• 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!

The crucial role of Bernie Sanders for the battle against our dark future

Casper said:
You are supporting a Socialist that would tax and spend this Nation further into debt and utterly destroy the economy and will of people to work hard to get ahead in life, Nope I believe I summarized your points perfectly.
Click to expand...

I would like to support Senator Sanders, I was living in VT when he was a Mayor and Senator, he has never wavered on his views on marijuana lol Seriously, I think Sanders has a big obstacle to overcome, the Socialist label, weather its true or not is mute, he has the label. I like the guy, I want to vote for him as an alternative to Mrs. Clinton. The current crop of Republicans have little to offer us in way of a constructive dialogue on getting federal marijuana prohibition ended. I vote on issues, this election cycle I have decided to give it to the politicians who can WIN and advance my cause.

Sorry off topic a little lol

Do Sanders supporters not agree that the Socialist label is going to kill him in a general election? I can just see the Republicans hitting him hard, Lots of folks (over 40 cold war) do equate socialism with communism, many know the difference, many do not.

I am undecided even on the primaries, I would hate as would many advocates for my cause, for a Republican to take office, and roll back even the medical marijuana strides. In the end I may have to hold my nose and vote for Mrs. Clinton, I will really have to get STONED to pull the lever for her, prefer Sanders, but want to back a winner in this case.
 
Last edited:
yankintx said:
I would like to support Senator Sanders, I was living in VT when he was a Mayor and Senator, he has never wavered on his views on marijuana lol Seriously, I think Sanders has a big obstacle to overcome, the Socialist label, weather its true or not is mute, he has the label. I like the guy, I want to vote for him as an alternative to Mrs. Clinton. The current crop of Republicans have little to offer us in way of a constructive dialogue on getting federal marijuana prohibition ended. I vote on issues, this election cycle I have decided to give it to the politicians who can WIN and advance my cause.

Sorry off topic a little lol

Do Sanders supporters not agree that the Socialist label is going to kill him in a general election? I can just see the Republicans hitting him hard, Lots of folks (over 40 cold war) do equate socialism with communism, many know the difference, many do not.

I am undecided even on the primaries, I would hate as would many advocates for my cause, for a Republican to take office, and roll back even the medical marijuana strides. In the end I may have to hold my nose and vote for Mrs. Clinton, I will really have to get STONED to pull the lever for her, prefer Sanders, but want to back a winner in this case.
Click to expand...

What is really sad is a social issue voter that ignores how the economy affects social issues. To you it is all about marijuana when for most people it is about getting a good job and being able to support their family. I do sympathize with your situation but sorry, don't agree that marijuana is a major issue for if it were to you move to Colorado to get a fix for your needs.
 
Conservative said:
What is really sad is a social issue voter that ignores how the economy affects social issues. To you it is all about marijuana when for most people it is about getting a good job and being able to support their family. I do sympathize with your situation but sorry, don't agree that marijuana is a major issue for if it were to you move to Colorado to get a fix for your needs.
Click to expand...

Obviously

In your eyes I am sad

I shall bow out on that positive note

You are a buzz kill
 
Last edited:
Fenton said:
Sure England's NHS is doing " just fine "...

NHS cuts to drugs fund mean thousands of cancer patients in England will be denied life-extending treatments | Health News | Lifestyle | The Independent

How can the Government defund a " Right " ?
Click to expand...

This, like many things in Europe, is happening in no small part because of the neoliberal policies instituted. It turns out that if you engage in austerity measures during a recession and then cause a triple dip recession, there's not going to be a lot of money for anything. It seems positively magical that after 50 years of no problems, followed by 20 years of increasing amounts of neoliberal policies, that suddenly social services that were never a problem before suddenly start becoming difficult to fund. Oh wait, sorry, that sounds exactly like what you'd expect. It turns out that purposefully decreasing the amount you borrow and simultaneously decreasing taxes for the wealthy, you won't have money for social safety nets and entitlements. You'll notice that neither of those things have anything to do with anything inherent to those social safety nets and entitlements.

