Fruitcakecat, a president, beyond any political affiliations or stances on issues, should want to do well by America. Should want to leave its people well and its foreign relations positive. A president should not seek to bring his (or her) fellow Americans down, nor should he (or she) act disrepectably in any public form.
This is the good and proper way for people in power to feel and act toward the country that hold power in. This ought be true of senators and kings, and ought not be neglected for the sake of popularity. Because at the end of the day your responsibility is more important.
I'm the United States we have the ability to work together to hold out leaders to this. And we don't. As a country we decided that our allegiance to political party was more important than having well intentioned respectable Americans in office.
We fucked up. We need to undo the mistakes of thouse who came before us, and fix what has been corupted.
I wanna move away from the two party system that we've got going. If you aren't of one of the two main political parties then you have no real chance at the presidency which in my opinion is bullshit
I don't think voting is the problem nearly as much as how the media portrays the elections. The media only focuses on certain people and with the short attention span that the media and everyday people have makes it nearly impossible to get anywhere in an election even in the two main parties unless you have the media covering you.
The media doesn't help, certainly, but there is a serious underlying problem with the very system we use. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
Here, CPG Grey does a much better job explaining than I could.
I've looked at his views, I believe he actually cares about the country. @Famousone I have more reasons than that a lot more, you should try reading up on Bernie as a candidate.
It's all pretty words for what will essentially be monumental tax hikes, colored/lgbt favoritism, and a dramatically weakened military to support a much weaker international role.
No thank you.
Ok. Why?
Also, so you still plan to write in Carson? If not, who are you backing now and why?
-- I probably sound like a jerk, but I really just want to know why people are supporting who they are supporting, and why. And also I want to see good logical arguments. I want to see people who are passionately supportive of different candidates argue in a meaningful way without resorting to logical fallacys or name calling to end up at a junture discussing what is truely the most important thing, and why it's so important.
Uh I'm sorry have you looked at Bernie sanders tax plans he doesn't raise taxes for most of America besides a 2.2% tax on households to pay for healthcare, something that most Americans spend 1/4-1/5 of their income on, SO HE WOULD SAVE THEM MONEY.So shut up with this "HE'S GONNA RAISE TAXES FOR EVERYONE!1!!" bullshit.
At this point, I'm ready to pen in Trump because I feel he can't do as much lasting damage as Clinton or Sanders.
▼
deleted
· 8 years ago
Exactly people talk the maddest shit on Trump because he's "racist and a hate monger". As an Ethnic I can assure that I've heard far more hate coming from Bernie and Cliton supporters
Well disregarding the fact that trump has a large number of confederates (among a slew of other things) behind him and most of sander's "hate" comes from debating policy, I'd genuinely like to see either of you two even give some basic points on what Bernie sanders wants. Just give me some basic parts of his platform. I'll wait.
Now you can disagree with his platform, but before we even have that debate I'd like to know if even understand what he wants.
2
·
Edited 8 years ago
deleted
· 8 years ago
$15 minimum wage, universal health care, free community college, etc. Among other shitty policies that are going to destroy the economy. Is that good enough for you? You can fuck outta here now, no one wants you here that_gayming_girl
As someone who went to college and got a degree in economics I'll tell you you're wrong right now. Many European countries do what he is wanting to do and there economy is great and they are much smarter as a country because of free college. You're really not an intelligent person.
Um do you understand what those policies do?
-15$ min wage, makes it so no one works 60 hours a week and still live in poverty (massive problem for America)
-Universal health care, as I already mentioned, would save you money. 2.2% tax on households is FAR less then what we pay now, near 1/4-1/5 of most Americans income are spent on healthcare. And looking at other countries with socialized care, they pay less per capita, AND GET BETTER CARE.
-Universal college, also in all other modern countries (most of which have happier self reporting citizens) would make it so we don't treat students as customers.
