|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 29 2016 18:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2016 17:42 Godwrath wrote:On June 29 2016 11:38 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 11:31 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2016 10:36 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 10:31 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2016 10:22 Plansix wrote:
TARP was paid back in full with interest. Imagine you and your friend went bankrupt. Your friend got bailed out by the community and you didn't. You lost everything and he paid back his loan with interest. And now whenever you say hey he got bailed out and that was unfair the community says, "but he paid back the loan with interest." Now imagine your friend was your landlord and paid back the loan with the money you paid him for rent after you lost your house. Life isn't fair. I'm fine with that. A second great depression is something I would not be fine with. . . . Fuck you got mine?? ???? I don't work for banks. They are just one of our clients. Once again, its better than the great depression part 2. The point is that the poorest suffered the crysis while the rich who were compromised got uplifted out of it, and even better, they actually didn't use it to alleviate the poor situations, but to profit from it. That's why people get angry and to point out "that's better than a great depression part 2" is just silly apologism to someone who lost their house. Well if you didn't like TARP, support Warren. I didn't like TARP, but responsible governance isn't about doing shit I like. More people lose their life's saving of the banks fail.
Lol. Lest we forget that the "Tea Party" was the original response to TARP, not the Democrats, who were, for the most part, the cheerleaders for TARP, which points out how ridiculous it is that people view the D's as the party of the lil' guy. Also, don't be disingenuous, we all ready have the FDIC, which insures beyond what most people have in their accounts. Most peoples live savings are held in assets anyways, which, got pounded. The FED was created for the precise purpose to accumulate wealth in the banksters. Anyone who knows anything about Jekyll Island doesn't support the Fed (and how we got the Fed in the first place with a rigged vote during Christmas while everyone was away lol).
|
Thieving Magpie is just filling in for oneofthem with the utterly blind anti-Sanders nonsense 
|
On June 29 2016 23:33 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2016 18:45 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 17:42 Godwrath wrote:On June 29 2016 11:38 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 11:31 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2016 10:36 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 10:31 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2016 10:22 Plansix wrote:
TARP was paid back in full with interest. Imagine you and your friend went bankrupt. Your friend got bailed out by the community and you didn't. You lost everything and he paid back his loan with interest. And now whenever you say hey he got bailed out and that was unfair the community says, "but he paid back the loan with interest." Now imagine your friend was your landlord and paid back the loan with the money you paid him for rent after you lost your house. Life isn't fair. I'm fine with that. A second great depression is something I would not be fine with. . . . Fuck you got mine?? ???? I don't work for banks. They are just one of our clients. Once again, its better than the great depression part 2. The point is that the poorest suffered the crysis while the rich who were compromised got uplifted out of it, and even better, they actually didn't use it to alleviate the poor situations, but to profit from it. That's why people get angry and to point out "that's better than a great depression part 2" is just silly apologism to someone who lost their house. Well if you didn't like TARP, support Warren. I didn't like TARP, but responsible governance isn't about doing shit I like. More people lose their life's saving of the banks fail. Lol. Lest we forget that the "Tea Party" was the original response to TARP, not the Democrats, who were, for the most part, the cheerleaders for TARP, which points out how ridiculous it is that people view the D's as the party of the lil' guy. Also, don't be disingenuous, we all ready have the FDIC, which insures beyond what most people have in their accounts. Most peoples live savings are held in assets anyways, which, got pounded. The FED was created for the precise purpose to accumulate wealth in the banksters. Anyone who knows anything about Jekyll Island doesn't support the Fed (and how we got the Fed in the first place with a rigged vote during Christmas while everyone was away lol).
Oh how short people’s memories are. Tarp was created, signed and passed by a GOP controls House, senate and white house. The Democrats went along with it because it was the only way to prevent a massive implosion of the entire economy. No one cheered for it and people were angry it had to happen in the first place.
