@jointed: Trump spent most of his life supporting these "leftists" but now he panders to you and you think he's the greatest.
Hillary Clinton or her side of the democratic party are by no means part of the leftist rout I'm talking about. She's desperately trying to pander to them though.
Now as for your Trump-babble... I'm not a Trump-supporter. Let me explain. Just because I, hypothetically, get off reading about communists and socialists getting killed in various historical conflicts doesn't mean that I have any vested interest in who's doing the killing.
I don't think Hilary Clinton is evil, I think she's ambitious. There is a difference, and I don't think she's done anything any worse than any of our great presidents, who were also ambitious. But, she has to deal with the internet and a long public record, the fact that she's a woman, and Republicans that know if she's the nominee the Democrats will win.
I don't think Hilary Clinton is evil, I think she's ambitious. There is a difference, and I don't think she's done anything any worse than any of our great presidents, who were also ambitious. But, she has to deal with the internet and a long public record, the fact that she's a woman, and Republicans that know if she's the nominee the Democrats will win.
I'm not sure how being politically guided by big businesses is ambitious. If anything, it seems too easy and the opposite of ambitious - she's fighting hard to maintain the status quo. Add given that she's a woman it seems like she really has the easy road this election...
His policies are identifiably socialist, and so it can be said that every plan formed from that basis resulting in a profit can be attributed to the policies that he implemented as mayor of Burlington. Another comment that I would like to say is that claiming any city is wealthy "by default" is a severe oversimplification of the struggles of thousands of families over generations at best. Moving forward, his personal net worth is an aspect of his background that supports his socialist views as a great amount of wealth would contradict that in favor of the extremely wealthy who those supporting his campaign oppose. Furthermore, having over one thousand delegates, and winning the previous six out of seven states in comparison to Secretary Clinton is quite promising.
I am not certain that you are aware of what his ideals are as you were unaware of his education background as a disqualification of your claim that he is unintelligent.
And socialism is exactly what I disagree with. It's on that basis that I called him unintelligent.
Claiming any city is wealthy by default is basically the summation of the struggles of the populace. Cities don't magically become wealthy in order for me to assert otherwise. His personal net worth is down there not because of his socialist policies but his poor spending. He has a car worth $172k. And his family expenditure I already stated above. Trump on the other hand utilized his wealth well. He has created more jobs than Sanders have. Bear it in mind that everything I'm saying about Sanders is in comparison to Trump so don't misconstrue anything as being my absolute statement regarding Sanders.
If you think Donald Trump is a good businessman, then you would be surprised. Considering how he handled his $300 million inherited assets compared to the average businessman, his record is below average.
Supporting alternatives is fine if substantiated, but using Donald Trump as an example of good investments is disturbing. It is more so when used as a counter to Senator Sanders' net worth, as his is estimated as nearly double the average male his age. Compare Donald Trump to someone like Elon Musk who basically came from no wealth and you can see the difference between Trump and an above-average businessman.
Further, your persisting defense of your attack on Senator Sanders' intelligence is ultimately an unsuccessful argument as his record disproves that notion by human standards. Additionally, to say that supporting socialism is a final quantification of intelligence says much about emotional intelligence.
His policies are identifiably socialist, and so it can be said that every plan formed from that basis resulting in a profit can be attributed to the policies that he implemented as mayor of Burlington. Another comment that I would like to say is that claiming any city is wealthy "by default" is a severe oversimplification of the struggles of thousands of families over generations at best. Moving forward, his personal net worth is an aspect of his background that supports his socialist views as a great amount of wealth would contradict that in favor of the extremely wealthy who those supporting his campaign oppose. Furthermore, having over one thousand delegates, and winning the previous six out of seven states in comparison to Secretary Clinton is quite promising.
I am not certain that you are aware of what his ideals are as you were unaware of his education background as a disqualification of your claim that he is unintelligent.
And socialism is exactly what I disagree with. It's on that basis that I called him unintelligent.
Claiming any city is wealthy by default is basically the summation of the struggles of the populace. Cities don't magically become wealthy in order for me to assert otherwise. His personal net worth is down there not because of his socialist policies but his poor spending. He has a car worth $172k. And his family expenditure I already stated above. Trump on the other hand utilized his wealth well. He has created more jobs than Sanders have. Bear it in mind that everything I'm saying about Sanders is in comparison to Trump so don't misconstrue anything as being my absolute statement regarding Sanders.
If you think Donald Trump is a good businessman, then you would be surprised. Considering how he handled his $300 million inherited assets compared to the average businessman, his record is below average.
