Buffalo_Gal Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 Well, TV and Facebook are happy. That is a ***** load of cash to try and buy an election. He'd have been better off using the money to buy a personality that wasn't smug, pretentious, and arrogant. 3
Foxx Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 20 minutes ago, snafu said: ... Sanders’ approach is just a side door to his goal of reshaping everything. When he says things like revolution and movement, he means revolution and drastic change. He means to impose that change on a majority of citizens who don’t want that change to be so drastic. If you think that Executive Branch regulations aren’t enough to get the ball way down the road then you’re not seeing what Bernie can accomplish on his own — and for the next person that follows Bernie to take it further. ... it all began with: look at the imagery of the last image, does it remind anyone of anything? Sanders is the ultimate next guy who the globalists want to implement their 'agenda'. the problem is, they are not sure he is the right guy at the right time, he is too early. he was supposed to be the 'next guy', after the next guy that could bring us just down the road a little further in the plan unveiled under the obamanation. we just need to be pushed a bit further down the socialist road so that we will eagerly accept the full blown ideology when it is adopted. of course, it may be that Trump has so thwarted their plans that they are left with no other alternative than to try and force that change upon us in the current paradigm. damn the torpedoes and deal with the fallout after the fact may be the revised plan to put us back on their planned track. long ago they found that in order for them to implement their globalist desires, they understood that it is going to be much easier to reduce the US to third world status than it would be to raise third world countries to first world status and would take entirely too long to do, if it is even possible. Sanders is their wet dream, don't fall for their rhetoric. 5
Foxx Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 On 2/23/2020 at 2:28 PM, Foxx said: if one hadn't noticed the similarities in these two before now, the fact that they have the same handlers should expose it. https://twitter.com/Doranimated/status/1232305148556435457 was 'Pete' supposed to be, 'the next guy'? 3
B-Man Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 February 25, 2020 The Rebranding of Socialism as 'Democratic Socialism' By Dave Ball While it may be true that “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet” (Shakespeare) it is also true that socialism by any other name still smells like socialism. As we approach this year’s elections, the purveyors of socialism have tried to rebrand their product by calling it “democratic socialism.” The sales force and marketing department of democratic socialism, the Democratic Party, and the mainstream media, are plying a new fairy tale that democratic socialism is nothing like socialism. No siree, nothing like it, they sing in chorus. The chorus, however, is badly out of tune. Democratic socialism is not the wonderland of inclusiveness, social justice, equality, and happiness it is advertised to be. It will not end human exploitation and it will not save the planet. It is still socialism, just with a new name. Socialism has never worked for any nation and it will not work in this country, even with a new name. More at the link: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/02/the_rebranding_of_socialism_as_democratic_socialism.html 1
3rdnlng Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 10 hours ago, Doc Brown said: Oh god. None. She can tell Bernie where they keep the coffee filters in the West Wing dining room I guess. Can't tell if you are being facetious or not. What experience does Michelle have that would actually qualify her to be president? 10 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Black, female, and I will leave out the obvious transgender joke because I actually think Michelle is very nice looking. She does not dress for her frame or age (either her advisors hate her, or she does not listen to good advice, although her plastic surgeon is top-notch), and that is why she generally looks so terrible. When she dresses for her height and frame, she looks very good. If that is what you are considering as qualifications for president then I nominate Carrie Underwood. She's not only better looking but can also sing. -)
LSHMEAB Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 (edited) 11 hours ago, Rob's House said: I'm curious why people making ridiculous money concerns you. It concerns me too, despite my economic libertarian leanings, but for what I imagine are entirely different reasons. I'm actually not so concerned about billionaires as I am concentration of power by multi-national corporations. What threat do you see in rich CEOs and the like? I'm not concerned about the CEO's Rob. I'm concerned about the people trying to scrape by who may (or may not) be affected by the consolidation of wealth. As I said, I wouldn't want to live in a country that didn't allow citizens to become wealthy, even uber wealthy. But if you look at healthcare outcomes, upward mobility rates, income disparity, etc; something's gotta give. Healthcare alone; we spend TWICE as much as the next country on healthcare and our outcomes are 26th! There's no where to go but up. Let me just ask this question re: CEO's since you're likely referencing the 400/1 figure I cited. At what point is it a problem? If, let's say, the average CEO was making 10,000x that of the average worker, would THAT be a problem? Edited February 25, 2020 by LSHMEAB 2
Buffalo_Gal Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said: If that is what you are considering as qualifications for president then I nominate Carrie Underwood. She's not only better looking but can also sing. -) Me? Er, not hardly.