Of course, once Obama was elected, the GOP has done their best to “the bail outs” on him. But it was their creation in response to the economic non-sense that took place while they were in control of the government.
|
On June 29 2016 23:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2016 23:33 Wegandi wrote:On June 29 2016 18:45 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 17:42 Godwrath wrote:On June 29 2016 11:38 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 11:31 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2016 10:36 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 10:31 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2016 10:22 Plansix wrote:
TARP was paid back in full with interest. Imagine you and your friend went bankrupt. Your friend got bailed out by the community and you didn't. You lost everything and he paid back his loan with interest. And now whenever you say hey he got bailed out and that was unfair the community says, "but he paid back the loan with interest." Now imagine your friend was your landlord and paid back the loan with the money you paid him for rent after you lost your house. Life isn't fair. I'm fine with that. A second great depression is something I would not be fine with. . . . Fuck you got mine?? ???? I don't work for banks. They are just one of our clients. Once again, its better than the great depression part 2. The point is that the poorest suffered the crysis while the rich who were compromised got uplifted out of it, and even better, they actually didn't use it to alleviate the poor situations, but to profit from it. That's why people get angry and to point out "that's better than a great depression part 2" is just silly apologism to someone who lost their house. Well if you didn't like TARP, support Warren. I didn't like TARP, but responsible governance isn't about doing shit I like. More people lose their life's saving of the banks fail. Lol. Lest we forget that the "Tea Party" was the original response to TARP, not the Democrats, who were, for the most part, the cheerleaders for TARP, which points out how ridiculous it is that people view the D's as the party of the lil' guy. Also, don't be disingenuous, we all ready have the FDIC, which insures beyond what most people have in their accounts. Most peoples live savings are held in assets anyways, which, got pounded. The FED was created for the precise purpose to accumulate wealth in the banksters. Anyone who knows anything about Jekyll Island doesn't support the Fed (and how we got the Fed in the first place with a rigged vote during Christmas while everyone was away lol). Oh how short people’s memories are. Tarp was created, signed and passed by a GOP controls House, senate and white house. The Democrats went along with it because it was the only way to prevent a massive implosion of the entire economy. No one cheered for it and people were angry it had to happen in the first place. Of course, once Obama was elected, the GOP has done their best to “the bail outs” on him. But it was their creation in response to the economic non-sense that took place while they were in control of the government.
Really, you going with that?
http://www.politifact.com/oregon/statements/2010/oct/18/kurt-schrader/kurt-schrader-says-more-republicans-democrats-vote/
How stupid do you have to be to not even do a quick 2 second fact check of your own post? Us Paul folks know the history from 2005-2010 pretty well.
Edit: Also lol, the Democrats had control of the House when TARP was passed...if you missed the time when Pelosi was Majority. Plan you're just really off the ball today.
|
On June 29 2016 23:47 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2016 23:41 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 23:33 Wegandi wrote:On June 29 2016 18:45 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 17:42 Godwrath wrote:On June 29 2016 11:38 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 11:31 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2016 10:36 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 10:31 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2016 10:22 Plansix wrote:
TARP was paid back in full with interest. Imagine you and your friend went bankrupt. Your friend got bailed out by the community and you didn't. You lost everything and he paid back his loan with interest. And now whenever you say hey he got bailed out and that was unfair the community says, "but he paid back the loan with interest." Now imagine your friend was your landlord and paid back the loan with the money you paid him for rent after you lost your house. Life isn't fair. I'm fine with that. A second great depression is something I would not be fine with. . . . Fuck you got mine?? ???? I don't work for banks. They are just one of our clients. Once again, its better than the great depression part 2. The point is that the poorest suffered the crysis while the rich who were compromised got uplifted out of it, and even better, they actually didn't use it to alleviate the poor situations, but to profit from it. That's why people get angry and to point out "that's better than a great depression part 2" is just silly apologism to someone who lost their house. Well if you didn't like TARP, support Warren. I didn't like TARP, but responsible governance isn't about doing shit I like. More people lose their life's saving of the banks fail. Lol. Lest we forget that the "Tea Party" was the original response to TARP, not the Democrats, who were, for the most part, the cheerleaders for TARP, which points out how ridiculous it is that people view the D's as the party of the lil' guy. Also, don't be disingenuous, we all ready have the FDIC, which insures beyond what most people have in their accounts. Most peoples live savings are held in assets anyways, which, got pounded. The FED was created for the precise purpose to accumulate wealth in the banksters. Anyone who knows anything about Jekyll Island doesn't support the Fed (and how we got the Fed in the first place with a rigged vote during Christmas while everyone was away lol). Oh how short people’s memories are. Tarp was created, signed and passed by a GOP controls House, senate and white house. The Democrats went along with it because it was the only way to prevent a massive implosion of the entire economy. No one cheered for it and people were angry it had to happen in the first place. Of course, once Obama was elected, the GOP has done their best to “the bail outs” on him. But it was their creation in response to the economic non-sense that took place while they were in control of the government. Really, you going with that? http://www.politifact.com/oregon/statements/2010/oct/18/kurt-schrader/kurt-schrader-says-more-republicans-democrats-vote/How stupid do you have to be to not even do a quick 2 second fact check of your own post? Us Paul folks know the history from 2005-2010 pretty well.