Supporting alternatives is fine if substantiated, but using Donald Trump as an example of good investments is disturbing. It is more so when used as a counter to Senator Sanders' net worth, as his is estimated as nearly double the average male his age. Compare Donald Trump to someone like Elon Musk who basically came from no wealth and you can see the difference between Trump and an above-average businessman.
Further, your persisting to defend your attack on Senator Sanders' intelligence is ultimately an unsuccessful argument as his record disproves that notion by human standards. To say that supporting socialism is a final quantification of intelligence says much about emotional intelligence.
And the fact that being businessman is not the same as being a capitalist. If you're given $50 today and still have that $50 tomorrow then you're as good of a business man as Donald Trump.
Trump's not a capitalist either. Being a business man that throws money around does not make you a capitalist. The reality is that no politicians are capitalists.
As far as socialism is concerned, it has proven to be a failed economic model. You can dismiss this by saying "but they didn't do it right", but what is the right way to do it, and what does Sander's plan to do any differently?
The only thing that could be used to demean Sander's intellect is the fact that he obviously does not understand the limits of power in regards to any portion of the Constitution. Trump doesn't either so I guess neither of them care much for the laws of the land.
@Johnny-n-Roger: Socialism seems to have been successful for the fire departments of the United States.
Moving on, putting the money that is in your name in a hole for a day is not business or investment. Furthermore, I do not think that anyone said anything about business being universally capitalist.
@Johnny-n-Roger: Socialism seems to have been successful for the fire departments of the United States.
Moving on, putting the money that is in your name in a hole for a day is not business or investment. Furthermore, I do not think that anyone said anything about business being universally capitalist.
"the fire departments" isn't a government entity. That's like saying "socialism works in marching bands".
I was being sarcastic by implying that Donald Trump throwing money around doesn't make him a good business man. Didn't intend for you to miss the point.
The point is that by calling Bernie Sanders stupid because he's a Socialist has to assume that Donald Trump is something economically superior. That's where capitalism came into the picture. Donald Trump has gotten more government subsidies than all of the Mexicans he wants to deport. Again, not my intention to get you caught up on capitalism and such overt heresy.
As far as "We can do socialism right" is nothing but typical American arrogance.
@GreySeal9: What a stupid opening post. I'm sorry but that article was lame as hell. Sanders answered the questions just fine and correctly. Hillary is a joke. She's a corporate shill and supported Bill Clinton in repealing Glass-Steagle which caused the recession by allowing investment banks to merge with commercial banks and to gamble with our money. If you support Clinton, you are severely uninformed. Trump is an idiot. He's a spoiled rich moron with bimbo wives and lack of critical thinking. He bankrupt so many of his companies and over-hypes his wealth. He's also going to bankrupt the nation with a 20% flat tax and is completely against the constitution (ban Muslims, against privacy, silence and sue media). Sanders is perhaps the most morally good and intelligent candidate running for President.
@Johnny-n-Roger: Socialism seems to have been successful for the fire departments of the United States.
Moving on, putting the money that is in your name in a hole for a day is not business or investment. Furthermore, I do not think that anyone said anything about business being universally capitalist.
"the fire departments" isn't a government entity. That's like saying "socialism works in marching bands".
I was being sarcastic by implying that Donald Trump throwing money around doesn't make him a good business man. Didn't intend for you to miss the point.
The point is that by calling Bernie Sanders stupid because he's a Socialist has to assume that Donald Trump is something economically superior. That's where capitalism came into the picture. Donald Trump has gotten more government subsidies than all of the Mexicans he wants to deport. Again, not my intention to get you caught up on capitalism and such overt heresy.
As far as "We can do socialism right" is nothing but typical American arrogance.
Almost all of the fire departments in the United States are public, funded by the United States government, and are special purpose government authorities. In fact, there are three types of fire departments. They are federal, municipal, and private. Where do you think most of their funding comes from?
I understood your point fine, and I recognized and1salttape's as well. That is, he was saying that political philosophy essentially defines intelligence, and you were saying a negation. Rather than identifying what Donald Trump is beyond a businessman, you were saying that he definitely is not that. Again, I said nothing about that, so if you have a point, I think you should probably say that first. Moving on to the quoted comment, as I mentioned, the old model of business is about profit before purpose. Since this is what Donald Trump has done throughout much of his career, this is what I was discussing rather than capitalism, specifically.
Having said that, it is true that strictly speaking, socialism has not ever worked. However, government programs such as the fire departments of the United States have.
"the fire departments" isn't a government entity. That's like saying "socialism works in marching bands".
I was being sarcastic by implying that Donald Trump throwing money around doesn't make him a good business man. Didn't intend for you to miss the point.
