wasn't really talking about gun ownership at all.

You were talking about independents believing in gun rights.

Well, I am showing you that the population that owns guns in Michigan is almost double New Hampshire. One would surmise that independents in Michigan would be even more heavily in favor of gun rights.

So, your premise that they don't care in two states that have a HIGHER gun ownership in NH seems... off.

UK2K

01-20-2016, 11:44 AM

I dont believe that's true. NH is a big hunting state with fiercely independent attitudes. I'm seeing NH with a 30% gun ownership rate. For instance in 2009, NH sold about 15000+ guns for every 100,000 persons.
http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-ownership-by-state-2015-7

As of July 3rd.

rufuspaul

01-20-2016, 11:48 AM

Anyone play around with their numbers on the Bernie healthcare plan savings calculator (https://valadian.github.io/SandersHealthcareCalculator/)?

Essentially, what his plan appears to boil down to is nullifying the private health insurance industry -- taking the massive profits they currently rake in on healthcare/drugs, and passing on that money as medicare savings to the vast majority of Americans. So, like the corporate socialism we currently employ but in reverse. The BAD kind of socialism.

That would never make it through congress. The insurance and drug company lobby is too strong.

DeuceWallaces

01-20-2016, 12:16 PM

Doesn't really matter and is expected. He's from Vermont. We'll see if he can win when the primaries move south and urban.

Take Your Lumps

01-20-2016, 12:18 PM

That would never make it through congress. The insurance and drug company lobby is too strong.

Right, that is the conventional wisdom. But it misses the point. If a guy like Bernie Sanders gets elected POTUS, it's because he riled a TON of people up and got them to start demanding worker-friendly legislation from their representatives. That's the only way things like this ever get done. The only thing politicians love more than money is the power their office embodies them with.

But yes, *IF* he were to get as far as being elected, it would take a minimum of 2 years to try and clean house in the midterms and get this plan off the ground.

I know ISH is overflowing with high rollers :rolleyes: but I'd be curious to find out how many of you would honestly be losing money under this plan.

Nanners

01-20-2016, 12:28 PM

i have a really hard time seeing bernie elected as president. the establishment is simply not gonna let that happen. if by some miracle it does happen, they certainly arent going to let him accomplish any of his goals.

Yoda

01-20-2016, 12:29 PM

The next president he will be.

Dave3

01-20-2016, 12:30 PM

That's called Socialism. It has never worked in the History of Modern Civilization.
Absolute socialism as in the USSR, no, you're right.

Social programs and government regulation to reign in the free market to prevent the monopolisation of each industry by one corporation, however on the other hand, have worked well.

Social security, basic healthcare, infrastructure, education, and unemployment benefits are in every single advanced society, and those are social services provided by the government. If these are socialism, then only socialist countries have worked in the history of modern civilization.

Dave3

01-20-2016, 12:32 PM

Right, that is the conventional wisdom. But it misses the point. If a guy like Bernie Sanders gets elected POTUS, it's because he riled a TON of people up and got them to start demanding worker-friendly legislation from their representatives. That's the only way things like this ever get done. The only thing politicians love more than money is the power their office embodies them with.

But yes, *IF* he were to get as far as being elected, it would take a minimum of 2 years to try and clean house in the midterms and get this plan off the ground.

I know ISH is overflowing with high rollers :rolleyes: but I'd be curious to find out how many of you would honestly be losing money under this plan.
The interesting thing actually is that most of his voters are upper/middle class, and they stand to gain the least, or possibly even lose a little from his policies (other than the actual top 1%).

This country has such an amazing phenomenon where you have such a huge amount of people on both sides of the aisle vote against their interest. If I didn't know anything about this country other than the policies of the two political parties, I'd think the rich would vote Republican and the poor would vote Democrat. I guess I'd be wrong though.

HitandRun Reggie

01-20-2016, 12:40 PM

http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-ownership-by-state-2015-7

As of July 3rd.

That data is based on a poll, and most likely not very accurate. A lot of people don't want to tell a stranger they own a firearm.

