• 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!

[W:169]Russia Is Said to Be Interfering to Aid Sanders in Democratic Primaries

vesper said:
I posted this information in another thread but because of the seriousness of the Russians helping Bernie win the primaries, I thought I should share that Joe Biden is now saying that Russia is interfering to keep him from winning the nomination.

'They like Bernie': Biden says Russia working to prevent him from getting nomination

President tweeted this afternoon and suggest the DNC and any Democratic operatives concerned of Russia helping Bernie win NV yesterday they should call Bob Mueller and the 13 angry Democrats and start a new Mueller Report Democrat edition to get to the bottom of it.

Trump suggests 'calling Bob Mueller' after Sanders win following Russia report
Click to expand...

I would suggest Trump handle this like a grown up
 
SheWolf said:
Do you think Medicare and SSN is not compatible with the Constitution?

The fact that you are just making claims, does not make it a fact.
Click to expand...

Social Security is nothing like a socialist system since it pays out according to how much the individual paid into it. The only thing loosely Socialist about the program is that it's mandatory... progressive love (require?) authoritarianism as much as the socialist programs do.

Medicare, though more authoritarian within its lane, is also not socialist because it doesn't actually run the healthcare industry... though, it sure would like to someday.
 
jmotivator said:
Social Security is nothing like a socialist system since it pays out according to how much the individual paid into it. The only thing loosely Socialist about the program is that it's mandatory... progressive love (require?) authoritarianism as much as the socialist programs do.

Medicare, though more authoritarian within its lane, is also not socialist because it doesn't actually run the healthcare industry... though, it sure would like to someday.
Click to expand...

:lol:

Well, Bernie is a Democratic Socialist like Norway. He is not a Communist like the USSR. American social programs are just that, social programs, and do not violate the democratic norms of the American constitution. American social programs are not authoritarian Communist programs.

It's not difficult to understand... :shrug:
 
SheWolf said:
:lol:

Well, Bernie is a Democratic Socialist like Norway. He is not a Communist like the USSR. American social programs are just that, social programs, and do not violate the democratic norms of the American constitution. American social programs are not authoritarian Communist programs.

It's not difficult to understand... :shrug:
Click to expand...

I never said he was a communist, he just has a lot of nice things to say about brutal communist dictatorships that he thinks we should emulate. :lamo

Bernie's not a very smart man, and really has done nothing in his life other than sell Socialist propaganda. His long career has absolutely nothing constructive to show for it other than a rabid fan base.
 
Wow, Pavlov's theory does work. Mention the word Russian and all the Democrats wet down their leg. It is not hard to manipulate the weak minded.
 
Moot said:
It is possible that Russia supports both Bernie and Trump. It sure would explain the similarity in some of their supporters rabid behaviour.


From the Mueller Report: Volume One, page 23 ("Harm to Ongoing Matters" [HOM] refers to redacted information)....

By February 2016, internal IRA documents referred to support for the Trump campaign and opposition to candidate Clinton.(49) For instance, [HOM] directions to IRA operators [HOM] "Main idea: Use any opportunity to criticize Hillary [Clinton] and the rest (except Sanders and Trump - we support them)." (50) [HOM]

(49) The IRA posted content about the Clinton candidacy, before Clinton officially announced her presidential campaign. IRA controlled social media accounts criticized Clinton's record as Secretary of State and promoted various critiques of her candidacy. The IRA also used other techniques. [HOM]

(50) [HOM]​
Click to expand...

i don't understand why Russia or anyone else thinks they need to meddle in our elections, we do a perfectly good job of messing up the process all by ourselves.
 
jmotivator said:
It seems perfectly fair. It is a large country with very disparate populations and cultures. If you go strictly by popular vote the whole country would be run by essentially two counties with myopic, ideological positions. The presidential candidates wouldn't need any small states or appeal to any non-cosmopolitan communities.

In perspective: Hillary won the popular vote by 2,868,686 votes. Her vote differential in Los Angeles and New York City was 3,431,211 votes... meaning that other than New York City and Los Angeles, trump won the rest of the country.

So if you went by the 2016 Popular Vote, Trump would lose based entirely on the Democrat votes in two cities. You would have a president whose policies for the whole country are meant to appease New York and Los Angeles voters when that same president lost the popular vote in the rest of the country.
Click to expand...