The point is that by calling Bernie Sanders stupid because he's a Socialist has to assume that Donald Trump is something economically superior. That's where capitalism came into the picture. Donald Trump has gotten more government subsidies than all of the Mexicans he wants to deport. Again, not my intention to get you caught up on capitalism and such overt heresy.
As far as "We can do socialism right" is nothing but typical American arrogance.
Almost all of the fire departments in the United States are public, funded by the United States government, and are special purpose government authorities. In fact, there are three types of fire departments. They are federal, municipal, and private. Where do you think most of their funding comes from?
I understood your point fine, and I recognized and1salttape's as well. That is, he was saying that political philosophy essentially defines intelligence, and you were saying a negation. Rather than identifying what Donald Trump is beyond a businessman, you were saying that he definitely is not that. Again, I said nothing about that, so if you have a point, I think you should probably say that first. Moving on to the quoted comment, as I mentioned, the old model of business is about profit before purpose. Since this is what Donald Trump has done throughout much of his career, this is what I was discussing rather than capitalism, specifically.
Having said that, it is true that strictly speaking, socialism has not ever worked. However, government programs such as the fire departments of the United States have.
In regards to my "having $50 today and having it tomorrow makes you as good of a businessman as Trump." Lets not elaborate my intentional oversimplification to turn my assertion that Trump would have been as well off today had he simply had invested in the Stock Market into some sort of disagreement. Trump is no less of a Socialist than Bernie Sanders. Continuing to belabor this point serves no purpose.
On to the core issue of "Government Programs" and "Socialism" as an economic model:
Federal Fire Departments are federally funded. The necessity for federal grants in regards to Municipal FDs only exists because of the federal government's devaluation of that municipality's tax base providing them with an inability to generate sufficient revenue to fund their own municipal Fire Departments. The existence of different "types" of fire departments is in agreement with the fact that there is no "Federal Fire Department" or "United States Fire Department."
The private sector and capitalism function on supply and demand. You could not sell security in exchange for capital without having an incentive to provide or perpetuate a security issue to further demand and increase your revenue rather than to eliminate the problem and fail as a business model. You could not completely privatize a Fire Department without creating an industry with a vested interest in creating or promoting arson. This is why issues regarding a citizen's personal safety and security of their assets is the government's obligation. This is not an example of socialism, similar to how the Armed Forces are not an example of socialism.
You, yourself, have taken the stance that "socialism has never worked" and that "government programs" do. Does this stance intend to imply that "government programs" are forms of socialism? At what point do government programs create a socialist economy?
You are clearly a causal if you didnt not see what that interview did and was set out to do.
That interview got picked apart and highly criticize for play slizzy gotcha and entrapment.
He explain his plan of breaking the banks through the treasury and DodFrank and they kept bring up it the FED, he wasnt mentioning the FED, so they kept asking him and he said he wouldnt know about doing it that way, so they spin it to what you fell for: "He doesnt know!!!" Then the brought up a super specific case about some nonesense and he repiled that he hasnt studied that case, "OMG he's clueless! We got him"
And so on.
This was the whole point for people like you to fall for it.
I've already read numerous articles and dozens of video about how this interview was a bullshit set up. Only the Hillary supporter and those unaware will fall for it.
If you seriously think he doesnt know, you are a buffoon
You are clearly a causal if you didnt not see what that interview did and was set out to do.
That interview got picked apart and highly criticize for play slizzy gotcha and entrapment.
He explain his plan of breaking the banks through the treasury and DodFrank and they kept bring up it the FED, he wasnt mentioning the FED, so they kept asking him and he said he wouldnt know about doing it that way, so they spin it to what you fell for: "He doesnt know!!!" Then the brought up a super specific case about some nonesense and he repiled that he hasnt studied that case, "OMG he's clueless! We got him"
And so on.
This was the whole point for people like you to fall for it.
I've already read numerous articles and dozens of video about how this interview was a bullshit set up. Only the Hillary supporter and those unaware will fall for it.
If you seriously think he doesnt know, you are a buffoon
Do you know what the Federal Reserve is and what they do? The government has no authority over the Fed. That's not some "well I might have to look into it" detail. Whether he knows or not isn't really relevant, whats relevant is that his plan isn't possible if it doesn't involve repealing the Federal Reserve Act and making all currency in circulation worth nothing.
The whole point is that people like you fall for Bernie Sanders and think he can do half the shit he promises. And half is being generous.