For instance that poll says 14.4% of NH own guns and 35+% of Texans own guns. Yet in 2015, there were 10,000 NICS checks (background check prior to a firearms purchase) per 100000 residents in NH but only 6000 per 100k in Texas. Remember, NH is the "Live Free or Die" state. :oldlol:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year_by_state.pdf

CP343

01-20-2016, 01:24 PM

:applause:

NumberSix

01-20-2016, 01:29 PM

Absolute socialism as in the USSR, no, you're right.

Social programs and government regulation to reign in the free market to prevent the monopolisation of each industry by one corporation, however on the other hand, have worked well.

Social security, basic healthcare, infrastructure, education, and unemployment benefits are in every single advanced society, and those are social services provided by the government. If these are socialism, then only socialist countries have worked in the history of modern civilization.
And you'll notice, none of those countries are the largest economic and military powers on the world and they have less individual freedom and less economic opportunity. Your great idea is that the United States should strive to be like less successful countries.

Derka

01-20-2016, 01:59 PM

You were talking about independents believing in gun rights.

Well, I am showing you that the population that owns guns in Michigan is almost double New Hampshire. One would surmise that independents in Michigan would be even more heavily in favor of gun rights.

So, your premise that they don't care in two states that have a HIGHER gun ownership in NH seems... off.
You're replying to the wrong person. I didn't say a word about gun ownership. I replied to someone talking about socialism.

UK2K

01-20-2016, 02:39 PM

That data is based on a poll, and most likely not very accurate. A lot of people don't want to tell a stranger they own a firearm.

For instance that poll says 14.4% of NH own guns and 35+% of Texans own guns. Yet in 2015, there were 10,000 NICS checks (background check prior to a firearms purchase) per 100000 residents in NH but only 6000 per 100k in Texas. Remember, NH is the "Live Free or Die" state. :oldlol:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year_by_state.pdf

That just means the same people are buying the guns. You can own 100 guns, go to a store to buy your 101st, and still get a background check.

100 background checks per 100,000 residents =/= 100 gun owners per 100,000 residents.

UK2K

01-20-2016, 02:41 PM

You're replying to the wrong person. I didn't say a word about gun ownership. I replied to someone talking about socialism.

You are correct, my bad.

You're probably thinking WTF.

HitandRun Reggie

01-20-2016, 03:15 PM

That just means the same people are buying the guns. You can own 100 guns, go to a store to buy your 101st, and still get a background check.

100 background checks per 100,000 residents =/= 100 gun owners per 100,000 residents.

While that is true. The same rule applies to Texas. It's highly unlikely there are just a few individuals buying lots of guns in NH but not in Texas. Plus you can buy up to 5 guns on your 4473(NICS), I've done it before. :D

The link you have has Massachusetts and California having a much higher gun ownership rate than NH, which doesn't make sense. NH has extremely lenient gun laws, because that's the way people there want them. Wiki has NH with a 30% gun ownership rate but I'm guessing it's much higher just by the amount of firearm applications processed.

The link you provided had 4000 participants throughout the nation which means there might have been a 100 or less NH residents polled.

But I have never been to the state. If there is an ISH member from NH maybe they could chime in on whether or not it they think it has a very low gun ownership rate.

bladefd

01-20-2016, 03:17 PM

That's called Socialism. It has never worked in the History of Modern Civilization.

How is that socialism? Democracy no longer works when a small percentage of people have all the power and influence in what goes on. How is it socialism when everyone gets an equal voice and a few very wealthy people can no longer buy elections? United States belongs to everyone, rich or poor. Your thinking makes no sense.

Socialism is when the government is so massive that they completely control production and distribution of products. Bernie's plan still has free market and private sector industries as they always were. They would have to pay more tax (Bernie said he is not going anywhere close to 90% under Eisenhower, a Republican) and no more superPACs to buy elections.

Im Still Ballin

01-20-2016, 03:19 PM

UK2K

01-20-2016, 03:30 PM

While that is true. The same rule applies to Texas. It's highly unlikely there are just a few individuals buying lots of guns in NH but not in Texas. Plus you can buy up to 5 guns on your 4473(NICS), I've done it before. :D

The link you have has Massachusetts and California having a much higher gun ownership rate than NH, which doesn't make sense. NH has extremely lenient gun laws, because that's the way people there want them. Wiki has NH with a 30% gun ownership rate but I'm guessing it's much higher just by the amount of firearm applications processed.