Additionally, he would rebuild instructor, make 12 weeks of family leave the law, overturn citizens united by near any means necessary, and make it so we don't have RIDICULOUS amounts of income inequality. E.g. One family (the Walton family) owning more wealth the bottom 40% OF AMERICANS.
40%
THEY HAVE MORE WEALTH (6 PEOPLE) THAN ALMOST 100,000,000
deleted
· 8 years ago
"Many European countries" don't have the same government as us you dimwitted cunt. If you really had an economics degree you would understand that.
deleted
· 8 years ago
By raising the minimum wage companies are going to fire workers to save money. Obama tried universal health care and it fail miserably. If you made community college free more people would attend them, causing Universities to increase the tuition to make up for the decrease of students attending them per year. "Income inequality" go be a communist somewhere else that_gayming_girl
-Low wage workers spend almost all of their page raises in the private market, which would in the long term, increase growth
-Obama didn't try universal health care he implemented a individual mandate, COMPLETELY different and if you don't know that you shouldn't even be having the debate over healthcare,
-that doesn't make any sense I don't even know what you're saying that was such an illogical sentence. The government would pay public college tuition, how that would correlate with any increase in the rise of prices for tuition is a logical connection I don't even understand the bases for
-so you're okay with 6 people having more money than 100,000,000? That seems fair? Not to mention that the top 1% owns more wealth than 80-90% of the country. That's not an issue? That seems fair?
Korozco you're an idiot. First of all Obama care did help way more people than it hurt. Its not the best plan but its a start. Second if a couple years of college was free it would not mean colleges would have to raise there tuition. Colleges get way more money than they need and most of your tuition doesn't go to your education, most of it goes to advertisement for the school. You're the communist one here haha.
I would honestly like to know how free community college and having decent health care, and raising min wage is gonna crash our economy when we can spend billions to bail out banks? Bernie is more like the "Average American" than Trump or Hilary. I wanna know what makes anyone think that Trump cares about the middle class? Trump is insanely rich, Hilary's campaign is paid for by big business, Bernie's highest contributions are actually people who believe in him (mostly) I love that Bernie actually cares about the people who work in our communities, and these are the people who are out buying in our economy as well so if they have an education they'll make more and spend more, same can be said for minimum wage. And fyi those things cannot "crash our economy."
The issue with what Obama did with healthcare was that he literally swamped the ERs with low income people with minor problems that now can be taken care of at the expense of others. I work around low income people currently and we had to take one of our tenants to the ER in a bigger city after he was having issues. He had a doctors appointment that we took him to and the doctor told him that he would like to have tests run and that he should go down to the ER. This was 2pm on a Saturday and the ER was packed. People were sitting on the floor on book shelves and essentially everywhere. They had a guy who was beginning to become eradic after being in the ER for 6hours before we arrived. Back to what I was saying, the guy we took to the ER didn't even get seen by a doctor until 6 am the next morning, over 12 hours later. It's not nearly as bad at the local hospital but at any given time the hospital in my home town has quite a few more people in its ER that it didn't have before.
2
·
Edited 8 years ago
deleted
· 8 years ago
Holy shit you people are economically illiterate. Cooperations and Universities don't care about what's fair. The only thing that matters to them is money. So they are going to do whatever they have to do to make sure that they make as much as they possibly can. In the process fucking over the middle-class. Bernie doesn't care about the middle-class he cares about the poor, big fucking difference. If you dipshits had the brain capacity to think for yourselves instead of sucking on Bernies tit you would understand.
You do understand that the payment for colleges wouldn't come from the middle class it would be payed for by a tax on stock speculation. Secondly, what makes you think he doesn't care about the middle class? Near all of his policies would benefit them. Additionally you understand the amount of leverage the government would have over universities for prices? Oh you wouldn't reduce your tuition cost? *Poof* you're not longer a public college and now almost every one of your students isn't going to be able to go and have to go to a different school and oh look you're bankrupt.
▼
deleted
· 8 years ago
How is the increase of prize for many things going to benefit the middle-class?