There is not a U.S. fire department, but there is a more appropriate U.S. Fire Administration. In Bernie Sanders words when mayor of Burlington, Vermont, to paraphrase, "Socialism is democracy where the people are not ruled by the wealthy billionares." By this logic, I think that a socialist economy develops when there are many markets that favor the middle class rather than the wealthiest people in the United States. Perhaps this is not always appropriate, but in contemporary time with the middle class shrinking, so to speak, it may be a good way to reestablish the strength of the United States economy, and more importantly, the United States identity.
About the devaluation of municipal tax bases, that is an interesting correlation to think about, and that is part of a broader issue. That said, fire departments are, indeed, typically special government authorities.
There is not a U.S. fire department, but there is a more appropriate U.S. Fire Administration. In Bernie Sanders words when mayor of Burlington, Vermont, to paraphrase, "Socialism is democracy where the people are not ruled by the wealthy billionares." By this logic, I think that a socialist economy develops when there are many markets that favor the middle class rather than the wealthiest people in the United States. Perhaps this is not always appropriate, but in contemporary time with the middle class shrinking, so to speak, it may be a good way to reestablish the strength of the United States economy, and more importantly, the United States identity.
About the devaluation of municipal tax bases, that is an interesting correlation to think about, and that is part of a broader issue. That said, fire departments are, indeed, typically special government authorities.
When Does Socialism Develop:
I believe that socialism, by definition, develops when the government directly interacts with a market. It's when the government gives "incentives" to businesses for being friendly to them or grants them bailouts when their business fails. Government interaction with the free market is why we see such disparity and a disintegrating middle class. This would primarily include the Federal Reserve system that allows a dollar to be worth whatever they say its worth.
Democracy Paradox:
I also find the statement "Socialism is democracy where the people are not ruled by the wealthy billionaires" to be untrue unless you replace the term socialism with something else.
The United States is a Representative Democracy, or Republic, because pure democracy is a paradox. Majority rule = mob rule. It would always boil down to anarchy. There has to be a representative intermediate.
The problem with our current system is that those who are elected representatives only serve corporate interests. This is not any form of democracy, yet it is overtly socialist.
Socialism Defined - any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Corporations and Bankers have created career politicians to appease their interests, thereby becoming the government. When industries become the governing power I would say that we are already Socialist. To further substantiate my claim, The Federal Reserve regulates every aspect of our economy by controlling the value of our currency and there is no authority to which they are held accountable. This is collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; Socialism defined.
To be honest, I oppose socialism because it is what we already have and will always be the end result of any form of socialism in a utilitarian paradigm. We only lack any form of democracy, hence our current economic disparity. It's hard to say "we need socialism" when it will only serve to undermine our liberties in the absence of democracy.
You are clearly a causal if you didnt not see what that interview did and was set out to do.
That interview got picked apart and highly criticize for play slizzy gotcha and entrapment.
He explain his plan of breaking the banks through the treasury and DodFrank and they kept bring up it the FED, he wasnt mentioning the FED, so they kept asking him and he said he wouldnt know about doing it that way, so they spin it to what you fell for: "He doesnt know!!!" Then the brought up a super specific case about some nonesense and he repiled that he hasnt studied that case, "OMG he's clueless! We got him"
And so on.
This was the whole point for people like you to fall for it.
I've already read numerous articles and dozens of video about how this interview was a bullshit set up. Only the Hillary supporter and those unaware will fall for it.
If you seriously think he doesnt know, you are a buffoon
LOL. This might be the stupidest defense of any politician I have ever seen. It's not the interviewer's fault that Bernie has no clue what's talking about and the fact that he is so ignorant doesn't make me a buffoon. it makes you a buffoon.
Bernie has been all about talking points over specifics from the beginning and somehow I'm supposed to have faith that he knows despite evidence to the contrary? Sorry, I don't engage in Bernie hero worship, so I'm not buying that.
@GreySeal9: What a stupid opening post. I'm sorry but that article was lame as hell. Sanders answered the questions just fine and correctly.
Just because you say he answered the questions fine and correctly doesn't mean he did. If you're going to call the article lame, the least you could do is actually explain why these answers were satisfactory. But I doubt you actually understand the exchanges between the interviewer and Sanders. You're just taking it on faith that Bernie's answers are good because you think he's so great.
I deleted all your tired ranting about Hillary because I recognize that it's designed to distract from Bernie's failings.
Im feeling the Bern no matter what happens. I will love him forever and always.
The absolutely hero worship of Bernie supporters is another thing I dislike about his movement.
Don't worry, dude. I absolutely will vote for Hillary if she wins. I love Bernie Sanders but I'm not stupid. I'm afraid of the Bern or Burn supporters who won't vote unless he gets the nom.
They blame Hillary for everything, it's really getting tiresome.
Can you image how bad they'd rake Hillary over the coals if she bombed a policy-oriented interview like this? There would be no end to the accusations that she only got as far as she did because she is a Clinton and has a vagina.