The link you provided had 4000 participants throughout the nation which means there might have been a 100 or less NH residents polled.

But I have never been to the state. If there is an ISH member from NH maybe they could chime in on whether or not it they think it has a very low gun ownership rate.

I would assume, given their low population and wild, wild wilderness, it would be higher than the 15% quoted in the article, but I don't know.

I did find this:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-producers/100315-beltway-Image-One.jpg

I'd say these numbers are probably closer to being accurate.

HitandRun Reggie

01-20-2016, 03:39 PM

I would assume, given their low population and wild, wild wilderness, it would be higher than the 15% quoted in the article, but I don't know.

I did find this:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.washingtonexaminer.biz/web-producers/100315-beltway-Image-One.jpg

I'd say these numbers are probably closer to being accurate.

Hmmm hard to tell without seeing how a source known to be biased like Mother Jones cherry picked the CDC info.

Coach Eddie

01-20-2016, 03:41 PM

Why wouldn't he win in New Hampshire? That and Vermont are in the bag for Sanders.

Rolando

01-20-2016, 03:47 PM

This.

Corporations have far too much influence. The politicians are bought and paid for. The government no longer represents the People.

What Bernie represents is a return to Democracy, not Socialism.

How is that socialism? Democracy no longer works when a small percentage of people have all the power and influence in what goes on. How is it socialism when everyone gets an equal voice and a few very wealthy people can no longer buy elections? United States belongs to everyone, rich or poor. Your thinking makes no sense.

Socialism is when the government is so massive that they completely control production and distribution of products. Bernie's plan still has free market and private sector industries as they always were. They would have to pay more tax (Bernie said he is not going anywhere close to 90% under Eisenhower, a Republican) and no more superPACs to buy elections.

bladefd

01-20-2016, 03:50 PM

Found the commie

How is it communist?

We both know things are falling apart in America. Politicians paid off and massive lobbying, huge superPACs for elections. Democracy is no longer working as it should be in America because the agendas of the politicians are driven by lobbyists.

Democracy works best when everyone has a voice. Not just the rich and massive corporations. That is not communism there, dummy. Communism is when citizens give up all their power to the government to run them. My belief is the exact opposite: citizens don't give up their power to anyone to control them. At the present, that power lies solely in the rich due to money. I want it to be driven by EVERYONE! When everyone is involved with money influencing Washington much less, that is when we have democracy that works. That is a democracy I want with everyone participating with one voice apiece. Nobody gets multiple votes or too much power as corporations do now.

I want democracy back. No more corporatism.

Coach Eddie

01-20-2016, 03:53 PM

How is it communist?

We both know things are falling apart in America. Politicians paid off and massive lobbying, huge superPACs for elections. Democracy is no longer working as it should be in America because the agendas of the politicians are driven by lobbyists.

Democracy works best when everyone has a voice. Not just the rich and massive corporations. That is not communism there, dummy. Communism is when citizens give up all your power to the government to run you. My belief is the exact opposite: citizens don't give up their power to anyone to control them. At the present, that power lies solely in the rich due to money. I want it to be driven by EVERYONE! When everyone is involved with money influencing Washington much less, that is when we have democracy that works. That is a democracy I want with everyone participating with one voice apiece. Nobody gets multiple votes or too much power as corporations do now.

I want democracy back. No more corporatism.
Agreed. We don't have a true democracy. The electoral college guarantees that. Socialism clearly can work better than this.

UK2K

01-20-2016, 04:25 PM

How is it communist?

We both know things are falling apart in America. Politicians paid off and massive lobbying, huge superPACs for elections. Democracy is no longer working as it should be in America because the agendas of the politicians are driven by lobbyists.

Democracy works best when everyone has a voice. Not just the rich and massive corporations. That is not communism there, dummy. Communism is when citizens give up all their power to the government to run them. My belief is the exact opposite: citizens don't give up their power to anyone to control them. At the present, that power lies solely in the rich due to money. I want it to be driven by EVERYONE! When everyone is involved with money influencing Washington much less, that is when we have democracy that works. That is a democracy I want with everyone participating with one voice apiece. Nobody gets multiple votes or too much power as corporations do now.

I want democracy back. No more corporatism.

I feel like your true desire for an overhaul of government is the belief that some people will suck at life, no matter what.