Oh I see. So you're penalized if you live in a big city is what you're saying. Regardless if the less populated states voted for trump, more people voted for hillary. That to me still smacks of being unfair. One vote one person, the person with the most votes wins. Who cares how populated each state happens to be, that's why they have two senators each. Also those eight senators from the least populated states can throw a monkey wrench into any policy they wish. Those eight can basically hold the other ninety two at bay. That also seems unfair.

Our political system is like reading the bible or a code book. You can't do this or you can't do that and in the next sentence it says unless you do this or that. Completely contradictory. One vote one person straightens it all out.
 
Anthony60 said:
I guess that part about "that not being the race that was being run" didn't quite sink in. You have to try and win the States, not get more votes in a State that you already won or lost, so you don't try to campaign that way.
Click to expand...

How about we just go with one person one vote and put an end to all the silliness of super delegates and the electoral college. Let the people decide.
 
bongsaway said:
Doesn't seem quite fair that a person receiving a lesser amount of votes wins. How the system was designed is just another way to negate one person one vote.
Click to expand...

Nope, it's a way of not giving absolute power to elect the POTUS only to large urban centers.
 
bongsaway said:
Oh I see. So you're penalized if you live in a big city is what you're saying. Regardless if the less populated states voted for trump, more people voted for hillary. That to me still smacks of being unfair. One vote one person, the person with the most votes wins. Who cares how populated each state happens to be, that's why they have two senators each. Also those eight senators from the least populated states can throw a monkey wrench into any policy they wish. Those eight can basically hold the other ninety two at bay. That also seems unfair.

Our political system is like reading the bible or a code book. You can't do this or you can't do that and in the next sentence it says unless you do this or that. Completely contradictory. One vote one person straightens it all out.
Click to expand...

No, you aren't penalized by living in a big city... well, other than that you live in a big city. I am a small government guy anyway, I think that New York and LA should impose whatever nonsense on their own people they wish, but they shouldn't be allowed to impose a Bloombergian ignorance on American farmers, for example. Small federal government and strong state and local government is the solution. Screw up your own yard, stay out of mine.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, it's a way of not giving absolute power to elect the POTUS only to large urban centers.
Click to expand...

How do you figure that? How does one person one vote treat anyone unfairly? The truth is most republicans KNOW their policies are not welcome in most of the country and if we went for one person one vote the gop would lose much more than they would win.

Does one vote one person stop anyone from voting republican?
 
jmotivator said:
No, you aren't penalized by living in a big city... well, other than that you live in a big city. I am a small government guy anyway, I think that New York and LA should impose whatever nonsense on their own people they wish, but they shouldn't be allowed to impose a Bloombergian ignorance on American farmers, for example. Small federal government and strong state and local government is the solution. Screw up your own yard, stay out of mine.
Click to expand...

And how do you feel about the big bad federal government giving away billions to the farmers due to the tariffs? Also I would like to know how in a country of over three hundred and fifty million people do we have a small government? And your idea of state and local government means nothing when the federal government can step in at any time and say screw your state constitution. Legal cannabis in your state, the federal government doesn't think so.
 
bongsaway said:
How do you figure that? How does one person one vote treat anyone unfairly? The truth is most republicans KNOW their policies are not welcome in most of the country and if we went for one person one vote the gop would lose much more than they would win.

Does one vote one person stop anyone from voting republican?
Click to expand...

We have one person one vote now - within each state. What you want is to allow "excess" popular votes in CA and NY to override all votes in ND and SD (and a few other lesser populated states).
 
ttwtt78640 said:
We have one person one vote now - within each state. What you want is to allow "excess" popular votes in CA and NY to override all votes in ND and SD (and a few other lesser populated states).
Click to expand...

And so in a nutshell what you are still saying is those folks who normally vote republican should count more than the folks who vote for a democrat. You are still insisting the person with the lesser amount of votes can win and it's ok.

If you add all of those one person one vote in each of the states together, trump lost. So instead we use a system that negates the one person one vote idea. Face it the republicans are scared to death of the one vote one person idea because they know they would lose most elections. Period.
 
jpn said:
The Russians are going all out to get Trump reelected. They are even supporting the Democratic candidate widely thought to be the least electable in a general election.
Click to expand...

LOL, I know how much Russia appreciates your efforts to create chaos and distrust in our election process but this is a new one. Keep promoting the Russian angle as you will be convincing more and more people to support Trump with such foolish rhetoric on your part. Trump has generated results that don't benefit Russia but people like you are giving them exactly what they wanted. Russia needs to thank people like you for your support of their efforts
 
bongsaway said:
And so in a nutshell what you are still saying is those folks who normally vote republican should count more than the folks who vote for a democrat. You are still insisting the person with the lesser amount of votes can win and it's ok.