Hillary can't say anything without Sanders supporters pouncing at her and yet when Bernie bombs an interview, they can't stop making excuses. It's so irritating. Bernie supporters are easily definitely the second worst group of supporters after Trump's. Being low information and prone to hero worship is an awful combination.
Funny you mention that. Probably the only reason Hillary is under so much scrutiny in the first place is because she has a vagina. Her mistakes are blown so out of proportion, especially when compared to the many mistakes tons of presidential candidates have made in the past.
As for what the supporters are like, I have no idea. I'm not going to lie, I like a lot of Bernie's policies, I think they'd be great for the current USA... but will he be able to implement any of them? lolno
She's under scrutiny because she should be in jail, and has over 140 fbi agents investigating her for her email shit and she has a history of being corrupt and generally a shitty person.
You people need to stopmaking excuses and making people victims.
They blame Hillary for everything, it's really getting tiresome.
Can you image how bad they'd rake Hillary over the coals if she bombed a policy-oriented interview like this? There would be no end to the accusations that she only got as far as she did because she is a Clinton and has a vagina.
Hillary can't say anything without Sanders supporters pouncing at her and yet when Bernie bombs an interview, they can't stop making excuses. It's so irritating. Bernie supporters are easily definitely the second worst group of supporters after Trump's. Being low information and prone to hero worship is an awful combination.
Funny you mention that. Probably the only reason Hillary is under so much scrutiny in the first place is because she has a vagina. Her mistakes are blown so out of proportion, especially when compared to the many mistakes tons of presidential candidates have made in the past.
As for what the supporters are like, I have no idea. I'm not going to lie, I like a lot of Bernie's policies, I think they'd be great for the current USA... but will he be able to implement any of them? lolno
She's under scrutiny because she should be in jail, and has over 140 fbi agents investigating her for her email shit and she has a history of being corrupt and generally a shitty person.
You people need to stopmaking excuses and making people victims.
They blame Hillary for everything, it's really getting tiresome.
Can you image how bad they'd rake Hillary over the coals if she bombed a policy-oriented interview like this? There would be no end to the accusations that she only got as far as she did because she is a Clinton and has a vagina.
Hillary can't say anything without Sanders supporters pouncing at her and yet when Bernie bombs an interview, they can't stop making excuses. It's so irritating. Bernie supporters are easily definitely the second worst group of supporters after Trump's. Being low information and prone to hero worship is an awful combination.
Funny you mention that. Probably the only reason Hillary is under so much scrutiny in the first place is because she has a vagina. Her mistakes are blown so out of proportion, especially when compared to the many mistakes tons of presidential candidates have made in the past.
As for what the supporters are like, I have no idea. I'm not going to lie, I like a lot of Bernie's policies, I think they'd be great for the current USA... but will he be able to implement any of them? lolno
She's under scrutiny because she should be in jail, and has over 140 fbi agents investigating her for her email shit and she has a history of being corrupt and generally a shitty person.
You people need to stopmaking excuses and making people victims.
Unlikely
A Washington Post article doesn't mean shit. The FBI is actively pursuing this. If I did what she did at my job I would have been prosecuted and possibly tried for treason/espionage.
Can you image how bad they'd rake Hillary over the coals if she bombed a policy-oriented interview like this? There would be no end to the accusations that she only got as far as she did because she is a Clinton and has a vagina.
Hillary can't say anything without Sanders supporters pouncing at her and yet when Bernie bombs an interview, they can't stop making excuses. It's so irritating. Bernie supporters are easily definitely the second worst group of supporters after Trump's. Being low information and prone to hero worship is an awful combination.
Funny you mention that. Probably the only reason Hillary is under so much scrutiny in the first place is because she has a vagina. Her mistakes are blown so out of proportion, especially when compared to the many mistakes tons of presidential candidates have made in the past.
As for what the supporters are like, I have no idea. I'm not going to lie, I like a lot of Bernie's policies, I think they'd be great for the current USA... but will he be able to implement any of them? lolno
She's under scrutiny because she should be in jail, and has over 140 fbi agents investigating her for her email shit and she has a history of being corrupt and generally a shitty person.
You people need to stopmaking excuses and making people victims.
Unlikely
A Washington Post article doesn't mean shit. The FBI is actively pursuing this. If I did what she did at my job I would have been prosecuted and possibly tried for treason/espionage.
Yeah, figured you'd come back with an objection to the source. Did you read the statements in the article? It has become clear that they have found of nothing of significance, and the likelihood of them finding something prosecutable shrinks by the day. Right now the party is just insisting that there's something there because they desperately want there to be something there.