(But hey, if you really want to erode the middle class and increase the number in poverty, and thus add new spending problems because now there's more people who need more entitlements, then just keep at those neoliberal policies and Reaganomics. I'm sure in the 5th decade of neoliberalism and Reaganomics, these policies will make a marked turn in American prosperity, and suddenly the status of the poor and middle class will reverse course and we will regain a prosperous as we were before we started instituting them. You remember, back when the wages for the middle and low classes actually followed American productivity, rather than all of the new wealthy going exclusively to the millionaires and billionaires.)
 
FieldTheorist said:
This, like many things in Europe, is happening in no small part because of the neoliberal policies instituted. It turns out that if you engage in austerity measures during a recession and then cause a triple dip recession, there's not going to be a lot of money for anything. It seems positively magical that after 50 years of no problems, followed by 20 years of increasing amounts of neoliberal policies, that suddenly social services that were never a problem before suddenly start becoming difficult to fund. Oh wait, sorry, that sounds exactly like what you'd expect. It turns out that purposefully decreasing the amount you borrow and simultaneously decreasing taxes for the wealthy, you won't have money for social safety nets and entitlements. You'll notice that neither of those things have anything to do with anything inherent to those social safety nets and entitlements.

(But hey, if you really want to erode the middle class and increase the number in poverty, and thus add new spending problems because now there's more people who need more entitlements, then just keep at those neoliberal policies and Reaganomics. I'm sure in the 5th decade of neoliberalism and Reaganomics, these policies will make a marked turn in American prosperity, and suddenly the status of the poor and middle class will reverse course and we will regain a prosperous as we were before we started instituting them. You remember, back when the wages for the middle and low classes actually followed American productivity, rather than all of the new wealthy going exclusively to the millionaires and billionaires.)
Click to expand...

What you fail to recognize is how much of the European economy depends on govt. spending and when you have that much austerity is going to generate exactly the results you are seeing there now. Why would you want this country to increase the amount of Govt. spending as a percentage of our economy like Europe?
 
FieldTheorist said:
This, like many things in Europe, is happening in no small part because of the neoliberal policies instituted. It turns out that if you engage in austerity measures during a recession and then cause a triple dip recession, there's not going to be a lot of money for anything. It seems positively magical that after 50 years of no problems, followed by 20 years of increasing amounts of neoliberal policies, that suddenly social services that were never a problem before suddenly start becoming difficult to fund. Oh wait, sorry, that sounds exactly like what you'd expect. It turns out that purposefully decreasing the amount you borrow and simultaneously decreasing taxes for the wealthy, you won't have money for social safety nets and entitlements. You'll notice that neither of those things have anything to do with anything inherent to those social safety nets and entitlements.

(But hey, if you really want to erode the middle class and increase the number in poverty, and thus add new spending problems because now there's more people who need more entitlements, then just keep at those neoliberal policies and Reaganomics. I'm sure in the 5th decade of neoliberalism and Reaganomics, these policies will make a marked turn in American prosperity, and suddenly the status of the poor and middle class will reverse course and we will regain a prosperous as we were before we started instituting them. You remember, back when the wages for the middle and low classes actually followed American productivity, rather than all of the new wealthy going exclusively to the millionaires and billionaires.)
Click to expand...

Here is what socialists want to ignore as they continue to support more govt. spending in this country and argue against austerity in this country and in Europe

The Audacious Epigone: Government spending as a percentage of GDP by country
 
Conservative said:
What you fail to recognize is how much of the European economy depends on govt. spending and when you have that much austerity is going to generate exactly the results you are seeing there now. Why would you want this country to increase the amount of Govt. spending as a percentage of our economy like Europe?
Click to expand...

Our government does spend over a trillion dollars every year on capital gains investments, the military-industrial complex and other forms of corporate welfare, subsidies to various industries, and public employees salaries. We also spend decreasing amounts on maintaining our infrastructure.