So your argument is that because the Democrats were adults and didn’t let the US economy implode and destroy every retirement pension, 401K and investment, they are bad? The things that lead up to that problem were happened in between 2004-2008.
I am confused what your argument is? TARP wasn’t good. No one wanted to bail out the banks. We did it because we had to. Unless you like being poor and jobless, which I guess could be a thing.
Lets not forget Bush signed the bill and he was the leader of GOP. They bill was introduced by the leaders of the senate and house, both Republicans.
|
On June 29 2016 23:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2016 23:47 Wegandi wrote:On June 29 2016 23:41 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 23:33 Wegandi wrote:On June 29 2016 18:45 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 17:42 Godwrath wrote:On June 29 2016 11:38 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 11:31 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2016 10:36 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 10:31 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
Imagine you and your friend went bankrupt. Your friend got bailed out by the community and you didn't. You lost everything and he paid back his loan with interest. And now whenever you say hey he got bailed out and that was unfair the community says, "but he paid back the loan with interest." Now imagine your friend was your landlord and paid back the loan with the money you paid him for rent after you lost your house. Life isn't fair. I'm fine with that. A second great depression is something I would not be fine with. . . . Fuck you got mine?? ???? I don't work for banks. They are just one of our clients. Once again, its better than the great depression part 2. The point is that the poorest suffered the crysis while the rich who were compromised got uplifted out of it, and even better, they actually didn't use it to alleviate the poor situations, but to profit from it. That's why people get angry and to point out "that's better than a great depression part 2" is just silly apologism to someone who lost their house. Well if you didn't like TARP, support Warren. I didn't like TARP, but responsible governance isn't about doing shit I like. More people lose their life's saving of the banks fail. Lol. Lest we forget that the "Tea Party" was the original response to TARP, not the Democrats, who were, for the most part, the cheerleaders for TARP, which points out how ridiculous it is that people view the D's as the party of the lil' guy. Also, don't be disingenuous, we all ready have the FDIC, which insures beyond what most people have in their accounts. Most peoples live savings are held in assets anyways, which, got pounded. The FED was created for the precise purpose to accumulate wealth in the banksters. Anyone who knows anything about Jekyll Island doesn't support the Fed (and how we got the Fed in the first place with a rigged vote during Christmas while everyone was away lol). Oh how short people’s memories are. Tarp was created, signed and passed by a GOP controls House, senate and white house. The Democrats went along with it because it was the only way to prevent a massive implosion of the entire economy. No one cheered for it and people were angry it had to happen in the first place. Of course, once Obama was elected, the GOP has done their best to “the bail outs” on him. But it was their creation in response to the economic non-sense that took place while they were in control of the government. Really, you going with that? http://www.politifact.com/oregon/statements/2010/oct/18/kurt-schrader/kurt-schrader-says-more-republicans-democrats-vote/How stupid do you have to be to not even do a quick 2 second fact check of your own post? Us Paul folks know the history from 2005-2010 pretty well. So your argument is that because the Democrats were adults and didn’t let the US economy implode and destroy every retirement pension, 401K and investment, they are bad? The things that lead up to that problem were happened in between 2004-2008. I am confused what your argument is? TARP wasn’t good. No one wanted to bail out the banks. We did it because we had to. Unless you like being poor and jobless, which I guess could be a thing. Lets not forget Bush signed the bill and he was the leader of GOP. They bill was introduced by the leaders of the senate and house, both Republicans.
