Dixville Notch and Millsfield Vote at Midnight Tuesday the 9th of February

[sggatecl]

Not to mention most people have no idea what socialism actually means. FDR would have been considered 10x the socialist Sanders is if he were running today.

Propaganda from the 80's did it's job well dude. People still looking in their closet and under their bed for 'The Red Scare'.

 

[tigermud]

Except Sanders wouldn't bring full blown socialism. Anyone who worries about this severely overestimates the power a president has.

In fact, I'd argue that if Sanders gets elected we'd have four years of no legislative progress from either side.

Fair point, thankfully... given that reality he would at least then be preferable over another globalist sell out

 

[Spartanmack]

Except Sanders wouldn't bring full blown socialism. Anyone who worries about this severely overestimates the power a president has.

In fact, I'd argue that if Sanders gets elected we'd have four years of no legislative progress from either side.

I agree that we would have gridlock like no other period in our lifetimes if Sanders wins. But just to clarify a point, are you saying it's only dangerous is if it's full blown socialism - so long as it's not full blown socialism, we can afford it and therefore shouldn't worry about $18T in incremental (mismanaged) expenditures?

 

[grandy]

I agree that we would have gridlock like no other period in our lifetimes if Sanders wins. But just to clarify a point, are you saying it's only dangerous is if it's full blown socialism - so long as it's not full blown socialism, we can afford it and therefore shouldn't worry about $18T in incremental (mismanaged) expenditures?

I really don't know how you got any of that from my post. Your first sentence is accurate and all I intended to focus on.

 

[tomdalton22]

you think that? you don't actually know for sure though and have no interest in finding out.

I would love to find out...but that isn't possible because lazy people that don't want to work hard to better their situation are likely going to lie.

Don't get me wrong. I'm 100% in favor for some sort of welfare program because there will always be people that need our help.

 

[Michchamp]

I would love to find out...but that isn't possible because lazy people that don't want to work hard to better their situation are likely going to lie.

Don't get me wrong. I'm 100% in favor for some sort of welfare program because there will always be people that need our help.

I don't know how anyone who professes to be in favor of hard work and personal accountability can oppose my proposal, but they do. Even the Democrats would never pass it, and a Republitard president would declare martial law if it came close to passing: tax everything over $1MM in anyone's estate at 100%, guarantee every kid health insurance, equally good education, free day care, and college tuition. Fund all the shit people need to get to work (better nationwide mass transit, roads, bridges, rails, etc.).

no one gets to inherit wealth and be lazy. no lazy rich kids get ahead of hard working poor kids just because they're parents can pay for private education.

you can make as much money as you want in your life, buy a grostesquely large mansion, 50 cars, giant yacht, a private jet, wallow in your own crapulence for decades, etc., but it all gets redistributed after you die.

Free enterprise is preserved. Society will be closer to a true meritorcracy.

 

[Spartanmack]

I really don't know how you got any of that from my post. Your first sentence is accurate and all I intended to focus on.

it was a question - and a reasonable one based on your comment. People who oppose Sanders and his socialist policies have legitimate worries about what they would do to the country. I was asking you to clarify what you meant - should they not be concerned about the impact of his policies because it's not full blown socialism?

 

[tomdalton22]

I don't know how anyone who professes to be in favor of hard work and personal accountability can oppose my proposal, but they do. Even the Democrats would never pass it, and a Republitard president would declare martial law if it came close to passing: tax everything over $1MM in anyone's estate at 100%, guarantee every kid health insurance, equally good education, free day care, and college tuition. Fund all the shit people need to get to work (better nationwide mass transit, roads, bridges, rails, etc.).

no one gets to inherit wealth and be lazy. no lazy rich kids get ahead of hard working poor kids just because they're parents can pay for private education.

you can make as much money as you want in your life, buy a grostesquely large mansion, 50 cars, giant yacht, a private jet, wallow in your own crapulence for decades, etc., but it all gets redistributed after you die.

Free enterprise is preserved. Society will be closer to a true meritorcracy.

That's because it's a stupid idea.

 

[Michchamp]

Except Sanders wouldn't bring full blown socialism. Anyone who worries about this severely overestimates the power a president has.

In fact, I'd argue that if Sanders gets elected we'd have four years of no legislative progress from either side.

we already have socialism for a lot of stuff... roads, defense, police, fire, I don't know why it's such a dirty word.

But yeah, the idea he'll be able to govern as a socialist is idiotic, having to contend with a House gerrymandered into GOP control (and likely will remain that way for decades) and Democratic leadership that constantly and willingly moves to the right on just about every issue, most of whom voted for George Bush's wars with no consequence or accountability, etc.

At best, Bernie will be a useful counterweight to a consistently right-of-center federal government. He'll veto most everything that comes across his desk, etc. I do worry about his ability to get his people nominated & appoint justices and judges, but he's not an idiot. He's consistently won elections and has built a smart team around himself.

He'll be a good president. better than Hillary, and definitely better than whoever tumbles out of the clown car.