I am aware that in a capitalist society, there will always be rich and poor. I'm fine with that, because I know I will out work the vast majority of those in this country. As a reward for out working my peers, I am rewarded by more wealth.

I much prefer that method, than the method of 'everybody shares everything'. I know that if I dedicate myself and work harder than everyone else, I will have a better life than those who dont.

What's the problem with that?

Coach Eddie

01-20-2016, 05:13 PM

I feel like your true desire for an overhaul of government is the belief that some people will suck at life, no matter what.

I am aware that in a capitalist society, there will always be rich and poor. I'm fine with that, because I know I will out work the vast majority of those in this country. As a reward for out working my peers, I am rewarded by more wealth.

I much prefer that method, than the method of 'everybody shares everything'. I know that if I dedicate myself and work harder than everyone else, I will have a better life than those who dont.

What's the problem with that?
I'm just not a fan of leaving people who struggle in the gutter. Some basic help needs to be provided for those who can't do it themselves. I mix between capitalism and socialism is the best way of doing this. It raises the bar for the minimum, but you can still thrive even further as an individual through your hard work. It shouldn't be every man, woman, and child for themselves, even if you get benefit as an individual from your hard work and have to give back a little occasionally.

NumberSix

01-20-2016, 05:23 PM

How is it communist?

We both know things are falling apart in America. Politicians paid off and massive lobbying, huge superPACs for elections. Democracy is no longer working as it should be in America because the agendas of the politicians are driven by lobbyists.

Democracy works best when everyone has a voice. Not just the rich and massive corporations. That is not communism there, dummy. Communism is when citizens give up all their power to the government to run them. My belief is the exact opposite: citizens don't give up their power to anyone to control them. At the present, that power lies solely in the rich due to money. I want it to be driven by EVERYONE! When everyone is involved with money influencing Washington much less, that is when we have democracy that works. That is a democracy I want with everyone participating with one voice apiece. Nobody gets multiple votes or too much power as corporations do now.

I want democracy back. No more corporatism.
So don't vote for them. :hammerhead:

Corporations and PACs can spend all they want, they can't buy your vote.

Da fcuk you mean you want democracy back? You have it. You're free to vote for any candidate you want. You can donate money to any campaign you want. The problem isn't the system. It's the voters. The voters are free to vote for any fcuking person they want. If they democratically choose to vote for the wrong people, that's democracy. Not liking the results doesn't make it not democracy.

UK2K

01-20-2016, 05:38 PM

I'm just not a fan of leaving people who struggle in the gutter. Some basic help needs to be provided for those who can't do it themselves.
Sure. Some people are born retarded. My cousin is a perfect example. Adopted into our family, mother was a drug addict, the kid is pretty damn dumb. He's big, strong, and dumb.

But you know what he did? He got a job at something he could do, which is, manual labor.

But I agree, some help is needed. Everyone needs help from time to time, although some won't ask for it. That doesn't mean make welfare a lifestyle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JG71gZjzz4

People like her should be thrown in jail. Honestly.

I mix between capitalism and socialism is the best way of doing this. It raises the bar for the minimum, but you can still thrive even further as an individual through your hard work. It shouldn't be every man, woman, and child for themselves, even if you get benefit as an individual from your hard work and have to give back a little occasionally.

Why not? I will help my neighbors who need help, if I like them, but why shouldn't it be everyone for themselves. I like that idea. That way, there's nobody to blame but yourself. I will never ever blame someone else for where I am in my life, cause I know, deep down, that if I wanted better, I should have worked for it. I feel like everyone in this country can say the same thing.

I give back. I donate plenty to charities that go to a good cause. There's a difference between that and being obligated to help others. So Billy Bob in South Alabama can't find a job? How is that my problem? I bet you I can find him plenty of jobs. He may not like them, and it may be beneath him, but it puts food on the table and money in your pocket.

Like these gangbangers in the ghetto. 'Can't find no job, maaan'. Bet your ass I can find you a job. But you won't take it. You don't really want it. You don't want to wake up at 3am, or bust your ass all day in the heat, or cold, or mud. Yeah, you want a job my ass.