Yet it grows increasingly like that "there's no there there."
Funny you mention that. Probably the only reason Hillary is under so much scrutiny in the first place is because she has a vagina. Her mistakes are blown so out of proportion, especially when compared to the many mistakes tons of presidential candidates have made in the past.
As for what the supporters are like, I have no idea. I'm not going to lie, I like a lot of Bernie's policies, I think they'd be great for the current USA... but will he be able to implement any of them? lolno
She's under scrutiny because she should be in jail, and has over 140 fbi agents investigating her for her email shit and she has a history of being corrupt and generally a shitty person.
You people need to stopmaking excuses and making people victims.
Unlikely
A Washington Post article doesn't mean shit. The FBI is actively pursuing this. If I did what she did at my job I would have been prosecuted and possibly tried for treason/espionage.
Yeah, figured you'd come back with an objection to the source. Did you read the statements in the article? It has become clear that they have found of nothing of significance, and the likelihood of them finding something prosecutable shrinks by the day. Right now the party is just insisting that there's something there because they desperately want there to be something there.
Yet it grows increasingly like that "there's no there there."
The FBI has already found evidence, and they're building a case. This isn't a partison or a party issue. It's already going on. The article can say whatever it wants, the investigation is already going through and it has evidence against her.
@n64dd: I await the results with bated breath. In the meantime, I'll turn my attention to the results of the Benghazi investigation which I hear are due any day now.
@n64dd: I await the results with bated breath. In the meantime, I'll turn my attention to the results of the Benghazi investigation which I hear are due any day now.
Two different entities. If you worked in the tech security end of things, you'd realize how bad this is and how serious the fbi is.
Frankly it doesn't surprise me at all. Blurry standard and his supporters inhabit a dream world of rainbows and unicorns. Kinda ironic, since there's a striking similarity between beanie's campaign and bush w's lead up to Iraq invasion, a vicious cycle of self delusion.
I dont get it ...
One of the biggest failing in Bush administration's preparation to the Iraq invasion is this culture self delusion. The administration would only consider ideal outcomes (the whole anticipation that our troops would be greeted as liberators), analysts with supporting evidences were promoted and those with contrasting evidences were shut out. Creating a vicious cycle of misinformation and bad decisions. Hence the title of one of the best books on the topic is "State of Denial" in reference to this willing rejection of reality.
Bernie and his supporters are reminiscent of that since there's a very conscious effort to suppress political reality and most of proposed policies are based on ideal or optimal outcomes rather than what is likely to take place. I see that in almost every aspect of sanders campaign.
While I'm by no means a fan of Clinton, she's been in the game long enough to be pragmatic with her approaches. It means getting more accomplished than sanders great sounding but ultimately hollow rhentorics.
Frankly it doesn't surprise me at all. Blurry standard and his supporters inhabit a dream world of rainbows and unicorns. Kinda ironic, since there's a striking similarity between beanie's campaign and bush w's lead up to Iraq invasion, a vicious cycle of self delusion.
I dont get it ...
One of the biggest failing in Bush administration's preparation to the Iraq invasion is this culture self delusion. The administration would only consider ideal outcomes (the whole anticipation that our troops would be greeted as liberators), analysts with supporting evidences were promoted and those with contrasting evidences were shut out. Creating a vicious cycle of misinformation and bad decisions. Hence the title of one of the best books on the topic is "State of Denial" in reference to this willing rejection of reality.
Bernie and his supporters are reminiscent of that since there's a very conscious effort to suppress political reality and most of proposed policies are based on ideal or optimal outcomes rather than what is likely to take place. I see that in almost every aspect of sanders campaign.
While I'm by no means a fan of Clinton, she's been in the game long enough to be pragmatic with her approaches. It means getting more accomplished than sanders great sounding but ultimately hollow rhentorics.
I always find it hilarious how self defeating some people are, you really have been brain washed into having zero hope for any change. You are the delusional ones. And you said Bernie has not been in the game for a long time? do you even know who Bernie Sanders is? He's been in it longer than that **** hillary. Hillary wants you to think pragmatism is the way to go, and then throw you a bone every now and then to keep you happy, but its all bullshit.
Frankly it doesn't surprise me at all. Blurry standard and his supporters inhabit a dream world of rainbows and unicorns. Kinda ironic, since there's a striking similarity between beanie's campaign and bush w's lead up to Iraq invasion, a vicious cycle of self delusion.
I dont get it ...
