It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Feel the Bern-ie Sanders

page: 10
20
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
The 1% crap again.

Heard that crap for the last 7 years.

Can any politician at least have one original thought?

Guess not.

Oh yeah I feel.

I feel the same on crap again.

What happened to Warren ?

The fringe lost that thrill up their legs?

Now it's Sanders.
edit on 23-7-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Personally, I like the idea of a socialist running for office. He's not socialist enough for me, but it's good enough.

This pseudo-capitalist corporatist scheme we have been getting from the Republicans and the Democrats does not seem to be working so well.

It's time for a change. I wonder if Bernie can hang on through all of this though. He's bound to meet some stiff opposition from both parties.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
And that's all it takes.

Hell, my wife and I have been married almost 25 years and we stll don't agree on everything. The point is, polarizing the electoral process doesn't work.

It failed with Bush. It failed with Obama.

All we can do is try. We can attempt a grassroots campaign to unite the two polarized aspects.

Is it ideal?

Hell no.

But if both "sides" can come together and see that it'll take more than just one ideology to solve the issues in the country, then it's worth a shot.


The problem is that our voting system doesn't allow for this. In order to be elected you need a 50.01% electoral vote. This means that if there's 3 parties the vote could split 40-35-25 and no one wins. In such a situation whatever two parties can strike a deal win, and the other person loses by a huge margin (to the point they get no say in anything). As a result it becomes in the interest of one of the parties to be the total opposite of another party and split the third groups vote. Then the other party reacts and also becomes the total opposite and in the end you're left with 2 parties. You can scale this process up for any number of parties but it will always reduce to the inverse of the vote percentage required. With .5 required you get 2 parties, with .33 you get 3, with .2 you get 5, and so on.

I don't think split tickets will work for this reason, it's a nice idea to say "why can't we all just get along" but human psychology, and game theory in particular will ensure it never happens.

Instead let me propose a way to fix our system that requires just a few people rather than the willing cooperation of 300+ million people:
1. General Election debates are open to anyone who has their name on the ballot in atleast 50% of states.
2. Whoever gets the most Electoral College votes wins rather than needing 51%.

These two things would fix everything, and if you really got down to it, just #2 could fix it all with enough time.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Did having a teacher suddenly make the education you possess materialize inside your head or did you have to make the effort to get ON YOUR OWN?


Personal effort doesn't mean something is purely individual effort. Lets say you're typing a manuscript and you're distributing it over email. Did you invent the language? Did you learn to write without anyone else helping you? What about distributing over email? Did you derive the mathematics to build the hardware required? Did you write the email software? Did you create the publisher? Did you figure out the process to make paper for the printer? Or the ink? Or making the printer itself?

Sure, you put in some individual effort but the end result is only possible because of the efforts put in by many other people.

And on top of that, even if you really did do every single piece on your own you can't be a success without people who want to be your customers.
edit on 23-7-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
What happened to Warren ?

The fringe lost that thrill up their legs?

Now it's Sanders.


Warren decided not to run. When she runs she will almost certainly be the first female president.



posted on Jul, 23 2015 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
The man continues to poll 40-50 percentage points behind Hillary Clinton in every poll.
www.realclearpolitics.com...

Don't take this the wrong way, but he looks a lot like the Democrat's version of Ron Paul... oodles of rabid support within very finely defined segments of the party, but next to zero mass appeal to the majority of the registered voters.


Hillary Clinton is running for office ??

No, nothing like Ron Paul, he is far more mainstream, but still they ignore him.



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 05:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
The man continues to poll 40-50 percentage points behind Hillary Clinton in every poll.
www.realclearpolitics.com...

Don't take this the wrong way, but he looks a lot like the Democrat's version of Ron Paul... oodles of rabid support within very finely defined segments of the party, but next to zero mass appeal to the majority of the registered voters.


Man, I hope you're wrong...he's gaining national attention and will be in the debates. I hope he can surge right past Hillary!


Of course he will be. Kind of hard to have Hillary debate herself.

Although watching her lie to herself would be fun



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

The point is that people will do them regardless of legality, and at no reduced rates. In other words, criminalizing the behavior doesn't deter it at all. This defeats the purpose of criminalizing it, because the whole idea of prison is supposed to be used as a deterrent for the crime.
edit on 24-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2015 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

You'll get no argument from there on that. I don't like NAFTA either. I never have.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 06:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: BubbaJoe

You seem to equate volunteer with hired to perform.

I don't see how a volunteer fire department compares to a business with a reputation to protect and contractual obligation to fulfil.






So now you want to privatize fire and police protection, and make them for profit businesses, and you see no issues with this scenario?

Gee Dave, revenues are down this month.
Dave: well I will go set this place on fire

Seriously, WTF?



Well the government system did not work, how can you say its better?

At least a private system, with competition always keeping the providers competent, has a legal and commercial recourse. The company can be sued for breach of contract or what ever -- negligence, arson ??, and customers would switch to a better service provider.

Your argument is-- this system doesn't work, therefore no system will work so lets keep paying taxes for nothing. Sounds like slavery.





Seriously you are supporting privatized fire and police protection? In my town these systems work very well now that they are PUBLICALLY funded. What part about there was no government solution do you not understand, a volunteer fire department let something burn to the ground because the family did not make their donation. We pay taxes for a lot of things, and I pay more than a lot, but police and fire protection I will pay for as long as I can pick up the phone and call 911. Not that some one breaking into my house is going to live long enough for them to get here.