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/ea6c7492e49224b8bf081c869d10a758ded98986/c=0-0-842-633&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2015/12/16/USATODAY/USATODAY/635858514624066125-Screen-Shot-2015-12-16-at-8.28.11-AM.jpg

Like this dude. Lazy ****s. That pisses me off. They have no interest in a job, they have an interest in money, but they won't work for it like I will, which is why if I do work for it, I shouldn't be mandated to give any of it to them.

Dave3

01-20-2016, 06:27 PM

And you'll notice, none of those countries are the largest economic and military powers on the world and they have less individual freedom and less economic opportunity. Your great idea is that the United States should strive to be like less successful countries.
Uh, dude, I wasn't comparing the United States to other countries. The United States falls into the same category as those other countries, and has all those things I mentioned, with the exception of universal health care kind of, cuz your best Healthcare is for the poor and elderly while everyone else pays for it.

Just a PS. point though - what's the point in being the largest economic power when 90% of your citizens don't feel it? Like yeah you can say you're the richest and the most powerful but you have higher poverty than the majority of civilized countries,, the 37th most successful Healthcare system, rank 17th in education, and outside the top 10 countries in life satusfaction. Like yeah it's great for a country to be uber rich, but if only like 5-10% of he country experiences that, what's the point?

And less individual freedom? I'm Canadian and I feel pretty free to do whatever I want. Can you give me an example of a freedom you have that I don't? I legit don't know what you mean by that.

bladefd

01-20-2016, 06:30 PM

So don't vote for them. :hammerhead:

Corporations and PACs can spend all they want, they can't buy your vote.

Da fcuk you mean you want democracy back? You have it. You're free to vote for any candidate you want. You can donate money to any campaign you want. The problem isn't the system. It's the voters. The voters are free to vote for any fcuking person they want. If they democratically choose to vote for the wrong people, that's democracy. Not liking the results doesn't make it not democracy.

Other than Bernie, they all have superpacs or backing of huge money that circumvent the system through lobbying. Why not get rid of these superPACs? Legislation is what made superPACs legal so remove that legislation legalizing the superPACs.

It is not just the voting aspect but once the politicians get voted in, the lobbyists start pushing their way into pockets of these politicians to do what they want done. Corporations have the largest voice in the room.. corporations are not individuals but their.money they throw around influence every decision. That must change.

KyrieTheFuture

01-20-2016, 06:47 PM

I feel like your true desire for an overhaul of government is the belief that some people will suck at life, no matter what.

I am aware that in a capitalist society, there will always be rich and poor. I'm fine with that, because I know I will out work the vast majority of those in this country. As a reward for out working my peers, I am rewarded by more wealth.

I much prefer that method, than the method of 'everybody shares everything'. I know that if I dedicate myself and work harder than everyone else, I will have a better life than those who dont.

What's the problem with that?
It's not like every citizen is gonna be making 35k a year no matter who you are. There will still be rich and poor, the rich will just have a harder time owning 5 houses and the poor will have less trouble buying food. Not that bad. It's not like being a millionaire is gonna be impossible.

UK2K

01-20-2016, 09:29 PM

It's not like every citizen is gonna be making 35k a year no matter who you are. There will still be rich and poor, the rich will just have a harder time owning 5 houses and the poor will have less trouble buying food. Not that bad. It's not like being a millionaire is gonna be impossible.
It's not now. You or I could have done it. I could go back to when I was 16 and think of all the choices I made since then, and without a doubt I could have studied harder and gotten into an ivy league school. Everyone in America can do that same exercise, and point to a time when they shouldn't have ****ed up. But then what? Nobody is willing to put in the effort (the effort they didn't make when they were younger) to change it. That's nobody's fault but their own.

But I didnt, and I'm perfectly cool with that. I'm not rich, and I'm cool with that too. I fully acknowledge people who make more than me have, without a doubt, worked harder than me. That's life.

It works like that when you're in school, and guess what, it works like that in the real world too.

Instead of making excuses for the behavior, learn from it. I know, I had a bank account with $0 in it, no place to live, and no job. I spent my last few bucks on pills. That's called being poor, and being discouraged. I had nothing. Nothing but an old Geo Tracker that I couldn't drive far cause the radiator would overheat.

I'm living very well now. And it's not cause I'm white, or cause I have a degree (I didnt), it's cause I got tired of being nothing.

What you do with your life is all your responsibility. It's not anyone else's.