Community Colleges = free
Universities = increase in tuition
A University isn't a public college, are you slow?
Are you really playing the game of semantics? Seriously? You knew what I bloody meant. And blatantly pulling numbers out of your ass is also kind of insulting. Not to mention that we need to move away from gas anyways and start using more renewable sources. And you completely disregarded my point on the amount of control the gov. Would have on universities. If universities wanted to increase their tuition cost the gov could just cut them off from any gov. Benefits, not let them be a public university, and oh look all their students went to other colleges that they could afford.
deleted
· 8 years ago
You're over estimating the control the government actually has on Universities. The government implemented FAFSA to make Universities more affordable and what do Universities do? They sky rocket their prizes. We aren't talking about one Universities increasing it's tuition and the government shutting them down. We're talking about all Universities increasing tuition and the government like always not being able to do anything. And I agree with you, we do need to move away from oil but for the time being we're stuck on it.
While I think you're over exaggerating any possible price increase, there are few things to consider:
1) The revenue from the tax Bernie wants to implement would be able to pay for much more than what it would be if prices didn't change at all
2) The tax is, again, on stock speculation. Not any middle class.
3) What about Sweden, Japan, Norway, Finland, Denmark, France, The UK, Canada... The list goes on of countries that have free tuition and not only do they outcompete the US school system in almost every which way, they just lump in universities as the next step from highschool, the same way they view the progression for middle school to highschool.
I love that we're illiterate but then made up prices (not prizes) PRICES are being used as an example in an argument to tell us how ridiculous our views are. May I just make up whatever I want to argue my point as well? This will be much more fun, I have an incredible imagination.
Also pointing out a bill and saying that would happen again completely neglects the fact that universities probably spent billions of dollars to lobby for it to make it as weak as possible and loop-hole ridden.
The United States does similar with upper education. It's seen as the next step after high school but the difference between here and all the countries listed is population. A large number of people in the states will be going into some kind of secondary schooling after high school whether that be community, tech, or university.
That argument doesn't stand up though, when the estimated cost of the program would be
75-100 billion dollars and the proposed payment method would raise ~275-300 billion.
deleted
· 8 years ago
The thing you keep forgetting is that our government is the most heavily influenced country by corporations. Until the day that that is not true, you can't keep accurately comparing us to other countries on these certain issues. We went over this already, the increase in prizes is what's going to screw the middle-class over, not the taxes. The problem with your first point is that that money is going to go to specific areas. There won't be any money left over because it'll all be in those specific areas. Bernie would have to wait until the year after to see if he could take any money out form those specific areas. But these specific areas wouldn't want to lose any money so they're going to spend it all. Tricking Bernie into believing that the first estimate was on point accurate. Many programs do this because they don't want to get their funding cut.
This is chess not checkers, and the income of an educated individual vs uneducated is significant, that alone will eventually pay off in our economy as well. This is important to not forget imo it would also save (in the long term) on government benefits, government housing, and Medicaid costs. If people have been educated and are working they'll be paying their own way in society instead of depending on society to support them and most likely their children.
Which is why Bernie's number 1 issue is overturning citizens united and making the US a rep. Democracy again not a oligarchy. Disagree with him or not that ALONE should be one of if not the biggest reason to vote for him.
There will be 2-3 seats he will probably need to refill on the courts (depending on whether or not the Republicans will block Obama from appointing one) and that would easily be enough to overturn the ruling.
He wants to be FDR 2.0 essentially.
deleted
· 8 years ago
The only reason FDR's policies worked was because we were in a great depression. That's not our current case, we're still healing from the last recession. Bernie's policies would halt our healing. Bernie would have to wait until another great depression to become FDR 2.0
You realize that the great recession was THE BIGGEST recession since THE GREAT DEPRESSION. If it had been much worse we would have had a second depression.