One of the biggest failing in Bush administration's preparation to the Iraq invasion is this culture self delusion. The administration would only consider ideal outcomes (the whole anticipation that our troops would be greeted as liberators), analysts with supporting evidences were promoted and those with contrasting evidences were shut out. Creating a vicious cycle of misinformation and bad decisions. Hence the title of one of the best books on the topic is "State of Denial" in reference to this willing rejection of reality.
Bernie and his supporters are reminiscent of that since there's a very conscious effort to suppress political reality and most of proposed policies are based on ideal or optimal outcomes rather than what is likely to take place. I see that in almost every aspect of sanders campaign.
While I'm by no means a fan of Clinton, she's been in the game long enough to be pragmatic with her approaches. It means getting more accomplished than sanders great sounding but ultimately hollow rhentorics.
I always find it hilarious how self defeating some people are, you really have been brain washed into having zero hope for any change. You are the delusional ones. And you said Bernie has not been in the game for a long time? do you even know who Bernie Sanders is? He's been in it longer than that **** hillary. Hillary wants you to think pragmatism is the way to go, and then throw you a bone every now and then to keep you happy, but its all bullshit.
I'm all for hope but the kind of hope driven policy making that Bernie (and Bush administration regarding Iraq) runs on is incredibly dangerous.
All of Bernies 30 plus years career has exclusively isolated to Vermont (a tiny state with an entirely homogeneous white population that is hardly an accurate reflection of the entire country of US) while scope of Hillary's experience extends far beyond that. Plus Vermont consistently ranked in the bottom 5 states with worst economic outlooks. I don't think that's something anyone would want for US.
One of the biggest failing in Bush administration's preparation to the Iraq invasion is this culture self delusion. The administration would only consider ideal outcomes (the whole anticipation that our troops would be greeted as liberators), analysts with supporting evidences were promoted and those with contrasting evidences were shut out. Creating a vicious cycle of misinformation and bad decisions. Hence the title of one of the best books on the topic is "State of Denial" in reference to this willing rejection of reality.
Bernie and his supporters are reminiscent of that since there's a very conscious effort to suppress political reality and most of proposed policies are based on ideal or optimal outcomes rather than what is likely to take place. I see that in almost every aspect of sanders campaign.
While I'm by no means a fan of Clinton, she's been in the game long enough to be pragmatic with her approaches. It means getting more accomplished than sanders great sounding but ultimately hollow rhentorics.
I always find it hilarious how self defeating some people are, you really have been brain washed into having zero hope for any change. You are the delusional ones. And you said Bernie has not been in the game for a long time? do you even know who Bernie Sanders is? He's been in it longer than that **** hillary. Hillary wants you to think pragmatism is the way to go, and then throw you a bone every now and then to keep you happy, but its all bullshit.
I'm all for hope but the kind of hope driven policy making that Bernie (and Bush administration regarding Iraq) runs on is incredibly dangerous.
All of Bernies 30 plus years career has exclusively isolated to Vermont (a tiny state with an entirely homogeneous white population that is hardly an accurate reflection of the entire country of US) while scope of Hillary's experience extends far beyond that. Plus Vermont consistently ranked in the bottom 5 states with worst economic outlooks. I don't think that's something anyone would want for US.
That is not the correct attitude to have, Bernie should be filling you with hope. I'm not seeing the comparison between iraq and Bernie, no one wanted us to invade iraq. I trust Bernie's experience more than Hillarys, she has a very questionable history, being on the board of walmart for example. her history has too much corruption. We may actually get a president that represents us and not the elites for the first time in decades.
There is not a U.S. fire department, but there is a more appropriate U.S. Fire Administration. In Bernie Sanders words when mayor of Burlington, Vermont, to paraphrase, "Socialism is democracy where the people are not ruled by the wealthy billionares." By this logic, I think that a socialist economy develops when there are many markets that favor the middle class rather than the wealthiest people in the United States. Perhaps this is not always appropriate, but in contemporary time with the middle class shrinking, so to speak, it may be a good way to reestablish the strength of the United States economy, and more importantly, the United States identity.
About the devaluation of municipal tax bases, that is an interesting correlation to think about, and that is part of a broader issue. That said, fire departments are, indeed, typically special government authorities.
When Does Socialism Develop:
I believe that socialism, by definition, develops when the government directly interacts with a market. It's when the government gives "incentives" to businesses for being friendly to them or grants them bailouts when their business fails. Government interaction with the free market is why we see such disparity and a disintegrating middle class. This would primarily include the Federal Reserve system that allows a dollar to be worth whatever they say its worth.
Democracy Paradox:
I also find the statement "Socialism is democracy where the people are not ruled by the wealthy billionaires" to be untrue unless you replace the term socialism with something else.