NumberSix

01-20-2016, 09:44 PM

KyrieTheFuture

01-21-2016, 01:02 AM

It's not now. You or I could have done it. I could go back to when I was 16 and think of all the choices I made since then, and without a doubt I could have studied harder and gotten into an ivy league school. Everyone in America can do that same exercise, and point to a time when they shouldn't have ****ed up. But then what? Nobody is willing to put in the effort (the effort they didn't make when they were younger) to change it. That's nobody's fault but their own.

But I didnt, and I'm perfectly cool with that. I'm not rich, and I'm cool with that too. I fully acknowledge people who make more than me have, without a doubt, worked harder than me. That's life.

It works like that when you're in school, and guess what, it works like that in the real world too.

Instead of making excuses for the behavior, learn from it. I know, I had a bank account with $0 in it, no place to live, and no job. I spent my last few bucks on pills. That's called being poor, and being discouraged. I had nothing. Nothing but an old Geo Tracker that I couldn't drive far cause the radiator would overheat.

I'm living very well now. And it's not cause I'm white, or cause I have a degree (I didnt), it's cause I got tired of being nothing.

What you do with your life is all your responsibility. It's not anyone else's.

Well I'm hardly the most left leaning person here, I at least hope you and six don't group with me DW. I would support time limits on these benefits, but a safety net should exist. I think they should also be much stricter. I'd rather have super markets have packs of food for people on benefits where that's what you get. Veggies, eggs, meat, bread, etc. No buying doritos on welfare. If I had faith in people to help each other out, it'd be a lot easier for me to say, no we shouldn't have taxes so that the government can provide for people. I am well aware that the gov is horribly inefficient. But I'd rather have people in rough patches have inefficient help than no help.

For what it's worth I think free college is ****ing asinine. I went to an absurdly expensive school, but am lucky enough to have a father who worked hard enough that I didn't need loans. If you take out loans to go to Syracuse, you're an idiot. Not even worth remotely close to 200k. I would hesitate to say it was worth anything. I learned nothing of value in college that job training couldn't teach me, and guess what? Most jobs still provide that training because colleges don't teach shit. Before realizing the corporate world wasn't my forte, literally everything I applied for had a minimum training period of 3 months, most were 6-12. Amazing.

And I don't give half a **** what happens to taxes taken from corporations. They need to actually pay taxes. We can lower the rate when you can guarantee me they'll pay it.

Take Your Lumps

01-21-2016, 09:45 AM

I went to an absurdly expensive school, but am lucky enough to have a father who worked hard enough that I didn't need loans.

No child left behind - unless you have a piece of shit dad. Then **** you pay us.

UK2K

01-21-2016, 10:02 AM

Well I'm hardly the most left leaning person here, I at least hope you and six don't group with me DW. I would support time limits on these benefits, but a safety net should exist. I think they should also be much stricter. I'd rather have super markets have packs of food for people on benefits where that's what you get. Veggies, eggs, meat, bread, etc. No buying doritos on welfare. If I had faith in people to help each other out, it'd be a lot easier for me to say, no we shouldn't have taxes so that the government can provide for people. I am well aware that the gov is horribly inefficient. But I'd rather have people in rough patches have inefficient help than no help.

For what it's worth I think free college is ****ing asinine. I went to an absurdly expensive school, but am lucky enough to have a father who worked hard enough that I didn't need loans. If you take out loans to go to Syracuse, you're an idiot. Not even worth remotely close to 200k. I would hesitate to say it was worth anything. I learned nothing of value in college that job training couldn't teach me, and guess what? Most jobs still provide that training because colleges don't teach shit. Before realizing the corporate world wasn't my forte, literally everything I applied for had a minimum training period of 3 months, most were 6-12. Amazing.

And I don't give half a **** what happens to taxes taken from corporations. They need to actually pay taxes. We can lower the rate when you can guarantee me they'll pay it.

And honestly, I agree with pretty much everything you said.

I have no problem with welfare, because shit does happen in life, but someone on welfare should not ever eat better than someone who works for a living. Ever.

http://www.whec.com/article/stories/s4022816.shtml

Story from yesterday... Yesterday.

