It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Question for the Democrat candidates...

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 11:30 PM

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: xuenchen

He has been gaining ground on hiliary since he has announced, but don't let that stand in your way.

I love it.

Hillary needs some worthy competition.

posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 11:34 PM
a reply to: xuenchen

So he doesn't need to stop doing anything, or you just need to watch him a little more so you don't accidentally post statements that are just not based in reality.

posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 11:37 PM
a reply to: xuenchen

Why isn't the far right watching his videos that get posted? Think your heads will explode? He is the only one running currently that is giving detailed plans. He has proposed and is going to introduce to the Senate a plan to tax speculative trading to fund free public college for all. He wants to fund universal healthcare by raising taxes on the wealthy and closing loopholes that corporations use to avoid paying taxes, he is giving us details and is why he is doing so much better than the other candidates.

What plans has the candidate you support offered? Can you list something? Anything?

edit on 16-6-2015 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 11:39 PM
Democrats are reluctant to point out or even admit his policy flaws.

posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 11:49 PM
a reply to: LDragonFire

Hmmm, he's sounding more like Warren by the day.

Great tax the investment industry. Drive that investment money out of the U.S.. Kill this economy for good. Most of the 'rich' either have already paid taxes on their earnings or inherited their money-after inheritance taxes, or have already moved assets outside the U.S. or have them tied up in 'foundations' the Clintons.

Like an earlier thread already pointed out 60,000 manufacturing companies have folded/ moved out of the U.S.. You want to fund better health care? Build back up the economy.

More freebies seems to be the mantra the left is stuck in. Not fixes, freebies. Freebies they don't have to pay for...WE DO.

Let's hear a Democrat-like they used to- point that fact out. Where the hell have they gone???

edit on 16-6-2015 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 16 2015 @ 11:50 PM
a reply to: LDragonFire

Now you are making the example I'm talking about.

Deflections and blame.

Strike 2.

Go Bernie.

I hope he gets the Democrat nomination.

But raising taxes on the wealthy won't pay for it.

Let's see the numbers and the sources for the revenue.

Talk is cheap Bernie. And cheap won't pay the bills.

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 12:00 AM
a reply to: nwtrucker

I no longer support whatever form of capitalism we currently have.

I would like to try a mix of socialism and capitalism. I wanna see the entire healthcare industry socialized the banking industry and the energy industry oh and the prison industry.

Or we can keep doing what we are doing and see how bad the civil unrest or possible revolution or civil war, just ask the Tzars of Russia how that went for them. You really should question why communism rose so far and wide? It was a direct result of a unfair system similar to what we have now. I'm not afraid to try a new system.
edit on 17-6-2015 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 12:07 AM
a reply to: nwtrucker

No one in the Democratic Party wants to run against Hillary Clinton. This is why Hillary can get away with avoiding the media spot light for months at a time. Liberal media outlets like CNN will bury any issues and questions that Hillary should have to answer. All of this has been coming for the last 7 years. Hillary was always going to have another run for her party nomination after the 2008 race.

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 12:20 AM
a reply to: LDragonFire

I don't disagree with you as much as you might think. We do not have the capitalism that we had in the past.

We've always had a mixture of socialism and capitalism, from what I can see. Our basic education system is a form of socialism. Property owners paid for the schools whether they had kids or not. An accepted mild, local form of socialism.

Families are mostly socialist in their nature, from what I can see. At least financially. A benevolent dictator-these days, mom- who decides who gets what and how much...each according to their needs and ABILTY TO PAY...cough, cough.

That system starts to break down the larger it gets. Eventually, it collapses under it's own weight.

I really don't want to get into the "what went wrong' trap. I honestly and fully believe that the direction we are going, assuming you also see a difference between the two parties, is leading us down a dark path.

The more we lose the economic battle the more the cry for gov't intervention-freebies- while we have less and less to pay for them. A road to disaster.

Someone has to generate the wealth to pay for services. No system did that better than our original capitalism. Ever.

If this ends up collapsing, and I don't see a solution, then I prefer going down possible under the circumstances.. my choice, not someone telling me about everyone else's 'rights'....

edit on 17-6-2015 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 02:10 AM
a reply to: nwtrucker

"Someone has to generate the wealth to pay for services".

So true, yet when solutions for income inequality are presented by both parties, or fiscal responsibility for services(especially "freebies"), the answers leave a bad taste in my mouth. One side is static, clinging to the failed concept of trickle down economics, while those leaning towards socialism/collectivism expect the few to pay for the many.

Thatcher got it right: "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money". Things have been on simmer for a while, and it won't take much to boil over.

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 02:54 AM
a reply to: Boscowashisnamo

The only point I'd question in your post is the failed trickle down economics.

I see the label as a political jingoism invented to compete against Reagan in his era. Trickle down economics is capitalism. It mechanism hasn't changed one whit from 50 years ago to today. It works....when permitted to.

Personally, I have no problem with having a 'rich elite'. No jealousy or long as I can hold hope for upward mobility for myself and my family. That still isn't gone fully. Take that away, is has been for many, and the real trouble begins.

A huge part of this is that cheap labor we compete against. AND the failure to adapt/take measures to protect ourselves from that situation.

it's time to end the free trade give-aways and protect our market and workforce from that inequity. I don't 'blame' those countries whatsoever. I'd do the same as they. I also have no problem placing tariffs on selected nations to return a chunk of the manufacturing home...even if it hurts those other nations.

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 03:47 AM
I am for socialized Health Insurance, not socialized health care.

Problem is the Democrats screwed it up and now it's not going to happen. Makes me think that was their plan all along.

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 08:43 AM
Communist, check

Must be racist, check

Non factual attacks, check,

Gop fans paroting fox news, check

Bernie is scaring the people on the right, you cant have a comy in the white house right after a muslim lol

Can the gop get someone in the running thats not a clown, it might change there typical running policies, deflect and attack.

1 more year of this, god i love fox news and ats.

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 08:53 AM
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I could live with that as long as there was a private insurance option. I believe even Germany is moving in that direction.

My biggest beef is 'socialized' is that it is a euphemism for enforced... My right of choice is sacrificed for the right of coverage.

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 08:56 AM
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

All the while I watch streams of West Coast Canadians coming to Bellingham to get medical services in the U.S..

Even Canadians prefer the 'option' of U.S. medical services. Keep watching CBC....

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 09:19 AM
a reply to: nwtrucker

Did you have a point or something, lol keep on watching the cbc, so you have facts that canadians prefer the american healthcare system.

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 09:31 AM
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

No really. But they're surely not above taking advantage of the U.S. system when it suits them. Be it medical or economic value in their purchases.

There's good point and bad in the Canadian system...which I'm sure your aware of...

What torques me off is the arrogance of Canadians looking down their noses at the U.S.. We can now see the wisdom of depending of a resource based economy.

More MRI machines in Pittsburg, Pa. than all of Canada.....

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 09:37 AM
Arrogance of canadians, i thought this thread was about asking democrats a question.

Im so happy you have more mri machines, will that help the gop run a real candidate.

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 09:44 AM
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

So says a Canadian.

Sort out your messes. Your 'opinion' on the U.S. political process is my point.

Irrelevant, arrogant, biased and lacking in understanding of U.S. principals.

It is off-topic, however, and that ends any interest in the 'Canadian perspective'....Cheers.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in