reddogblitz Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 7 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: ....another victim of relaxed mental hygiene....SMH...........DEM-entia....... Bernie Sanders reveals 'major plans' to be funded by new taxes, massive lawsuits, military cuts By Gregg Re | Fox News {snip} He released his plan on his website just minutes after promising to do so during a CNN town hall. However, the fact-sheet highlighted for the first time that many of Sanders' expected cost-saving measures relied on conjecture and best-case scenarios. For example, Sanders' document asserts that a "modest tax on Wall Street speculation ... will raise an estimated $2.4 trillion over ten years" and, in one fell swoop, make all "public colleges, universities and trade schools tuition-free ... and cancel all student debt over the next decade." https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bernie-sanders-payments-green-new-deal-medicare-for-all-explanation 10 years? Oh no, if Bernie wins, he won't leave when his 2nd term is over. He'll be our new dictator. Dooooooomed. I look forward to the Bernie 2045 cartoons. 1 1
IDBillzFan Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 18 minutes ago, B-Man said: Even the candidates are NPCs. 2
Rob's House Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 1 hour ago, LSHMEAB said: I'm not concerned about the CEO's Rob. I'm concerned about the people trying to scrape by who may (or may not) be affected by the consolidation of wealth. As I said, I wouldn't want to live in a country that didn't allow citizens to become wealthy, even uber wealthy. But if you look at healthcare outcomes, upward mobility rates, income disparity, etc; something's gotta give. Healthcare alone; we spend TWICE as much as the next country on healthcare and our outcomes are 26th! There's no where to go but up. Let me just ask this question re: CEO's since you're likely referencing the 400/1 figure I cited. At what point is it a problem? If, let's say, the average CEO was making 10,000x that of the average worker, would THAT be a problem? The real question is WHY is it a problem. It seems the underlying implication is that those who are struggling would have more if those at the top made less. I'm curious if that's your reasoning? 1
3rdnlng Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 1 hour ago, LSHMEAB said: I'm not concerned about the CEO's Rob. I'm concerned about the people trying to scrape by who may (or may not) be affected by the consolidation of wealth. As I said, I wouldn't want to live in a country that didn't allow citizens to become wealthy, even uber wealthy. But if you look at healthcare outcomes, upward mobility rates, income disparity, etc; something's gotta give. Healthcare alone; we spend TWICE as much as the next country on healthcare and our outcomes are 26th! There's no where to go but up. Let me just ask this question re: CEO's since you're likely referencing the 400/1 figure I cited. At what point is it a problem? If, let's say, the average CEO was making 10,000x that of the average worker, would THAT be a problem? A poor man in the USA today is as wealthy as a rich man 60 years ago. I just spent $300 on a flat screen tv that is much bigger and better than the flat screen I paid $1500 for in 2006. My vehicle is much better than a vehicle that I paid twice as much for 2 decades ago. We have such marvelous inventions such as GPS and smart phones that poor people today all have. With our abundance of natural gas it costs much less to heat my home than it did 15 years ago. I could go on and on but the thing to remember that is most important is that wealth is relative. As far as healthcare goes, remember we here in the USA pay for a vast majority of the world's medical and pharmaceutical research. Generally speaking we don't have long wait periods to see a doctor or rationed care. When you compare our health results to those countries with universal health care you are comparing apples to alligators. 1 1
GG Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 1 hour ago, LSHMEAB said: I'm not concerned about the CEO's Rob. I'm concerned about the people trying to scrape by who may (or may not) be affected by the consolidation of wealth. As I said, I wouldn't want to live in a country that didn't allow citizens to become wealthy, even uber wealthy. But if you look at healthcare outcomes, upward mobility rates, income disparity, etc; something's gotta give. Healthcare alone; we spend TWICE as much as the next country on healthcare and our outcomes are 26th! There's no where to go but up. Let me just ask this question re: CEO's since you're likely referencing the 400/1 figure I cited. At what point is it a problem? If, let's say, the average CEO was making 10,000x that of the average worker, would THAT be a problem? How do stock market's valuation multiples affect the wages that workers earn? How much of the USA's healthcare rankings affected by lifestyle choices and addictions vs healthcare delivery?
Doc Brown Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 3 hours ago, 3rdnlng said: Can't tell if you are being facetious or not. What experience does Michelle have that would actually qualify her to be president? If that is what you are considering as qualifications for president then I nominate Carrie Underwood. She's not only better looking but can also sing. -) I'm not being facetious. If recent history is any indicator the less experience in politics the better your chances are (thinking about Hillary being the most qualified candidate ever). It's a popularity contest and about who inspires people the most to get people to turn out and vote. Sad but true.
3rdnlng Posted February 25, 2020 Posted February 25, 2020 2 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: I'm not being facetious. If recent history is any indicator the less experience in politics the better your chances are (thinking about Hillary being the most qualified candidate ever). It's a popularity contest and about who inspires people the most to get people to turn out and vote. Sad but true. That's a poor answer to my question. What life experience makes her qualified to sit in the Oval Office and make important decisions?
Recommended Posts