[QUOTE]In October, police say an investigation into the Murray Superette revealed that the store owners and employees were illegally exchanging supplement nutritional assistance program, commonly referred to as Snap, for cash at 70 percent. Police also say that the store allowed customers to buy cigarettes, untaxed cigarettes, alcohol, lottery tickets, gasoline, and other non-permissible items using Snap.

Orleans County officials conducted over 130 interviews with individuals who had used their EBT cards over the past several years at the Murray Superette. As a result of the interviews, 51-year-old Taras Salamaca was charged with misuse of food stamps, grand larceny, scheme to defraud, and criminal sale of untaxed cigarettes. Salamaca

kNIOKAS

01-21-2016, 11:40 AM

And honestly, I agree with pretty much everything you said.

I have no problem with welfare, because shit does happen in life, but someone on welfare should not ever eat better than someone who works for a living. Ever.

Why? Why do you choose to be this crab in a barrel, controlling what another person eats?

Why then don't you look that the rich people in positions of power don't eat as well as you do, because they don't even have to work - their fortune is inherited, or they just hire somebody to manage their funds and live off of the interest. Why not care about them and you??

Dresta

01-22-2016, 11:14 AM

How is that socialism? Democracy no longer works when a small percentage of people have all the power and influence in what goes on. How is it socialism when everyone gets an equal voice and a few very wealthy people can no longer buy elections? United States belongs to everyone, rich or poor. Your thinking makes no sense.

Socialism is when the government is so massive that they completely control production and distribution of products. Bernie's plan still has free market and private sector industries as they always were. They would have to pay more tax (Bernie said he is not going anywhere close to 90% under Eisenhower, a Republican) and no more superPACs to buy elections.
Myth. Nobody pays those rates (or ever did):

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-MKp5Gxth1Ts/TXagbflY1oI/AAAAAAAAAEY/TnlmtGXwxkg/s1600/U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1 945%25E2%2580%25932015.jpg

What clearly needs to come down is spending. It is not possible to have a tax system (particularly in this country) that sustains the sheer mass of wasteful spending we're currently engaged in, the endless agencies and bureaucracies that comprise the Federal Government, and so on. It doesn't matter how much you try to tax people: you will not get enough revenue.

I also think you need to question your belief in the democratic process at the moment, because what you seem to think is possible, has never been achieved, and never can. Democracy does not give people an equal voice - how exactly can everyone have a voice in a nation of over 300,000 million people? The concept is laughable. Genuine leadership, whether good or bad, will always exist and always be necessary; when democracy tries to deny these things it just leads to mass delusion, and becomes a nuisance. Great leaders are needed as much in a democracy as in any other form of government, but the attitude you are taking towards democracy, destroys any hope for good leadership, and instead replaces it with scurrilous demagogues who promise the impossible, and manipulate the people to their own ends.

UK2K

01-22-2016, 11:20 AM

Why? Why do you choose to be this crab in a barrel, controlling what another person eats?

Why then don't you look that the rich people in positions of power don't eat as well as you do, because they don't even have to work - their fortune is inherited, or they just hire somebody to manage their funds and live off of the interest. Why not care about them and you??

Because they didn't pay for it. You don't tell me what to eat, because I choose what and where, and pay for it with my own money. And because it teaches kids at a younger age the benefits of healthy eating habits.

You have a problem with preventing parents, who don't pay for their own food, being forced to buy healthy, well-balanced meals? Why?

Norcaliblunt

01-22-2016, 02:32 PM

UK2K

01-22-2016, 02:52 PM

So what you are saying is you want big government and empire.

Having a big military =/= 80,000 pages of tax code.

bladefd

01-22-2016, 03:24 PM

Myth. Nobody pays those rates (or ever did):

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-MKp5Gxth1Ts/TXagbflY1oI/AAAAAAAAAEY/TnlmtGXwxkg/s1600/U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_GDP_1 945%25E2%2580%25932015.jpg

You are 100% wrong.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets

Look at the 1960s. Income tax was around 90%.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/RV-AB458B_TAXID_NS_20110128190801.jpg

NumberSix

01-22-2016, 03:25 PM

So what you are saying is you want big government and empire.
1. Having a military =/= big government

2. What have I said that makes you think that I want to conquer and colonize other lands?

UK2K

01-22-2016, 03:39 PM

You are 100% wrong.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets

Look at the 1960s. Income tax was around 90%.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/RV-AB458B_TAXID_NS_20110128190801.jpg

Looks like they need to lower taxes.