Yes I am seriously supporting privatized fire and police protection. Publically funded is just another way of saying funded after as much money as possible is spent on something else. Paying for them directly would be cheaper and, with competition, better service results. Police and firemen would still have the extra respect that comes from their profession, like professional athletes get. And they would still use the phone, is 911 carved into your brain a birth?, or you could have an emergency call button at your home, or on your person, to call them directly.

The name "police" is derived from "policy enforcement". The policeman's job is to keep general order, not to save any one person. Same for firemen. Firemen are tasked with keeping a fire from spreading, so as to protect the tax base as a whole, not to save a house that is already on fire.

Privatized emergency services would try to take care of you, their customer, as their first duty.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Privatized emergency services would try to take care of you, their customer, as their first duty.


If they have a monopoly or even a duopoly they really don't have any incentive to take care of you.



posted on Jul, 26 2015 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Privatized emergency services would try to take care of you, their customer, as their first duty.


If they have a monopoly or even a duopoly they really don't have any incentive to take care of you.


Their motivation is to prevent a duopoly or triopoly respectively.



posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ugmold

Who's backing Bernie? Why the socialist party of course, as he is openly socialist and backed current occupier of the WH. But socialism and communism are an invention of elites for control of the masses. Just observe how the socialist totalitarians seek to micro-manage every detail of our lives, what resources we use, the wells in our back yards etc ad nauseum. He sounds good in sound bites but the agenda is clearly not for individual liberties.



posted on Jul, 27 2015 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert
Oh the idea of change is lovely enough, but more socialism will just further bankrupt our country, as we already have more socialism than we can handle.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

So now the far left is dedicated to individualism and the far right are collectivist communists? I just want to say....no I don't think so.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 12:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: introvert
Oh the idea of change is lovely enough, but more socialism will just further bankrupt our country, as we already have more socialism than we can handle.



I think tax breaks under Nixon, Reagan, and GWB has more to do with our debt than most wanna admit. Oh and the third tax break for the wealthy and starting 2 wars also didn't help.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 02:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire
I think tax breaks under Nixon, Reagan, and GWB has more to do with our debt than most wanna admit. Oh and the third tax break for the wealthy and starting 2 wars also didn't help.


Our debt under Reagan was largely a measure of massively increased spending. Reagan for his part fixed the deficit caused by his tax breaks by increasing taxes. Taxes under Reagan actually went up, his only real cut was lowering the marginal rate but at the same time he did that he expanded new taxes to others below that rate and eliminated numerous loopholes. Following his rate cut his tax increases of 1982 and 1984 combined for the largest peacetime tax increase in American history, and those were just two of his increases, he had 8 others. Reagan increased taxes more than an average of once per year in office. People were so sick of his tax increases by the end of his second term that his VP, HW Bush ran on the platform of "read my lips, no new taxes". Reagan cutting taxes is a myth, he lowered the top marginal rate but passed a lot of taxes to make up for it.

W Bush had his tax cuts rated by the CBO as costing $1 trillion which all went into the debt, but the real debt issues under W were that he ran two extremely expensive wars that were funded by printing money, and he in fact kept them off the books until he was out of office by placing them in supplemental spending bills rather than the official budget. Obama for his part changed this accounting trick and that is where the majority of his debt came from.

I don't know enough about Nixon's tax cuts to say anything there.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I like Bernie. But his chances of getting the party nod over Hillary are about as good as Walmart going out of business....



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
a reply to: Semicollegiate

So now the far left is dedicated to individualism and the far right are collectivist communists? I just want to say....no I don't think so.



Yes in media speak you are correct.

Trying to organize the thoughts of the philosophers and thinkers throughout history is a lot easier if the terminology keeps the same definitions. For some reason the definitions become very murky and even totally opposite of their original meaning as political power grows. Today Right seems to mean individualism, but in actual result only means a show of contention with the Democrats. Both parties want to use government to solve problems, which means both parties are Socialist.

If you try to organize all the historical flip flops in the terminology of politics you end up at the beginning of the terminology at the French Revolution. In the National Assembly, the first Leftists wanted an new society, based on reason (or so they claimed). Politically the emphasis of the Left was on newness or change, however. The first Rightists wanted to keep as much as possible the same, allowing for some concessions. Right at the time meant the system of the recent past, which also at that time the system of the entire known past.

But just as liberal now means control of everything by the state when it originally meant freedom of the sovereign individual, Left now means more of the same instead of something new.

I don't like being Left. Right has better homonyms, and more family obvious goodness associated with it as a sound flowing through the mind.

Individualism requires excellent communication and enough technology to give people power to do what they want to. The communication and technology have only recently become real. Practical individualism is a new possibility and so as a social organization is Leftist and Classical Liberal.



posted on Jul, 28 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I've noticed that most people on ATS like Sanders, but the republicans/Conservatives amongst us tell that won't make them vote for him because they don't like socialism and they don't like his policies. However, most have no idea what his policies are or which ones they disagree with. When they do know which policies they disagree with, they don't know why they disagree. Someone on talk radio told them to disagree with them.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join