The United States is a Representative Democracy, or Republic, because pure democracy is a paradox. Majority rule = mob rule. It would always boil down to anarchy. There has to be a representative intermediate.
The problem with our current system is that those who are elected representatives only serve corporate interests. This is not any form of democracy, yet it is overtly socialist.
Socialism Defined - any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Corporations and Bankers have created career politicians to appease their interests, thereby becoming the government. When industries become the governing power I would say that we are already Socialist. To further substantiate my claim, The Federal Reserve regulates every aspect of our economy by controlling the value of our currency and there is no authority to which they are held accountable. This is collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods; Socialism defined.
To be honest, I oppose socialism because it is what we already have and will always be the end result of any form of socialism in a utilitarian paradigm. We only lack any form of democracy, hence our current economic disparity. It's hard to say "we need socialism" when it will only serve to undermine our liberties in the absence of democracy.
While studying dictionaries, you may find that term definitions do not give the most thorough descriptions available in the world. Socialism, for example, is not only government operation, but it could differently be collective ownership of aspects of society. This could be expanded to say that collective ownership may be social welfare programs using taxpayer funding by statutes enacted by officials elected with the popular vote process. This is democratic in a sense, and the government does not have to be entirely a democracy for it to quantify as said term that is "democratic." Further, Socrates said that democracy most likely leads to a tyranny of an individual, and I think that this is more likely given the history of Germany with Hitler and governments in multiple African countries, today.
To clarify, our country is a Constitutional Republic with democratic principles indirectly affecting government operation. This is what Senator Sanders' presidential campaign is based on, rather than pure democracy.
What I like about Sanders is he typically seems to answer things honestly, and I can clearly learn about his ideology and policies by listening to him speak - which is a shamefully hard thing to come by.
proposed policies are based on ideal or optimal outcomes rather than what is likely to take place.
'life is the thing taking place while you are making plans and theories about it' ... if you are telling People what an 'optimal outcome is' and what 'likely is to take place' you are a preacher, a fascist ... why? because you are afraid of any outcome ... so something 'ideal' or 'optimal' can not even exist for you ...
ideologies only tell something about the people occupieing them and nothing more ...
what could have been more perfect then an linkin park song to an akira clip about breaking up !? ... how can you still not see the 'optimal' and 'ideal' flow of the things happening ?
Yeah, upon further examination, this interview was a clear hatchet job. Loaded, absurd questions from an obvious Hilary supporting paper. Pathetic. News media is a rotting corpse.
Im feeling the Bern no matter what happens. I will love him forever and always.
The absolutely hero worship of Bernie supporters is another thing I dislike about his movement.
LOL
CNN's parent company has donated a very large amount of money to Hillary's campaign, get better evidence next time.
The "I disagree the the story therefore the source is bad" argument.
Do you have proof they're wrong?
I was simply stating a fact, a fact that you can check and see was accurate.
This is the exact same site who held a poll asking who won a debate and over 75% of the people said bernie won. CNN then removed the poll from their website and ran a story saying Hillary won the debate. I have no evidence to prove them wrong as that would be impossible to obtain(as would the evidence to prove them right), I am simply stating that they are not a reliable source due to how much money they have given to one candidate. I am not siding with one candidate over another, just using logic.
The absolutely hero worship of Bernie supporters is another thing I dislike about his movement.
LOL
CNN's parent company has donated a very large amount of money to Hillary's campaign, get better evidence next time.
The "I disagree the the story therefore the source is bad" argument.
Do you have proof they're wrong?
I was simply stating a fact, a fact that you can check and see was accurate.
This is the exact same site who held a poll asking who won a debate and over 75% of the people said bernie won. CNN then removed the poll from their website and ran a story saying Hillary won the debate. I have no evidence to prove them wrong as that would be impossible to obtain(as would the evidence to prove them right), I am simply stating that they are not a reliable source due to how much money they have given to one candidate. I am not siding with one candidate over another, just using logic.
CNN's parent company has donated a very large amount of money to Hillary's campaign, get better evidence next time.
The "I disagree the the story therefore the source is bad" argument.
Do you have proof they're wrong?
I was simply stating a fact, a fact that you can check and see was accurate.
This is the exact same site who held a poll asking who won a debate and over 75% of the people said bernie won. CNN then removed the poll from their website and ran a story saying Hillary won the debate. I have no evidence to prove them wrong as that would be impossible to obtain(as would the evidence to prove them right), I am simply stating that they are not a reliable source due to how much money they have given to one candidate. I am not siding with one candidate over another, just using logic.
Maybe it was because the average voter was 10...
They don't ask for age on those polls, so it is literally impossible to know how old any of the voters were. Try again.
Log in to comment