You can pay 40% on wages, but 24% on capital gains? Solution? Lower the wage tax.

The problem with that is, since only half in this country actually pay, you would need government to stop spending so much. Unfortunately, we all know that will never happen though.

bladefd

01-22-2016, 03:58 PM

What clearly needs to come down is spending. It is not possible to have a tax system (particularly in this country) that sustains the sheer mass of wasteful spending we're currently engaged in, the endless agencies and bureaucracies that comprise the Federal Government, and so on. It doesn't matter how much you try to tax people: you will not get enough revenue.

No disagreement here. They need to consolidate several agencies and kill a few. For instance,, what does the FBI need a foreign intelligence department for? The CIA handles all foreign intelligence matters. I know there is friction there but make the FBI work with the CIA rather than step on each other's toes. IRS needs to be simplified. Reel in some of the excess military spending (keep it at 600 billion, don’t need more). Cancel several other unnecessary programs.

I also think you need to question your belief in the democratic process at the moment, because what you seem to think is possible, has never been achieved, and never can. Democracy does not give people an equal voice - how exactly can everyone have a voice in a nation of over 300,000 million people? The concept is laughable. Genuine leadership, whether good or bad, will always exist and always be necessary; when democracy tries to deny these things it just leads to mass delusion, and becomes a nuisance. Great leaders are needed as much in a democracy as in any other form of government, but the attitude you are taking towards democracy, destroys any hope for good leadership, and instead replaces it with scurrilous demagogues who promise the impossible, and manipulate the people to their own ends.

I think you misunderstood my point. I don't mean each citizen should be able to vote on everything that happens in the country. That would be very tough to work out. But I don't want corporations to be heard thanks to money being thrown around while the voters are simply blanketed out. Look at the choices we have to vote from -- they ALL have superpacs but Bernie Sanders. Essentially, they were all for sale and have already been bought out by different corporations trying to push their own agendas (i.e. Koch brothers - climate change is not happening, all scientists are in a conspiracy to bring down oil/coal industry).

Well, I will tell you this... I don't want corporatism. We are getting there with politicians paid off through massive lobbying from corporations (who btw also do major tax evasions by circumventing the system). Not only is their voice the loudest thanks to $$ but they cheat everyone by placing big money overseas in foreign countries/institutions. I know legislation cannot solve the latter (all you an do is close the loopholes) but it can solve the former by dropping superPACs. It was legislation that made superPACs legal but if they drop that legislation (citizens united) then that will be the end of superPACs.

I don't expect any other candidate outside of Bernie Sanders to push to drop superPACs since they all have one.

kentatm

01-22-2016, 04:23 PM

Norcaliblunt

01-22-2016, 04:26 PM

1. Having a military =/= big government

2. What have I said that makes you think that I want to conquer and colonize other lands?

You implied you wanted the U.S. to sustain being the largest military power in the world. Not just "having a miliatry". And that was your definition of a successful country. With that sort of goal comes empire for obvious reasons. What you've never heard of anything called the "military industrial complex"?

So every other program the government puts its hands on is rendered inefficient, wasteful, and nefarious, but somehow the military is magically excempt from the same.

I laugh at these people who want the government to do something for them whenever it's something they see fit (like have the largest military in the world), but as soon as someone mentions anything else they are like "Not that!!!!! Government is bad!!!!" Lol. ****ing hypocrites.

NumberSix

01-23-2016, 11:38 AM

You implied you wanted the U.S. to sustain being the largest military power in the world. Not just "having a miliatry". And that was your definition of a successful country. With that sort of goal comes empire for obvious reasons. What you've never heard of anything called the "military industrial complex"?

So every other program the government puts its hands on is rendered inefficient, wasteful, and nefarious, but somehow the military is magically excempt from the same.

I laugh at these people who want the government to do something for them whenever it's something they see fit (like have the largest military in the world), but as soon as someone mentions anything else they are like "Not that!!!!! Government is bad!!!!" Lol. ****ing hypocrites.
I would love not having a military. It's just not possible. It's either have a military or get conquered and colonized by some other country that does.