Quite literally, tremendously important aspects of our economy could not, would not, and increasing do not function without government spending and investments. Part of those investments --I would argue the most important investments-- are in its citizens, but also in its infrastructure. The rich cannot extract money out of a broken system. The US would have fallen rapidly after WWII if we didn't invest in science, technology, public education and universities, infrastructure, and the social programs that maintains them. For instance, I'd love to see what the Silicon Valley tycoons would be doing with their lives if the government hadn't invested in research into semiconductors. I'd love to know what corporations like Walmart would be doing if there weren't public highways. I'd love to know what Big Oil would be doing if they didn't have public research into methods of refining and extracting oil, as well as all of the publicly-funded technology they use to accomplish this. I'd love to know Big Pharma would do without government funded research into biology, biochemistry, and all of the basic science they use to make billions of dollars and publicly-funded PhDs (we pay for science PhD's for their training). It'd love to know what Big Banks would do if the Fed didn't loan them money and insure their investments.


For the third and final time, the notion that rich people are rich merely because of the force of their self-gravitating awesomeness is complete and utter farce. They are as dependent upon our government, the American people, and social structures that have been intelligently set into place as any poor person who takes welfare. The reason the government is big is because no one benefits from a small, rightist-libertarian government. We belong to a civilization, that means we belong to a collection of organized humans that create, build, and promote social structures and institutions that are mutually beneficial. Part of that system is that those who can afford to pay more must pay more, not the least of which is because they are literally taking more from society's structures. They (well, some of them) are also helping build up more of society's structures, but they are also being paid a lot more. I'm not interested in repeating this for you again, have a nice day.
 
FieldTheorist said:
Our government does spend over a trillion dollars every year on capital gains investments, the military-industrial complex and other forms of corporate welfare, subsidies to various industries, and public employees salaries. We also spend decreasing amounts on maintaining our infrastructure.

Quite literally, tremendously important aspects of our economy could not, would not, and increasing do not function without government spending and investments. Part of those investments --I would argue the most important investments-- are in its citizens, but also in its infrastructure. The rich cannot extract money out of a broken system. The US would have fallen rapidly after WWII if we didn't invest in science, technology, public education and universities, infrastructure, and the social programs that maintains them. For instance, I'd love to see what the Silicon Valley tycoons would be doing with their lives if the government hadn't invested in research into semiconductors. I'd love to know what corporations like Walmart would be doing if there weren't public highways. I'd love to know what Big Oil would be doing if they didn't have public research into methods of refining and extracting oil, as well as all of the publicly-funded technology they use to accomplish this. I'd love to know Big Pharma would do without government funded research into biology, biochemistry, and all of the basic science they use to make billions of dollars and publicly-funded PhDs (we pay for science PhD's for their training). It'd love to know what Big Banks would do if the Fed didn't loan them money and insure their investments.


For the third and final time, the notion that rich people are rich merely because of the force of their self-gravitating awesomeness is complete and utter farce. They are as dependent upon our government, the American people, and social structures that have been intelligently set into place as any poor person who takes welfare. The reason the government is big is because no one benefits from a small, rightist-libertarian government. We belong to a civilization, that means we belong to a collection of organized humans that create, build, and promote social structures and institutions that are mutually beneficial. Part of that system is that those who can afford to pay more must pay more, not the least of which is because they are literally taking more from society's structures. They (well, some of them) are also helping build up more of society's structures, but they are also being paid a lot more. I'm not interested in repeating this for you again, have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Look, suggest you get your face out of the books and get out into the real world to see what actual producers do and what they create. European economies are disasters waiting to happen with none coming close to the 18 trillion dollar economy we have here and the equal opportunities each of us have in this country if we choose to work for it.

As a socialist pardon me if I don't give you a lot of respect as none is truly deserved especially your attitude for people who have more than you have. Based upon what I see from you I totally understand why you are anti rich and believe the way you do as you are incapable of competing for a bigger share of the pie. You have a good day
 
FieldTheorist said:
Remind me, which candidates have talked about money in politics and which ones haven't?
Click to expand...