Translation: Everything I said was wrong so I'm going to ignore the last few posts and try and change the subject by pivoting to irrelevant he said she said BS. You're digging the hole deeper. Keep going, this is interesting, Mr. Rational for the Good of the People.
|
On June 29 2016 23:55 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2016 23:52 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 23:47 Wegandi wrote:On June 29 2016 23:41 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 23:33 Wegandi wrote:On June 29 2016 18:45 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 17:42 Godwrath wrote:On June 29 2016 11:38 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 11:31 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2016 10:36 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Life isn't fair. I'm fine with that. A second great depression is something I would not be fine with. . . . Fuck you got mine?? ???? I don't work for banks. They are just one of our clients. Once again, its better than the great depression part 2. The point is that the poorest suffered the crysis while the rich who were compromised got uplifted out of it, and even better, they actually didn't use it to alleviate the poor situations, but to profit from it. That's why people get angry and to point out "that's better than a great depression part 2" is just silly apologism to someone who lost their house. Well if you didn't like TARP, support Warren. I didn't like TARP, but responsible governance isn't about doing shit I like. More people lose their life's saving of the banks fail. Lol. Lest we forget that the "Tea Party" was the original response to TARP, not the Democrats, who were, for the most part, the cheerleaders for TARP, which points out how ridiculous it is that people view the D's as the party of the lil' guy. Also, don't be disingenuous, we all ready have the FDIC, which insures beyond what most people have in their accounts. Most peoples live savings are held in assets anyways, which, got pounded. The FED was created for the precise purpose to accumulate wealth in the banksters. Anyone who knows anything about Jekyll Island doesn't support the Fed (and how we got the Fed in the first place with a rigged vote during Christmas while everyone was away lol). Oh how short people’s memories are. Tarp was created, signed and passed by a GOP controls House, senate and white house. The Democrats went along with it because it was the only way to prevent a massive implosion of the entire economy. No one cheered for it and people were angry it had to happen in the first place. Of course, once Obama was elected, the GOP has done their best to “the bail outs” on him. But it was their creation in response to the economic non-sense that took place while they were in control of the government. Really, you going with that? http://www.politifact.com/oregon/statements/2010/oct/18/kurt-schrader/kurt-schrader-says-more-republicans-democrats-vote/How stupid do you have to be to not even do a quick 2 second fact check of your own post? Us Paul folks know the history from 2005-2010 pretty well. So your argument is that because the Democrats were adults and didn’t let the US economy implode and destroy every retirement pension, 401K and investment, they are bad? The things that lead up to that problem were happened in between 2004-2008. I am confused what your argument is? TARP wasn’t good. No one wanted to bail out the banks. We did it because we had to. Unless you like being poor and jobless, which I guess could be a thing. Lets not forget Bush signed the bill and he was the leader of GOP. They bill was introduced by the leaders of the senate and house, both Republicans. Translation: Everything I said was wrong so I'm going to ignore the last few posts and try and change the subject by pivoting to irrelevant he said she said BS. You're digging the hole deeper. Keep going, this is interesting, Mr. Rational for the Good of the People.
Please state your point? TARP is the GOP’s problem. If they didn’t want it to happen, they could have stopped it at any time. They could have let the banks fail. They controlled government. But they didn’t and let the Democrats vote it through because they didn’t on records as the ones who “bailed out the banks”. But their party leaders let it go through the House, Senate and White House.