 

[Michchamp]

That's because it's a stupid idea.

it puts children first.

one of the unsaid things, and what Republitards don't want people to realize is how their policies really fuck over poor kids, not their parents. That's who is ultimately harmed by cutting food stamps, medicare, etc. their parents, like most adults, will take care of themselves first.

and of course, kids are innocent...they aren't poor due to choice.

 

[Spartanmack]

I don't know how anyone who professes to be in favor of hard work and personal accountability can oppose my proposal, but they do. Even the Democrats would never pass it, and a Republitard president would declare martial law if it came close to passing: tax everything over $1MM in anyone's estate at 100%, guarantee every kid health insurance, equally good education, free day care, and college tuition. Fund all the shit people need to get to work (better nationwide mass transit, roads, bridges, rails, etc.).

no one gets to inherit wealth and be lazy. no lazy rich kids get ahead of hard working poor kids just because they're parents can pay for private education.

you can make as much money as you want in your life, buy a grostesquely large mansion, 50 cars, giant yacht, a private jet, wallow in your own crapulence for decades, etc., but it all gets redistributed after you die.

Free enterprise is preserved. Society will be closer to a true meritorcracy.

This could be the dumbest thing you've ever posted. The idea that anyone who believes in hard work and accountability would support a program that dispossesses them of their hard work so it can be redistributed to people who have claim to it (i.e. they're not accountable for the fortune) completely misses the point of accountability and the reason people work hard and of course is laughably stupid. Conservatives believe in not only hard work and accountability but also personal property rights. They earned the money and it's already been taxed - double taxation is unconstitutional no matter how much you believe someone else needs money that another person earned. They should be able to leave it to anyone they like, free and clear of any additional tax. This does nothing to preserve free enterprise, in fact it often hinders it as families have to sell family businesses to pay onerous estate taxes when a founder dies. It also does nothing to bring society closer to a true meritocracy.

 

[grandy]

it was a question - and a reasonable one based on your comment. People who oppose Sanders and his socialist policies have legitimate worries about what they would do to the country. I was asking you to clarify what you meant - should they not be concerned about the impact of his policies because it's not full blown socialism?

People can be concerned, but I don't think they're looking at the big picture, and that's also true for his fervent supporters. Whether his policies are full blown socialist or not, it's unlikely they'd ever see the light of day with a Republican-controlled congress.

People can certainly disagree with him and factor that into their voting decisions, but I don't think it should be based on the fears of some fantasy scenario. It would be like me worrying about Huckabee bringing in theocratic policies, it's not happening and I should focus on more realistic possibilities and expectations of a potential presidency.

 

[tomdalton22]

it puts children first.

one of the unsaid things, and what Republitards don't want people to realize is how their policies really fuck over poor kids, not their parents. That's who is ultimately harmed by cutting food stamps, medicare, etc. their parents, like most adults, will take care of themselves first.

and of course, kids are innocent...they aren't poor due to choice.

many times it's the parents that are at fault. Why are a lot of these people bringing kids into the world when they know that they can't provide for them?

 

[grandy]

many times it's the parents that are at fault. Why are a lot of these people bringing kids into the world when they know that they can't provide for them?

A rock and a hard place

Despite what some people think, it's incredibly easy to avoid having children. There's a 100% effective method for this.

However, it's a free country and people are free to have as much unprotected sex as they want. Trying to deter this through cuts in public assistance will impact the life of the children eventually. Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere, but what's the best way of determining that line?

I really haven't come up with a good answer for this, I think all we can hope for is to properly educate the public on these matters.

 

[Thumb]

many times it's the parents that are at fault. Why are a lot of these people bringing kids into the world when they know that they can't provide for them?

An abortion clinic on every corner in the ghettos then right?

That will solve everything.

 

[tomdalton22]

An abortion clinic on every corner in the ghettos then right?

That will solve everything.

IMO that is the worst form of birth control...but if that's what a woman wants to do, it's her right.

 

[Spartanmack]

it puts children first.

one of the unsaid things, and what Republitards don't want people to realize is how their policies really fuck over poor kids, not their parents. That's who is ultimately harmed by cutting food stamps, medicare, etc. their parents, like most adults, will take care of themselves first.

and of course, kids are innocent...they aren't poor due to choice.

How does it put children first? I'll answer that for you - it doesn't. That is such a fallacy of the left - if you hate more taxes, you hate or at a minimum don't care about poor kids. It's also not true that most adults would put themselves ahead of their kids - does anyone on this board know anyone who puts their kids second to themselves? If so, do most people you know do that? If can answer yes to those questiosn, you have some fucked up friends. You make these outrageous, unsubstantiated claims in a lame attempt to make your immoral positions seem morally superior.

And of course you don't mean all kids - just the ones lucky enough to not be murdered before they had a chance to be born.

 

[tinselwolverine]

A rock and a hard place

Despite what some people think, it's incredibly easy to avoid having children. There's a 100% effective method for this.

You mean, TV (technical virginity)?

Oral only until marriage?

 

[Spartanmack]

You mean, TV (technical virginity)?

Oral only until marriage?

Not in Michigan - pretty sure those crazy republitards just made that illegal there.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Not in Michigan - pretty sure those crazy republitards just made that illegal there.

That's funny.