How would prices increase for normal products? The few cents Walmart would increase their prices to pay for the increase in wages (assuming they wanted to keep their profit margin) would halt the entire countries devolvement ? (WalMart was an example but you wouldn't see that dramatic increase of prices, especially since Bernie wants a gradual increase not a one day its 7.25 the next its 15. No, it would be something like by his 3rd or 4th year it would be 15 dollars an hour
·
Edited 8 years ago
deleted
· 8 years ago
Few cents is an understatement
2
deleted
· 8 years ago
A real example would be how McDonald's has already started replacing cashiers with machines. If the companies don't raise prices then they replace workers for machines
And what does that have to do with anything, they'll do that anyway...case in point they're doing it already without a minimum wage increase.
▼
deleted
· 8 years ago
They're doing that from the slight wage increase we've had in the past couple of years, now imagine that when we try and increase the minimum wage to $15
This is the good and proper way for people in power to feel and act toward the country that hold power in. This ought be true of senators and kings, and ought not be neglected for the sake of popularity. Because at the end of the day your responsibility is more important.
I'm the United States we have the ability to work together to hold out leaders to this. And we don't. As a country we decided that our allegiance to political party was more important than having well intentioned respectable Americans in office.
We fucked up. We need to undo the mistakes of thouse who came before us, and fix what has been corupted.
Here, CPG Grey does a much better job explaining than I could.
No thank you.
Also, so you still plan to write in Carson? If not, who are you backing now and why?
-- I probably sound like a jerk, but I really just want to know why people are supporting who they are supporting, and why. And also I want to see good logical arguments. I want to see people who are passionately supportive of different candidates argue in a meaningful way without resorting to logical fallacys or name calling to end up at a junture discussing what is truely the most important thing, and why it's so important.
Now you can disagree with his platform, but before we even have that debate I'd like to know if even understand what he wants.
-15$ min wage, makes it so no one works 60 hours a week and still live in poverty (massive problem for America)
-Universal health care, as I already mentioned, would save you money. 2.2% tax on households is FAR less then what we pay now, near 1/4-1/5 of most Americans income are spent on healthcare. And looking at other countries with socialized care, they pay less per capita, AND GET BETTER CARE.
-Universal college, also in all other modern countries (most of which have happier self reporting citizens) would make it so we don't treat students as customers.
Additionally, he would rebuild instructor, make 12 weeks of family leave the law, overturn citizens united by near any means necessary, and make it so we don't have RIDICULOUS amounts of income inequality. E.g. One family (the Walton family) owning more wealth the bottom 40% OF AMERICANS.
40%
THEY HAVE MORE WEALTH (6 PEOPLE) THAN ALMOST 100,000,000
-Obama didn't try universal health care he implemented a individual mandate, COMPLETELY different and if you don't know that you shouldn't even be having the debate over healthcare,
-that doesn't make any sense I don't even know what you're saying that was such an illogical sentence. The government would pay public college tuition, how that would correlate with any increase in the rise of prices for tuition is a logical connection I don't even understand the bases for
-so you're okay with 6 people having more money than 100,000,000? That seems fair? Not to mention that the top 1% owns more wealth than 80-90% of the country. That's not an issue? That seems fair?
Community Colleges = free
Universities = increase in tuition
A University isn't a public college, are you slow?
1) The revenue from the tax Bernie wants to implement would be able to pay for much more than what it would be if prices didn't change at all
2) The tax is, again, on stock speculation. Not any middle class.
3) What about Sweden, Japan, Norway, Finland, Denmark, France, The UK, Canada... The list goes on of countries that have free tuition and not only do they outcompete the US school system in almost every which way, they just lump in universities as the next step from highschool, the same way they view the progression for middle school to highschool.
75-100 billion dollars and the proposed payment method would raise ~275-300 billion.
There will be 2-3 seats he will probably need to refill on the courts (depending on whether or not the Republicans will block Obama from appointing one) and that would easily be enough to overturn the ruling.
He wants to be FDR 2.0 essentially.