So again, what is your point? The Democrats are bad people because did the thing they didn’t want to do and bailed out the banks? But the GOP let them banks do stupid shit for nearly a decade, but its not their fault.
|
On June 29 2016 23:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2016 22:29 Plansix wrote:
Sanders will never be Trump’s VP. Let’s live in reality here. Depends, do you think a candidate should match his supporters or should his supporters match the candidate? Trump and Sanders already has similar platform conclusions, similar supporter rhetoric, and similar supporter vehemence. Heck, Trump couldn't even tell when someone was describing Trump or when someone was describing Bernie. In fact, the only thing stopping the partnership would be pride and self-denial.
My god, you really need to read something else than establishment propaganda. In a hurry.
|
On June 29 2016 23:47 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2016 23:41 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 23:33 Wegandi wrote:On June 29 2016 18:45 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 17:42 Godwrath wrote:On June 29 2016 11:38 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 11:31 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2016 10:36 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 10:31 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2016 10:22 Plansix wrote:
TARP was paid back in full with interest. Imagine you and your friend went bankrupt. Your friend got bailed out by the community and you didn't. You lost everything and he paid back his loan with interest. And now whenever you say hey he got bailed out and that was unfair the community says, "but he paid back the loan with interest." Now imagine your friend was your landlord and paid back the loan with the money you paid him for rent after you lost your house. Life isn't fair. I'm fine with that. A second great depression is something I would not be fine with. . . . Fuck you got mine?? ???? I don't work for banks. They are just one of our clients. Once again, its better than the great depression part 2. The point is that the poorest suffered the crysis while the rich who were compromised got uplifted out of it, and even better, they actually didn't use it to alleviate the poor situations, but to profit from it. That's why people get angry and to point out "that's better than a great depression part 2" is just silly apologism to someone who lost their house. Well if you didn't like TARP, support Warren. I didn't like TARP, but responsible governance isn't about doing shit I like. More people lose their life's saving of the banks fail. Lol. Lest we forget that the "Tea Party" was the original response to TARP, not the Democrats, who were, for the most part, the cheerleaders for TARP, which points out how ridiculous it is that people view the D's as the party of the lil' guy. Also, don't be disingenuous, we all ready have the FDIC, which insures beyond what most people have in their accounts. Most peoples live savings are held in assets anyways, which, got pounded. The FED was created for the precise purpose to accumulate wealth in the banksters. Anyone who knows anything about Jekyll Island doesn't support the Fed (and how we got the Fed in the first place with a rigged vote during Christmas while everyone was away lol). Oh how short people’s memories are. Tarp was created, signed and passed by a GOP controls House, senate and white house. The Democrats went along with it because it was the only way to prevent a massive implosion of the entire economy. No one cheered for it and people were angry it had to happen in the first place. Of course, once Obama was elected, the GOP has done their best to “the bail outs” on him. But it was their creation in response to the economic non-sense that took place while they were in control of the government. Really, you going with that? http://www.politifact.com/oregon/statements/2010/oct/18/kurt-schrader/kurt-schrader-says-more-republicans-democrats-vote/How stupid do you have to be to not even do a quick 2 second fact check of your own post? Us Paul folks know the history from 2005-2010 pretty well. Edit: Also lol, the Democrats had control of the House when TARP was passed...if you missed the time when Pelosi was Majority. Plan you're just really off the ball today.
wow its a paulbot! i thought they had all been upgraded to sandroids
so what would you have done instead to prevent a collapse of the US (and global) economy or the liquidity crunch?
|
On June 30 2016 00:05 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2016 23:47 Wegandi wrote:On June 29 2016 23:41 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 23:33 Wegandi wrote:On June 29 2016 18:45 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 17:42 Godwrath wrote:On June 29 2016 11:38 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 11:31 IgnE wrote:On June 29 2016 10:36 Plansix wrote:On June 29 2016 10:31 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
Imagine you and your friend went bankrupt. Your friend got bailed out by the community and you didn't. You lost everything and he paid back his loan with interest. And now whenever you say hey he got bailed out and that was unfair the community says, "but he paid back the loan with interest." Now imagine your friend was your landlord and paid back the loan with the money you paid him for rent after you lost your house. Life isn't fair. I'm fine with that. A second great depression is something I would not be fine with. . . . Fuck you got mine?? ???? I don't work for banks. They are just one of our clients. Once again, its better than the great depression part 2. The point is that the poorest suffered the crysis while the rich who were compromised got uplifted out of it, and even better, they actually didn't use it to alleviate the poor situations, but to profit from it. That's why people get angry and to point out "that's better than a great depression part 2" is just silly apologism to someone who lost their house. Well if you didn't like TARP, support Warren. I didn't like TARP, but responsible governance isn't about doing shit I like. More people lose their life's saving of the banks fail. Lol. Lest we forget that the "Tea Party" was the original response to TARP, not the Democrats, who were, for the most part, the cheerleaders for TARP, which points out how ridiculous it is that people view the D's as the party of the lil' guy. Also, don't be disingenuous, we all ready have the FDIC, which insures beyond what most people have in their accounts. Most peoples live savings are held in assets anyways, which, got pounded. The FED was created for the precise purpose to accumulate wealth in the banksters. Anyone who knows anything about Jekyll Island doesn't support the Fed (and how we got the Fed in the first place with a rigged vote during Christmas while everyone was away lol). Oh how short people’s memories are. Tarp was created, signed and passed by a GOP controls House, senate and white house. The Democrats went along with it because it was the only way to prevent a massive implosion of the entire economy. No one cheered for it and people were angry it had to happen in the first place. Of course, once Obama was elected, the GOP has done their best to “the bail outs” on him. But it was their creation in response to the economic non-sense that took place while they were in control of the government. Really, you going with that? http://www.politifact.com/oregon/statements/2010/oct/18/kurt-schrader/kurt-schrader-says-more-republicans-democrats-vote/How stupid do you have to be to not even do a quick 2 second fact check of your own post? Us Paul folks know the history from 2005-2010 pretty well. Edit: Also lol, the Democrats had control of the House when TARP was passed...if you missed the time when Pelosi was Majority. Plan you're just really off the ball today. wow its a paulbot! i thought they had all been upgraded to sandroids so what would you have done instead to prevent a collapse of the US (and global) economy or the liquidity crunch?
Simple: Gold standard.
|
On June 29 2016 23:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2016 23:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 29 2016 22:29 Plansix wrote:
Sanders will never be Trump’s VP. Let’s live in reality here. Depends, do you think a candidate should match his supporters or should his supporters match the candidate? Trump and Sanders already has similar platform conclusions, similar supporter rhetoric, and similar supporter vehemence. Heck, Trump couldn't even tell when someone was describing Trump or when someone was describing Bernie. In fact, the only thing stopping the partnership would be pride and self-denial. What? Have you remotely read what Trump and Bernie are about? Their platforms are utterly irreconcilable. It will never happen not because of rhetoric but because a Trump presidency is running into the complete opposite of what Bernie stands for.
Both have similar ideas on trade. though for different reasons
Both have similar ideas on campaign finance, though for different reasons
Both are running on the anti-establishment slant
Both are running on anti-elitist slants
Both have fairly ravenous fan bases
The main thing they disagree with is that Bernie wants Muslims to die fighting ISIS and Trump wants Muslims to die getting Visas.
|
On June 30 2016 00:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2016 23:20 Gorsameth wrote:On June 29 2016 23:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 29 2016 22:29 Plansix wrote:
Sanders will never be Trump’s VP. Let’s live in reality here. Depends, do you think a candidate should match his supporters or should his supporters match the candidate? Trump and Sanders already has similar platform conclusions, similar supporter rhetoric, and similar supporter vehemence. Heck, Trump couldn't even tell when someone was describing Trump or when someone was describing Bernie. In fact, the only thing stopping the partnership would be pride and self-denial. What? Have you remotely read what Trump and Bernie are about? Their platforms are utterly irreconcilable. It will never happen not because of rhetoric but because a Trump presidency is running into the complete opposite of what Bernie stands for. Both have similar ideas on trade. though for different reasons Both have similar ideas on campaign finance, though for different reasons Both are running on the anti-establishment slant Both are running on anti-elitist slants Both have fairly ravenous fan bases The main thing they disagree with is that Bernie wants Muslims to die fighting ISIS and Trump wants Muslims to die getting Visas.