If you add all of those one person one vote in each of the states together, trump lost. So instead we use a system that negates the one person one vote idea. Face it the republicans are scared to death of the one vote one person idea because they know they would lose most elections. Period.
Click to expand...

Another diversion from reality, one vote per person per state ignores the reality that Trump lost California by 4 million votes. If anyone really wants Californians to elect our President they have zero credibility as the results in California show, none of which are discussed here. You as a progressive have no credibility on this issue.
 
swing_voter said:
I think they just want to destabilize America as much as possible. That's why they backed Trump and now are backing Bernie. They hope to cause chaos.
Click to expand...

qft..
 
bongsaway said:
How about we just go with one person one vote and put an end to all the silliness of super delegates and the electoral college. Let the people decide.
Click to expand...

Nah, the electoral college makes sure that every State has a voice in electing our President. Super delegates are not part of it. The Constitution would not have been ratified without the electoral college, it's part of the Constitution. Good luck getting an amendment ratified to change our Presidential election to a popular vote. You need 38 States, I doubt you would get 10.
 
Conservative said:
Another diversion from reality, one vote per person per state ignores the reality that Trump lost California by 4 million votes. If anyone really wants Californians to elect our President they have zero credibility as the results in California show, none of which are discussed here. You as a progressive have no credibility on this issue.
Click to expand...

What makes a person who lives in bumflock montana any more important than one living in california? I cast a vote in california, you can't one in montana. What makes your vote different than mine?

Face it. The gop does not want a one vote one person system. If the gop was so 'right', more people would be in the party and it wouldn't look like a bunch of white men. I know, you know and we all know, the gop is not the party of inclusion and that is why no one vote one person. The right would lose most of the time.

Otherwise you are saying my vote from california is only half the vote from montana.
 
bongsaway said:
What makes a person who lives in bumflock montana any more important than one living in california? I cast a vote in california, you can't one in montana. What makes your vote different than mine?

Face it. The gop does not want a one vote one person system. If the gop was so 'right', more people would be in the party and it wouldn't look like a bunch of white men. I know, you know and we all know, the gop is not the party of inclusion and that is why no one vote one person. The right would lose most of the time.

Otherwise you are saying my vote from california is only half the vote from montana.
Click to expand...

Take a civics class and learn about the Electoral College. California is a fiscal and moral disaster as the actual results show. Why would anyone want the people of California who live in a state with the most poverty, homeless, and worst quality of life want that thrust on the American people
 
Fred C Dobbs II said:
In fact it was 'US Intelligence' which warned Sander and they are not known for wearing red hats.
Click to expand...

Wait, they warned him? I thought such information had to be kept ultra-top secret from the candidate, while US intelligence would go get a bunch of FISA warrants and start spying, er sorry, surveilling the candidate and everyone around him.

At least that's what they did to Trump. Different rules for D vs R I guess.
 
jmotivator said:
I never said he was a communist, he just has a lot of nice things to say about brutal communist dictatorships that he thinks we should emulate. :lamo

Bernie's not a very smart man, and really has done nothing in his life other than sell Socialist propaganda. His long career has absolutely nothing constructive to show for it other than a rabid fan base.
Click to expand...

Your using the word Socialist and dictator as if they mean the same thing. Norway, Germany, Canada, etc. are not a dictatorships.
 
bongsaway said:
What makes a person who lives in bumflock montana any more important than one living in california? I cast a vote in california, you can't one in montana. What makes your vote different than mine?

Face it. The gop does not want a one vote one person system. If the gop was so 'right', more people would be in the party and it wouldn't look like a bunch of white men. I know, you know and we all know, the gop is not the party of inclusion and that is why no one vote one person. The right would lose most of the time.

Otherwise you are saying my vote from california is only half the vote from montana.
Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter what you think,

Nearly Two-Thirds of All Registered U.S. Voters Expect Trump Will Win Re-election, Poll Finds
 
Conservative said:
Take a civics class and learn about the Electoral College. California is a fiscal and moral disaster as the actual results show. Why would anyone want the people of California who live in a state with the most poverty, homeless, and worst quality of life want that thrust on the American people
Click to expand...

Do us all a favor get on your high moral horse and ride out of town. No current trump supporter has any business speaking about morals, integrity or honesty. So please give us a break. And if california is so horrible how come it's so packed with people and has such high property values along with the rest of california's high prices?

Yeah, let's all move to alabama instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom