• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jill Stein

Would You Consider A Vote For Jill Stein?

  • Only If My Preferred GOP Candidate Loses The Nomination

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    37
And in what way is that not an objective statement?

It's moronic. Tax money goes to pay for a hell of a lot more than entitlements, and GOP partisans attempt to paint the picture that Obama and the Democrats are basically trying to make wealth illegal, which is false to the point of absurdity.

and that has a basis in fact and is not hypocritical

It has a basis in bull****.
 
It's moronic.

I suppose while you were trying to put on your conservative hat, subjectively, you did call the liberals "evil" and the poor "dirty."

But ultimately, yes, progressive "liberals" do want to, in a decidedly unliberal fashion, raise taxes on one group and they want to expand socialist entitlement payouts to another. That is an accurate characterization. They like to call treating different groups of people differently "fair," even.
 
I suppose while you were trying to put on your conservative hat, subjectively, you did call the liberals "evil" and the poor "dirty."

But ultimately, yes, progressive "liberals" do want to, in a decidedly unliberal fashion, raise taxes on one group and they want to expand socialist entitlement payouts to another. That is an accurate characterization. They like to call treating different groups of people differently "fair," even.

Kee-rist mon! What a clever idea. Let's stick with the current plan to give the people's money to the war makers, terrorists, weapons manufacturers, banks, banksters, Wall
Street QE, and the remaining octo***** leeches that siphon the dollars in such a manner that the .01% gets lots more than the 99.99%, don't ya' know? We will call it the
reverse of infrastructure and job development and make babysitting the wealth of the already wealthy somebodies political platform. You can give it a name, eh?
 
I don't know a lot about her, but what I know sounds good. I probably won't vote for her, or any other small party candidate, for president because the system is rigged so that my vote won't count. I'll probably be forced to choose the lesser evil, a democrat.
 
Kee-rist mon! What a clever idea. Let's stick with the current plan to give the people's money to the war makers, terrorists, weapons manufacturers, banks, banksters, Wall
Street QE, and the remaining octo***** leeches that siphon the dollars in such a manner that the .01% gets lots more than the 99.99%, don't ya' know? We will call it the
reverse of infrastructure and job development and make babysitting the wealth of the already wealthy somebodies political platform. You can give it a name, eh?

Hrm, I'll do you better, how about the people keep more of their own money? I think that has a name already.
 
Back
Top Bottom