Pretty sure they differ on more than that.
|
On June 30 2016 00:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 00:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 29 2016 23:20 Gorsameth wrote:On June 29 2016 23:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 29 2016 22:29 Plansix wrote:
Sanders will never be Trump’s VP. Let’s live in reality here. Depends, do you think a candidate should match his supporters or should his supporters match the candidate? Trump and Sanders already has similar platform conclusions, similar supporter rhetoric, and similar supporter vehemence. Heck, Trump couldn't even tell when someone was describing Trump or when someone was describing Bernie. In fact, the only thing stopping the partnership would be pride and self-denial. What? Have you remotely read what Trump and Bernie are about? Their platforms are utterly irreconcilable. It will never happen not because of rhetoric but because a Trump presidency is running into the complete opposite of what Bernie stands for. Both have similar ideas on trade. though for different reasons Both have similar ideas on campaign finance, though for different reasons Both are running on the anti-establishment slant Both are running on anti-elitist slants Both have fairly ravenous fan bases The main thing they disagree with is that Bernie wants Muslims to die fighting ISIS and Trump wants Muslims to die getting Visas. Pretty sure they differ on more than that.
A lot of where they differ is the root of their arguments.
Bernie hates trade deals with China because it hurts american unions, Trump hates trade deals with china because he wants to be seen as anti-communist. Same with campaign finance, same with their anti-establishment rhetorics.
Bernie doesn't want to help Muslims in the middle east because he'd rather they kill each other than have americans killed. Trump doesn't want to help Muslims in america because he'd rather americans kill them in the middle east. etc...
The main issue with Sanders is that he values what he looks like and what his fans think of him more than he values actually achieving the goals he says he is for.
There's a reason that he and his constituents, much like the GOP, are against raising minimum wage to $12+
There's a reason that he and his constituents, much like the GOP, are against Bill Clinton
There's a reason that he and his constituents, much like the GOP, don't blame Bush for the housing crisis
There's a reason that he and his constituents, much like the GOP, accuse the DNC and the Democratic Party of corruption
Are they for different reasons? Sure. But they're not really different goals.
|
Life long socialist from Vermont running on a socialist platform is not going to be the VP to a race baiting trust fund baby who opened a fake university to defraud single parents out of money. Not happening.
|
The main issue with Sanders is that he values what he looks like and what his fans think of him more than he values actually achieving the goals he says he is for.
That's just too funny for obvious reasons. What goals do you see a President Hillary achieving?
|
On June 30 2016 00:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +The main issue with Sanders is that he values what he looks like and what his fans think of him more than he values actually achieving the goals he says he is for. That's just too funny for obvious reasons. What goals do you see a President Hillary achieving?
Being that Hilary's goals have been to help reduce college debt, to make improvements to the ACA, and to try to push forward women's right in the work space--what I see her achieving is slightly better College costs with an emphasis on community college, slightly more nuanced ACA rules as well as an increase in ACA funding, and some bills to make it easier to have parental leave.
Known as taking what's working, and focusing on it, and trimming back what isn't working.
We also know she's been working on this because she's been actively working with fellow democrats for years on these issues even before she started running for President.
As for Bernie, its really typical that an old white guy in a mostly white community gets points just for yelling loudly.
|
On June 30 2016 00:38 Plansix wrote:
Life long socialist from Vermont running on a socialist platform is not going to be the VP to a race baiting trust fund baby who opened a fake university to defraud single parents out of money. Not happening.
Which is why I said that pride is the main reason he wouldn't do it. No way Bernie would want to be seen with people he considers beneath him.
|
On June 30 2016 00:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +The main issue with Sanders is that he values what he looks like and what his fans think of him more than he values actually achieving the goals he says he is for. That's just too funny for obvious reasons. What goals do you see a President Hillary achieving?
Did you not read that giant articles about the intricacies of the Bernie campaign and how many of the decisions people thought were weaver were actually Bernie? This whole campaign clearly went to his head and he's got a lot of issues about feeling respected. When you look at how he's run his political career, it makes sense. He comes off as an entitled baby who gets frustrated and walks away when people don't agree with him.
|
On June 30 2016 00:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 00:26 Plansix wrote:On June 30 2016 00:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 29 2016 23:20 Gorsameth wrote:On June 29 2016 23:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 29 2016 22:29 Plansix wrote:
Sanders will never be Trump’s VP. Let’s live in reality here. Depends, do you think a candidate should match his supporters or should his supporters match the candidate? Trump and Sanders already has similar platform conclusions, similar supporter rhetoric, and similar supporter vehemence. Heck, Trump couldn't even tell when someone was describing Trump or when someone was describing Bernie. In fact, the only thing stopping the partnership would be pride and self-denial. What? Have you remotely read what Trump and Bernie are about? Their platforms are utterly irreconcilable. It will never happen not because of rhetoric but because a Trump presidency is running into the complete opposite of what Bernie stands for. Both have similar ideas on trade. though for different reasons Both have similar ideas on campaign finance, though for different reasons Both are running on the anti-establishment slant Both are running on anti-elitist slants Both have fairly ravenous fan bases The main thing they disagree with is that Bernie wants Muslims to die fighting ISIS and Trump wants Muslims to die getting Visas. Pretty sure they differ on more than that. A lot of where they differ is the root of their arguments. Bernie hates trade deals with China because it hurts american unions, Trump hates trade deals with china because he wants to be seen as anti-communist. Same with campaign finance, same with their anti-establishment rhetorics. Bernie doesn't want to help Muslims in the middle east because he'd rather they kill each other than have americans killed. Trump doesn't want to help Muslims in america because he'd rather americans kill them in the middle east. etc... The main issue with Sanders is that he values what he looks like and what his fans think of him more than he values actually achieving the goals he says he is for. There's a reason that he and his constituents, much like the GOP, are against raising minimum wage to $12+ There's a reason that he and his constituents, much like the GOP, are against Bill Clinton There's a reason that he and his constituents, much like the GOP, don't blame Bush for the housing crisis There's a reason that he and his constituents, much like the GOP, accuse the DNC and the Democratic Party of corruption Are they for different reasons? Sure. But they're not really different goals.
Are you serious?
- He and his constituents are FOR raising minimum wage to $15+
- Nothing wrong with being against Bill Clinton, who was pretty much a center right republican running on a Democratic ticket, who passed DoMA, repealed Glass Steagal, passed the anti minority Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act and was a abuser-in-chief of women. Only in a country like US would he be considered a Democrat / Leftist.
- Glass Steagal was repealed by Clinton, not Bush.
- You have to be blind or willfully ignorant to not see the rot developing inside the Democratic party, starting with DWS revoking Obama's ban on Federal campaign contributions.
The reasons matter, and the goals are actually different - the underlying goal is to reform the democratic party into becoming a party that actually reflects the liberal end of the political spectrum, instead of being a center-right corporatist party. The Republicans are really on the verge of becoming the the far-right neo-nazi party with their embrace of Trump, and the way to counterbalance that is to move the discussion towards the left, rather than "Pivoting" towards the center in the hopes of gaining moderate republican votes, which may produce a short term victory, but will end up harming the party and the general political discourse in the long run.
|
On June 30 2016 00:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 00:38 Plansix wrote:
Life long socialist from Vermont running on a socialist platform is not going to be the VP to a race baiting trust fund baby who opened a fake university to defraud single parents out of money. Not happening. Which is why I said that pride is the main reason he wouldn't do it. No way Bernie would want to be seen with people he considers beneath him.
It's quite fascinating to me that you are at a place in your life where you have actually managed to believe that the left-wing and the far right-wing differ only because of pride. You are, by definition of how the spectrum of politics works, closer to the far right theory of politics than any leftist is or will ever be. You have successfully noticed that Trump has tried to make himself appear closer to the left-wing, because he's attempting to obtain votes from Bernie supporters. But somehow you take that to mean Sanders and Trump are similar. It's unbelievably shortsighted, in the sense that I actually can't really believe someone is that shortsighted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