Donald Trump complains about hedge fund operators making too much money, but his tax plan cuts taxes for the rich, as do the tax plans of every other Republican primary candidate.
 
nmb said:
It may sound exaggerating, but Bernie Sanders may be our best hope right now for a real turn towards a sustainable future for the benefit of the majority, rather for the ruling elite.

the unbalanced evolution of homo sapiens: The crucial role of Bernie Sanders for the battle against our dark future
Click to expand...

First off, if Bernie Sanders is the nominee he will almost certainly go down like George McGovern in the general election. Secondly, its all neither here nor there because even if he were elected, nothing he is proposing would ever get through congress. He is a perfect example of liberals letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
First off, if Bernie Sanders is the nominee he will almost certainly go down like George McGovern in the general election. Secondly, its all neither here nor there because even if he were elected, nothing he is proposing would ever get through congress. He is a perfect example of liberals letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Click to expand...

McGovern didn't have a chance, not in that political climate. The Dems were doomed when they lost RFK, just as I fear the Dems may be doomed if Clinton gets the nom. At the very least Mrs. Clinton is guilty of very bad judgment in the execution and handling of the email scandal, that in its self is enough for her to move to the bottom of the list. Because I agree with her on some social issues I have given her the benefit of the doubt, stupid of me lol She couldn't manage a damn email scandal, I don't want her near any real management job.
 
Conservative said:
Look, suggest you get your face out of the books and get out into the real world to see what actual producers do and what they create.
Click to expand...

Right, because pointing out facts is only a purely academic exercise, totally irrelevant for the "real world." Typical conservative blather, facts which don't conform with your world view are immaterial and "don't matter in the real world." It's a pretty stupid and lame argument, so you'll have to forgive me for not taking this rhetoric bulls*** seriously at all.

European economies are disasters waiting to happen with none coming close to the 18 trillion dollar economy we have here and the equal opportunities each of us have in this country if we choose to work for it.
Click to expand...

"Because I say so, because I say so, because I say." Again, a very compelling argument you have here.

As a socialist pardon me if I don't give you a lot of respect as none is truly deserved
Click to expand...

And you put the cherry on the **** Sunday with an irrelevant ad hominem attack. Look, if you won't take your own arguments seriously enough to even attempt to perform a coherent, researched, thoughtful response, why do you think that I'm going to take them seriously enough to respond to? If right-wing drivel and ad hominem fallacies are the best that you have to offer, then we're done here. Have a nice day.
 
SmartCat said:
Donald Trump complains about hedge fund operators making too much money, but his tax plan cuts taxes for the rich, as do the tax plans of every other Republican primary candidate.
Click to expand...

Money in politics (campaign finance reform) is strictly speaking different than tax policy, although yes, anyone can realize they are related. The more expendable money you have to bribe politicians is money that you'll be bribing politicians with.

And yes, Trump talks about both, but will change neither if by some calamitous joke he were to become president.
 
FieldTheorist said:
Money in politics (campaign finance reform) is strictly speaking different than tax policy, although yes, anyone can realize they are related. The more expendable money you have to bribe politicians is money that you'll be bribing politicians with.

And yes, Trump talks about both, but will change neither if by some calamitous joke he were to become president.
Click to expand...

As long as a plutocracy has much more money than the rest of of us it will find ways to corrupt democracy. We need for the government to tax the plutocracy heavily. We will benefit as a result.
 
FieldTheorist said:
Right, because pointing out facts is only a purely academic exercise, totally irrelevant for the "real world." Typical conservative blather, facts which don't conform with your world view are immaterial and "don't matter in the real world." It's a pretty stupid and lame argument, so you'll have to forgive me for not taking this rhetoric bulls*** seriously at all.



"Because I say so, because I say so, because I say." Again, a very compelling argument you have here.



And you put the cherry on the **** Sunday with an irrelevant ad hominem attack. Look, if you won't take your own arguments seriously enough to even attempt to perform a coherent, researched, thoughtful response, why do you think that I'm going to take them seriously enough to respond to? If right-wing drivel and ad hominem fallacies are the best that you have to offer, then we're done here. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Not sure where you live but it appears you get your information out of text books and don't pay a lot of attention to the real world or the news. I gave you the link showing govt. spending as a percentage of GDP which in most cases is 3 times what it is in this country. When you have that kind of dependence austerity is going to impact the economy which we see in Greece, Portugal, Germany, England, and all other socialist countries who seem to have people like you not understanding costs of what you want and who pays for it.

There is an old adage that the grass is always greener on the other side. Why don't you move to one of those socialist countries where you can wallow in utopia like they do. I will take this country any day
 
Bernie Sanders, The Bum Who Wants Your Money

Sure, Sanders may not be a hypocrite, but this is nothing to brag about. His worthless background contrasts sharply with the successful careers of other “outsiders” in the race for the White House, including a billionaire developer, a world-renowned neurosurgeon and a Fortune 500 CEO.

The choice in this election is shaping up to be a very clear one. It will likely boil down to a battle between those who create and produce wealth, and those who take it and redistribute it.

Bernie Sanders, The Bum Who Wants Your Money | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD
 
KLATTU said:
Bernie Sanders, The Bum Who Wants Your Money

Sure, Sanders may not be a hypocrite, but this is nothing to brag about. His worthless background contrasts sharply with the successful careers of other “outsiders” in the race for the White House, including a billionaire developer, a world-renowned neurosurgeon and a Fortune 500 CEO.

The choice in this election is shaping up to be a very clear one. It will likely boil down to a battle between those who create and produce wealth, and those who take it and redistribute it.

Bernie Sanders, The Bum Who Wants Your Money | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD
Click to expand...

Have you noticed that far too many who don't pay any Federal Income taxes have no problem spending someone else's money of those who do pay FIT? What we have here are far too many people who don't understand what taxes they pay and what those taxes were for.

When LBJ created the unified budget he created the problem we have today where all tax dollars can be spent on whatever the bureaucrats want to spend it on regardless of its purpose, i.e. payroll taxes to fund SS and Medicare can be used to fund the operating expenses of the Federal Govt, excise taxes on gasoline which were to fund infrastructure can be used to fund daily operating expenses of the Federal Govt.

Then when the govt. wants to spend on infrastructure because they excise tax revenue has been spent they appeal to the hearts of people who say "yes, we need to get more tax dollars because we need the roads fixed" Hey, liberals!! the money for those roads was collected and spent on everything other than the roads
 
I brilliantly and famously said this many times before. You can go a long way in politics telling people their lot in life is not their fault .
 
KLATTU said:
Bernie Sanders, The Bum Who Wants Your Money

Sure, Sanders may not be a hypocrite, but this is nothing to brag about. His worthless background contrasts sharply with the successful careers of other “outsiders” in the race for the White House, including a billionaire developer, a world-renowned neurosurgeon and a Fortune 500 CEO.

The choice in this election is shaping up to be a very clear one. It will likely boil down to a battle between those who create and produce wealth, and those who take it and redistribute it.

Bernie Sanders, The Bum Who Wants Your Money | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD
Click to expand...

A career in politics is a better preparation for the presidency than a career in business. Donald Trump's businesses went bankrupt four times. Carly Fiorina was fired as CEO of Hewlett Packard after damaging the company and poisoning the collegial atmosphere there. Ben Carson is an idiot savant who knows a lot about brain surgery, and little about anything else.
 
So you believe more of the same government that created the 18.8 trillion dollar debt and massive dependant class is a good thing
 
SmartCat said:
A career in politics is a better preparation for the presidency than a career in business. .
Click to expand...

Half agree. I think the basic paradigm for getting any job applies. The ideal candidate should have demonstrated expertise in the skillset for the position the applicant wisher to obtain.
In other words, the Presidential candidate should have demonstrated expertise as an executive in Government. ie. a governor or mayor. The Us broke a long string of doing just that when they elected Obama.
He , like Bernie sanders, never demonstrated aptitude in anything but talking.
Plus business experience only helps Republicans, not Democrats, because generally Democrats see people who make a lot money as what is WRONG with this country, not right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom