'Nobody likes him' - Hillary Clinton bashes Bernie Sanders

[pegman]

On 1/21/2020 at 10:41 PM, Jingthing said:

But it really isn't. Nobody gets the most votes for president in American history without some people liking her!

Not true. Obama got more votes than Clinton. In both his election wins. 

[mogandave]

49 minutes ago, SiSePuede419 said:

I said it before and I'll say it again.

 

If Hillary had chosen Bernie as VP instead of Dad Jeans Nobody, we wouldn't be having this conversation today because President Hillary.

More evidence that God loves us. 

[mogandave]

17 hours ago, BobBKK said:

Erm... hey... maybe the populations growing?  and don't forget all the illegals! 

In fact I predict the population will keep growing and votes will go UP (now ain't that something?)

Reagan got what, 58%? 

[Jingthing]

54 minutes ago, pegman said:

Not true. Obama got more votes than Clinton. In both his election wins. 

Yes that error has already been corrected,

But my more on point assertion is that saying nobody likes Hillary Clinton is obviously false. 

No I'm not saying she should run again. She won't be doing that and it would be bad idea.

It's mostly floated by 45 cult of personality followers as that would be a pipe dream for them. 

As far as HRC's diss of Sanders that nobody likes him, well, of course that's false as well. Lots of people like him of course but I think her statement was more about his colleagues in the senate not liking to work with him and that part might have some truth to it. But it was definitely not cool for any democrat to suggest they might not be endorsing whichever democrat that is nominated for 2020. 

Edited January 24, 2020 by Jingthing

[mogandave]

20 hours ago, scorecard said:

I didn't say that any of them were better than the US in any aspect

 

I apologize 

 

 

20 hours ago, scorecard said:

I wasn't commenting on systems of government, but since you raise it, I don't see any system of government as excellent. Unfortunately, across the whole worls there is no excellent / perfect model. 

 

They all have weak to hightly immoral faults.

 

Yes. well they all have flawed citizenry. 

 

20 hours ago, scorecard said:

In the US can a poorly educated citizen with no funds, in reality become president? NO.

In the US a poorly educated citizen with no funds can’t buy a cup of coffee.

 

In the US, a poorly educated citizen (or non citizen) can become well educated and well funded. Happens every day. 

 

20 hours ago, scorecard said:

Is the electoral college a balanced mechanism, seems the answer from many Americans is NO and many would even also say it's undemocratic.

 

Seems the answer from many Americans is YES. It’s only the left that wants it abolished. It’s not because they care about democracy, if they did, they would not attempt to have so many votes overturned. 

 

20 hours ago, scorecard said:

Does the US hav vote buying in elections? Some would claim NO, but what about clever lobbyists? Is that not vote buying?

I would claim YES! Doubling the minimum wage, “free” college, “free” medical, housing subsidies, reparations etc.  all  used  to buy votes. 
 

I think lobbyists focus on “buying” votes in Congress, not in elections.  

[lannarebirth]

1 hour ago, SiSePuede419 said:

The most exonerated politician in history.  How many BENGHAZI investigations resulted in nothing, nada, no charges.

 

She testified under oath for 10 hours.

 

How many hours has your hero Tump testified under oath?  ZERO.

 

You sir have no evidence of her wrongdoing.  You're full of <deleted>.

 

Be that as it may she slanders people constantly, just as you say, she may have been slandered. Bernie, who I do not support, supported her and she comes out to stab him in the back. Tulsi Gabbard, who I do not support, she called a "Russian asset" with no justification and no consequences for smearing someone who has done nothing but serve her country and question the motives of our foreign military engagements. Even though I don't support Rep. Gabbard for the presidency I WANT Congresspersons who question our objectives and motives. I DON'T WANT people who have pulled us into needless wars at the cost of countless lives and a great portion of our national treasure, and have then gone on to enrich themselves by 100's of millions for having done so.

[lannarebirth]

1 hour ago, SiSePuede419 said:

 

That was Republicans Phil Graham and Newt Gingrich who ridiculed someone who warned that creating derivatives was an economic threat.

 

Conservatives are ALWAYS on the wrong side of history. 

 

Remember, they fought on the side of the British. 

 

They were Tories. 

 

They looooooooove being told what to do by a "strong" King. 

 

Why?

 

They're Authoritarians with Daddy issues or substandard size reproductive organs. ????

 

Financial derivatives are not a threat. In fact they create great stability in a financial system by laying off risk. It was the derivative of the derivative of the derivatives of the underlying instrument that took us down.

[lannarebirth]

2 hours ago, SiSePuede419 said:

I said it before and I'll say it again.

 

If Hillary had chosen Bernie as VP instead of Dad Jeans Nobody, we wouldn't be having this conversation today because President Hillary.

Funny, I can't even remember who she chose as her VP.

 

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

No, my position is the opposite, that respect for the minority must respected. 
 

It’s worth noting I was responding to someone (You?) that was arguing how important majority rule was. 

 And again you take my words out of context.

 

My point is that in a democracy there are elections and in a simple example a government if formed aligned to the greatest number of votes.

 

But that doesn't mean those who didn't vote for the 'winners' shoud be ignored. In reality in many countries (including my original country) it's part of the basic thinking / values of society that all citizens and their needs must be fully respected / must be protected / must have care and support as needed.

 

 

[scorecard]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

I apologize 

 

 

 

Yes. well they all have flawed citizenry. 

 

In the US a poorly educated citizen with no funds can’t buy a cup of coffee.

 

In the US, a poorly educated citizen (or non citizen) can become well educated and well funded. Happens every day. 

 

 

Seems the answer from many Americans is YES. It’s only the left that wants it abolished. It’s not because they care about democracy, if they did, they would not attempt to have so many votes overturned. 

 

I would claim YES! Doubling the minimum wage, “free” college, “free” medical, housing subsidies, reparations etc.  all  used  to buy votes. 
 

I think lobbyists focus on “buying” votes in Congress, not in elections.  

Points taken.

 

Your missing the point about 'socialist'.

 

In countries where medicine and education and more is structured so that everybody has good health care and good education at no charge these items are not used as vote winners, they are there as part and parcel of the social values and desires of a society, often including some strong social values about 'sharing the wealth'. 

 

Where did your comment about doubling the minimum wage come from?

 

I wonder how much knowledge and understanding you have in regard to other countries. And in regard to how other societies have different thinking and appraoches to many things

 

The US is not the world's good example, especially in regard to democracy.

 

In some counties the mix of capitalism and socialism and cost control brings great benefits to the population and is well accepted and not imposed by force of any sort.

 

A few countries are trying to build another item, legislation to ensure the gap between the lowest paid and the highest paid has limits, to ensure all citizens at least have a quality of life which ensures they eat well, etc.

 

Do some reading about Japan in regard to 'the gap' you might be surprised. Japan appears to be a gung ho capitalst society and it is successful in terms of it's capitalism business activity both domestic and international trade but it's also a strong socialist country. 

 

China is well progressed in terms of a strong mixed capitalist / socialist economy. 

Edited January 24, 2020 by scorecard

[lannarebirth]

1 hour ago, scorecard said:

Points taken.

 

Your missing the point about 'socialist'.

 

In countries where medicine and education and more is structured so that everybody has good health care and good education at no charge these items are not used as vote winners, they are there as part and parcel of the social values and desires of a society, often including some strong social values about 'sharing the wealth'. 

 

Where did your comment about doubling the minimum wage come from?

 

I wonder how much knowledge and understanding you have in regard to other countries. And in regard to how other societies have different thinking and appraoches to many things

 

The US is not the world's good example, especially in regard to democracy.

 

In some counties the mix of capitalism and socialism and cost control brings great benefits to the population and is well accepted and not imposed by force of any sort.

 

A few countries are trying to build another item, legislation to ensure the gap between the lowest paid and the highest paid has limits, to ensure all citizens at least have a quality of life which ensures they eat well, etc.

 

Do some reading about Japan in regard to 'the gap' you might be surprised. Japan appears to be a gung ho capitalst society and it is successful in terms of it's capitalism business activity both domestic and international trade but it's also a strong socialist country. 

 

China is well progressed in terms of a strong mixed capitalist / socialist economy. 

 

You shouldn't have to explain yourself, especially when the other person sets the parameters, which you accept, which are wrong. Socialism is when a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. There is virtually no place in America where that paradigm exists. Where it does exist it is usually in a place where more common structures of capatalism have failed to serve the needs of the populace and it usually thrives in those places. That there should be a profit motive beyond cost and salaries for highly skilled medical care is frankly obscene. What I have noticed about the poster you are responding to is that he is highly uneducated on almost any topic he engages in and he masks that by asking continuous questions trying to make others defend their statements, but never his own. He is an ignorant individual and I've read tha he hopes to send his child to Med School in the US. Maybe try King Naresuwan College if your learning is what you have instilled in your child.

 

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by lannarebirth

[mogandave]

On 1/24/2020 at 12:46 PM, scorecard said:

Points taken.

 

But not addressed?

 

On 1/24/2020 at 12:46 PM, scorecard said:

Your missing the point about 'socialist'.

 

In countries where medicine and education and more is structured so that everybody has good health care and good education at no charge these items are not used as vote winners, they are there as part and parcel of the social values and desires of a society, often including some strong social values about 'sharing the wealth'. 

 

Are you claiming healthcare and education in the US are not good or that they are not available? I think the healthcare is mostly good, but I would agree education has gotten much worse over the years.
 

Education K-12 is available at no charge for everyone and healthcare is available at no charge to the poor. 

 

Quote

Where did your comment about doubling the minimum wage come from?

I thought we were discussing vote buying. 

 

Quote

I wonder how much knowledge and understanding you have in regard to other countries. And in regard to how other societies have different thinking and appraoches to many things

 

I could say I wonder about you as well, but then I would sound condescending too.
 

I’m happy to discuss any of the differences you see. 
 

Quote

The US is not the world's good example, especially in regard to democracy.

 

So which country is the World’s good example, especially in regard to democracy? 
 

Quote

In some counties the mix of capitalism and socialism and cost control brings great benefits to the population and is well accepted and not imposed by force of any sort.

 

Yet it seems some countries that had  historically been becoming more socialist have been scaling it back. 
 

Quote

A few countries are trying to build another item, legislation to ensure the gap between the lowest paid and the highest paid has limits, to ensure all citizens at least have a quality of life which ensures they eat well, etc.

 

Why should there be a limit to what people can earn? 
 

The government will decide who earns what, yes?

 

The government will mandate what people eat?

 

 

Quote

Do some reading about Japan in regard to 'the gap' you might be surprised. Japan appears to be a gung ho capitalst society and it is successful in terms of it's capitalism business activity both domestic and international trade but it's also a strong socialist country.

 

And the CEO of Toyota is worth a billion USD. 

 

What do you think the average CEO in the US earns? I think you’d be surprised at how small the wage gap is at 95% of US companies.

 

Quote

China is well progressed in terms of a strong mixed capitalist / socialist economy. 

 Tell the residents of Hong Kong or Taiwan. 
 

Do you think the citizens of China generally enjoy the same healthcare and educational benefits? 
 

I love when a paper runs a story about the “growing middle class” in China and compare it the the US middle class. They never seem to get around to mentioning that the “growing middle class” in China only represents  5-10% of the population. 
 

What do you think the wage gap in China is? 

[mogandave]

On 1/24/2020 at 1:50 PM, lannarebirth said:

You shouldn't have to explain yourself....

 

Yes, only non-leftists should have to explain themselves.

 

On 1/24/2020 at 1:50 PM, lannarebirth said:

...especially when the other person sets the parameters, which you accept, which are wrong.

What is wrong?

 

On 1/24/2020 at 1:50 PM, lannarebirth said:

Socialism is when a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Did I claim it wasn’t? 

 

On 1/24/2020 at 1:50 PM, lannarebirth said:

There is virtually no place in America where that paradigm exists. Where it does exist it is usually in a place where more common structures of capatalism have failed to serve the needs of the populace and it usually thrives in those places.

Like the Indian reservations?

 

On 1/24/2020 at 1:50 PM, lannarebirth said:

That there should be a profit motive beyond cost and salaries for highly skilled medical care is frankly obscene.

Food and housing is more basic need, and generally more important to most everyone. Is it obscene that there is a profit motive behind those industries? 
 

Should the government not take those over as well?

 

On 1/24/2020 at 1:50 PM, lannarebirth said:

What I have noticed about the poster you are responding to is that he is highly uneducated on almost any topic he engages in and he masks that by asking continuous questions trying to make others defend their statements, but never his own.

Any statement worth making is worth defending. That one is unwilling or (more likely) unable to defend one’s positing is an indication the precariousness of one’s position. 
 

On 1/24/2020 at 1:50 PM, lannarebirth said:

He is an ignorant individual and I've read tha he hopes to send his child to Med School in the US. Maybe try King Naresuwan College if your learning is what you have instilled in your child.

 

 

I’m always amused when people like you call others ignorant. 
 

It’s less amusing (albeit telling) that you would drag my child into a political discussion in some feeble effort to hurt or embarrass me. Real classy. 

[Monomial]

50 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Why should there be a limit to what people can earn? 
 

 

It is a Saturday afternoon. Beer in hand, I'll take this on. 

 

There should be no limit on how much people can earn. However, there should be a limit on how big businesses can grow. They should only be allowed to grow to the minimum size necessary to accomplish their function, and no more.  It is very possible to compete in areas other than economies of scale. Quality of customer service and quality of production for example. There are very few industries that genuninely require multi million dollar corporations. And most of those can be owned and operated by a cooperative rather than by ultra wealthy private investors.

 

The fact that capitalism has taken over the world does not mean it is good. Similarly, the only other option to capitalism does not have to be socialism.  This is a fiction spread by those who are already wealthy and benefit from the current system. There are hundreds of 3rd way economic philosophies that existed before the sieve of the cold war separated everyone into capitalist/socialist.

 

Check out distributism for an economic philosophy that was popular in ages past and has since been forgotten.

 

The issue is not and has never been how much people earn from their own efforts. Only those who are trying desperately to cling to a fantasy about the superiority of capitalism use this as a strawman. Instead, the devil is how much inequity is generated by controlling the captial for investments. That is what makes a society unhealthy.  Scientists and doctors would strive to cure disease even if they didn't have promises of becoming extraordinarily wealthy. Entrepeneurs would still establish businesses, and inventors would still invent.  It is the religious belief that non working, passive capital is the ultimate resource that needs to be eliminated.

 

Mom and pop grocery stores in purchasing cooperatives could work just as well as Walmart if they were given time to grow up organically and not forced to compete with a billion dollar national chain. Megacorporations are what creates the vast majority of strife in the world. Google started with a philosophy of "don't be evil" back when they were small and Microsoft held that mantle. Today, brobdignagian beyond belief, Google is the epitome of evil, and needs to be clipped.

 

I think Bernie would actually agree with me, and unlike Clinton and the rest of the Democrats who exist only to support the ultra wealthy (a.k.a. themselves) and continue the status quo, Bernie might actually be willing to try something radical. That is why I think he is the only candidate who could possibly defeat Trump.

 

[piewarmer]

watch the Clinton Chronicles, 30 years old but it explains a lot 

[mogandave]

48 minutes ago, Monomial said:

 

It is a Saturday afternoon. Beer in hand, I'll take this on. 

Is the beer from local micro-brewery?

 

48 minutes ago, Monomial said:

 

There should be no limit on how much people can earn. However, there should be a limit on how big businesses can grow. They should only be allowed to grow to the minimum size necessary to accomplish their function, and no more. 

 

I assume the size is different for every product and industry, yes? 
 

Who decides when a company is big enough? 

 

48 minutes ago, Monomial said:

It is very possible to compete in areas other than economies of scale. Quality of customer service and quality of production for example. There are very few industries that genuninely require multi million dollar corporations.

 

Please provide some examples. I thought maybe the sex Industry, but even they need condoms.
 

 

48 minutes ago, Monomial said:

And most of those can be owned and operated by a cooperative rather than by ultra wealthy private investors.

Most large corporations are publicly held, by both small and large investors. 
 

How do you see large corporations (pick an industry) and explain how it would work more or even as effectively as a co-op.

 

48 minutes ago, Monomial said:

The fact that capitalism has taken over the world does not mean it is good.

Actually, I would argue capitalism built the world and other systems have been trying to take it over. “Socialism spends what capitalism earns.”

 

48 minutes ago, Monomial said:

 

Similarly, the only other option to capitalism does not have to be socialism.  This is a fiction spread by those who are already wealthy and benefit from the current system. There are hundreds of 3rd way economic philosophies that existed before the sieve of the cold war separated everyone into capitalist/socialist.

 

Check out distributism for an economic philosophy that was popular in ages past and has since been forgotten.

 

It hasn’t been forgotten, it has been abandoned. Likely because there those that decide who gets what. 

 

48 minutes ago, Monomial said:

The issue is not and has never been how much people earn from their own efforts. Only those who are trying desperately to cling to a fantasy about the superiority of capitalism use this as a strawman. Instead, the devil is how much inequity is generated by controlling the captial for investments.

 

In a capitalist system, everyone has access to capital. In a socialist or distributive system, the government controls it and decide who and how much everyone gets.

 

48 minutes ago, Monomial said:

That is what makes a society unhealthy.  Scientists and doctors would strive to cure disease even if they didn't have promises of becoming extraordinarily wealthy. Entrepeneurs would still establish businesses, and inventors would still invent.

 

Some might, most wouldn’t. 
 

48 minutes ago, Monomial said:

  It is the religious belief that non working, passive capital is the ultimate resource that needs to be eliminated.

 

I do not understand what you mean by this. Do you mean that people should not be able to save and invest money? 

 

48 minutes ago, Monomial said:

Mom and pop grocery stores in purchasing cooperatives could work just as well as Walmart if they were given time to grow up organically and not forced to compete with a billion dollar national chain. Megacorporations are what creates the vast majority of strife in the world. Google started with a philosophy of "don't be evil" back when they were small and Microsoft held that mantle. Today, brobdignagian beyond belief, Google is the epitome of evil, and needs to be clipped.

 

So what is stopping all of these purchasing cooperatives from prospering under capitalism?

 

48 minutes ago, Monomial said:

I think Bernie would actually agree with me...

I don’t doubt that for a moment. 

 

48 minutes ago, Monomial said:

...and unlike Clinton and the rest of the Democrats who exist only to support the ultra wealthy (a.k.a. themselves) and continue the status quo, Bernie might actually be willing to try something radical. That is why I think he is the only candidate who could possibly defeat Trump.

I think any of them could beat Trump. 

[Monomial]

6 hours ago, mogandave said:

I assume the size is different for every product and industry, yes? 
 

Who decides when a company is big enough? 

 

The legislative body. The same way legislative bodies make today's rules and set policies. Who decides what is considered the legitimate currency of a realm? Not me.  Who decides the tax laws that incentivize the creation of mega corporations? Not me. There is always a government that sets the rules of the game. It is never done by individuals.

 

 

6 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Please provide some examples. I thought maybe the sex Industry, but even they need condoms.
 

 

Examples of what? No business needs to be large.  It is a mistake of capitalism that think they need to expand to reach economies of scale.  Name me a single business today that could not be made smaller if there was a political will to stop it from scaling.  Shut down Walmart. Replace it with thousands of individual mom and pop stores. People wouldn't starve because of it. People can survive on regional versions of soda. We don't need Coca-Cola across the world.

 

 

6 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Most large corporations are publicly held, by both small and large investors. 
 

How do you see large corporations (pick an industry) and explain how it would work more or even as effectively as a co-op.

 

And the fact that they are "held" at all is wrong. They should be owned privately by as few people as possible, and those owners should also be providing labor.

 

There is no need for large corporations. If they didn't exist, people would adapt. The world would move on. It existed for millenia without mega corporations. It would again. History shows any industry can be made smaller, because they were all smaller in the past. They need to be smaller again. Only a few things, like managing a nuclear power plant, or something like the LIGO observatory need to be big in order to accomplish anything. Those few industries can be managed by government or by collectives. Walmart doesn't need to exist for people to eat. Mega corporations can be entirely eliminated. The world will change, but people will adapt and society will be better for it.

 

 

6 hours ago, mogandave said:

Actually, I would argue capitalism built the world and other systems have been trying to take it over. “Socialism spends what capitalism earns.”

 

 

It hasn’t been forgotten, it has been abandoned. Likely because there those that decide who gets what. 

 

Capitalism built a failed world that is crumbling and now needs to be rebuilt along a better philosophy.

 

Other systems were abandoned in favor of the failed experiment called capitalism. Once that broken philosophy is eliminated, other, better ideas can flourish again. And it will. Capitalism is nothing more than a short term blip in history.

 

 

6 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

In a capitalist system, everyone has access to capital. In a socialist or distributive system, the government controls it and decide who and how much everyone gets.

 

 

Some might, most wouldn’t. 
 

 

In a capitalist system, the wealthy hold a disproportianate amount of control. In a distributive system, everyone owns their own means of production.  Everyone can choose how much they want to work and what they want to do. They can always get more by working harder. But it is their labor that is important, not their wealth.

 

Your second statement is simply wrong.

 

6 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

I do not understand what you mean by this. Do you mean that people should not be able to save and invest money? 

 

Correct. People should invest their labor. Not their capital. Capital is only an ancillary tool, not the primary input.  You can invest as much as you want as long as it is your labor that you are investing. That means Warren Buffet would have no advantage over a Chinese peasant.  And if children want to be as rich as their parents, then they will need to work just as hard as their parents.

 

6 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

So what is stopping all of these purchasing cooperatives from prospering under capitalism?

 

The fact that the laws as they exist today unfairly favor the disease called capitalism. Eliminate that, and other economic systems can flourish again. Doesn't have to be socialism. There are many other options.

 

6 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

I don’t doubt that for a moment. 

 

I think any of them could beat Trump. 

 

I personally doubt that. I think only Sanders has the ability to defeat Trump. People are angry with the current system and they want radical change. They don't necessarily know what to replace it with, but Trump is currently the only candidate that makes people believe radical change is possible. That is why he will win again unless the Democrats wake up.

 

[mogandave]

9 hours ago, Monomial said:

 

The legislative body. The same way legislative bodies make today's rules and set policies. Who decides what is considered the legitimate currency of a realm? Not me.  Who decides the tax laws that incentivize the creation of mega corporations? Not me. There is always a government that sets the rules of the game. It is never done by individuals.

 

How is the legislative body selected? 
 

Who decides how are they compensated? 

 

Would they earn the same as a street-sweeper? If not, why? 
 

Quote

Examples of what? No business needs to be large.  It is a mistake of capitalism that think they need to expand to reach economies of scale.  Name me a single business today that could not be made smaller if there was a political will to stop it from scaling.

Yes, any company can be made smaller by closing one store or factory, or even by just firing on employee. Doesn’t make them better or more efficient. 

 

Quote

Shut down Walmart. Replace it with thousands of individual mom and pop stores. People wouldn't starve because of it. People can survive on regional versions of soda. We don't need Coca-Cola across the world.

 

We have thousands of individual mom abs pop stores. Most people like Walmart better. You don’t, so you shouldn’t trade with them. 

 

When you start talking about not staving, surviving and what people can without I start to get the picture. 
 

Quote

And the fact that they are "held" at all is wrong. They should be owned privately by as few people as possible, and those owners should also be providing labor.

 

What kind of work do you do? 

 

Who determines who's labor is worth more than who’s?

 

Quote

There is no need for large corporations.

 

Please define large. Everyone is going to refine their own oil and build their own car? 

 

Quote

If they didn't exist, people would adapt. The world would move on. It existed for millenia without mega corporations. It would again. History shows any industry can be made smaller, because they were all smaller in the past.

 

They weren’t all smaller in the past, some were larger, some are smaller, some didn’t exist. 
 

So rather than providing people with a choice you would compel them to adapt. 

 

Quote

They need to be smaller again. Only a few things, like managing a nuclear power plant, or something like the LIGO observatory need to be big in order to accomplish anything. Those few industries can be managed by government or by collectives. Walmart doesn't need to exist for people to eat. Mega corporations can be entirely eliminated. The world will change, but people will adapt and society will be better for it.

 

Why even have a nuclear power plant? Why should not everyone generate their own power? 
 

 

Quote

Capitalism built a failed world that is crumbling and now needs to be rebuilt along a better philosophy.

 

According to who? There is less hunger, poverty and disease than at any point in history, and people everywhere live longer, happier and safer lives. 

 

Quote

Other systems were abandoned in favor of the failed experiment called capitalism. Once that broken philosophy is eliminated, other, better ideas can flourish again. And it will. Capitalism is nothing more than a short term blip in history.

Only leftists see it as failed, and even most of them don’t want to abandon it completely.

 

Quote

In a capitalist system, the wealthy hold a disproportianate amount of control. In a distributive system, everyone owns their own means of production.  Everyone can choose how much they want to work and what they want to do. They can always get more by working harder. But it is their labor that is important, not their wealth.

 

So anyone can be a street-sweeper. a legislator or a brain surgeon and they can make as much as they want by just working harder, yes? 
 

Quote

 

Your second statement is simply wrong.

 

Because you say it is? You think people don’t care what they earn? 
 

 

Quote

 

Correct. People should invest their labor. Not their capital. Capital is only an ancillary tool, not the primary input.  You can invest as much as you want as long as it is your labor that you are investing. That means Warren Buffet would have no advantage over a Chinese peasant.  And if children want to be as rich as their parents, then they will need to work just as hard as their parents.

 

What if they want to be richer their parents, and were unable to work any harder? 
 

So the children of one of your “legislators” would not have any advantage over a street sweeper. 
 

Would anything the parents have pass to the children or to the state?

 

Quote

 

The fact that the laws as they exist today unfairly favor the disease called capitalism. Eliminate that, and other economic systems can flourish again. Doesn't have to be socialism. There are many other options.

 

How the laws favor the rich? 

 

You want to eliminate capitalism, but claim everyone will effectively be working for themselves, yes? I’m not clear how that works. Can you explain it?
 

 

Quote

pI personally doubt that. I think only Sanders has the ability to defeat Trump. People are angry with the current system and they want radical change. They don't necessarily know what to replace it with, but Trump is currently the only candidate that makes people believe radical change is possible. That is why he will win again unless the Democrats wake up.

I think a lot of people are tired of change for the sake of change and would like some stability in their lives. 
 

That’s what I think makes Trump attractive. 
 

So was the beer you were drinking from a local microbrewery? 
 

I thought not.

[Thomas J]

Warren obviously doesn't like him.  She rejected his offer of a peace pipe.  

Maybe he should have offered her a Tomahawk and said let bury the axe. 

I don't like either of them, but pretty funny of Sanders to offer her a peace pipe given her history of claiming to be a native american indian.  

https://babylonbee.com/news/warren-rejects-peace-pipe-offered-by-sanders

[mogandave]

5 hours ago, Thomas J said:

Warren obviously doesn't like him.  She rejected his offer of a peace pipe.  

Maybe he should have offered her a Tomahawk and said let bury the axe. 

I don't like either of them, but pretty funny of Sanders to offer her a peace pipe given her history of claiming to be a native american indian.  

https://babylonbee.com/news/warren-rejects-peace-pipe-offered-by-sanders

She knows the white-eye speaks with fork-ed tongue...

[sucit]

On 1/24/2020 at 11:07 AM, mogandave said:

 

 

I would claim YES! Doubling the minimum wage, “free” college, “free” medical, housing subsidies, reparations etc.  all  used  to buy votes. 
 

I think lobbyists focus on “buying” votes in Congress, not in elections.  

Why are you against free college? High school is free in the states. Are you against free high school? 

 

All you need to do, and look, do it for yourself, not for me or anyone else... for yourself. Look at the numbers in the Scandinavian countries. Look at how well educations is handled in Finland for example. Look at their healthcare systems, and how much more effective they are in terms of outcomes and expenditures. 

 

If these countries have all effectively implemented these policies already, how can you possibly call it buying votes? 

[sucit]

On 1/23/2020 at 12:13 PM, mogandave said:

And I don’t doubt that you would trust any chart that supports your position while knowing virtually nothing of the study. 

lol You have gotten things completely backwards here. 

 

What studies have put the US healthcare system at the top? Please do tell us.

 

You wont find any. That is because the facts do not support your position. 

 

[sucit]

On 1/23/2020 at 12:09 PM, mogandave said:

Yes, it a known fact to everyone on the left. 
 

The “charts” typically use life expectancy as the measure, which is ridiculous. 
 

Meanwhile, the left/government has and continues to all it can to ruin the insurance industry and force the public to embrace single payer. 
 

You no doubt see it differently. 

You can't make this <deleted> up. I absolutely love it.

 

Let me just tell others what you have said here:

 

"The conclusions do not support my position so they must be untrue"

 

And meanwhile, I noticed you never cited any of the studies we should in fact be looking at, the ones that prove the amazing US healthcare system to be superior to all 

 

lol All those pesky scientific studies that contradict your positions. 

 

All jokes aside, people who wont accept facts simply cannot be taken seriously. 

[sucit]

On 1/26/2020 at 10:51 AM, mogandave said:

 

How is the legislative body selected? 
 

Who decides how are they compensated? 

 

Would they earn the same as a street-sweeper? If not, why? 
 

Yes, any company can be made smaller by closing one store or factory, or even by just firing on employee. Doesn’t make them better or more efficient. 

 

 

We have thousands of individual mom abs pop stores. Most people like Walmart better. You don’t, so you shouldn’t trade with them. 

 

When you start talking about not staving, surviving and what people can without I start to get the picture. 
 

 

What kind of work do you do? 

 

Who determines who's labor is worth more than who’s?

 

 

Please define large. Everyone is going to refine their own oil and build their own car? 

 

 

They weren’t all smaller in the past, some were larger, some are smaller, some didn’t exist. 
 

So rather than providing people with a choice you would compel them to adapt. 

 

 

Why even have a nuclear power plant? Why should not everyone generate their own power? 
 

 

 

According to who? There is less hunger, poverty and disease than at any point in history, and people everywhere live longer, happier and safer lives. 

 

Only leftists see it as failed, and even most of them don’t want to abandon it completely.

 

 

So anyone can be a street-sweeper. a legislator or a brain surgeon and they can make as much as they want by just working harder, yes? 
 

 

Because you say it is? You think people don’t care what they earn? 
 

 

 

What if they want to be richer their parents, and were unable to work any harder? 
 

So the children of one of your “legislators” would not have any advantage over a street sweeper. 
 

Would anything the parents have pass to the children or to the state?

 

 

How the laws favor the rich? 

 

You want to eliminate capitalism, but claim everyone will effectively be working for themselves, yes? I’m not clear how that works. Can you explain it?
 

 

I think a lot of people are tired of change for the sake of change and would like some stability in their lives. 
 

That’s what I think makes Trump attractive. 
 

So was the beer you were drinking from a local microbrewery? 
 

I thought not.

How would you rate the healthcare and education systems, for example, in Scandinavian countries vs those in the US? 

[STALINGRAD]

     Socialism is not an American ideal. Bernie needs to show the government can run the post office at a profit before making bigger promises....

[sucit]

28 minutes ago, STALINGRAD said:

     Socialism is not an American ideal. Bernie needs to show the government can run the post office at a profit before making bigger promises....

What does that mean? What do you think Bernie is proposing? Try naming a country you think Bernie is attempting to take the USA in the direction of with his policies. If you do that research, you may learn a lot. 

Edited January 27, 2020 by sucit

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/24/2020 at 2:23 PM, lannarebirth said:

 

Oh, I don't know...

 

 

Perhaps I should have made it clear I was referring to young children.

 

[blazes]

23 hours ago, STALINGRAD said:

     Socialism is not an American ideal. Bernie needs to show the government can run the post office at a profit before making bigger promises....

 

Stalingrad: your pseudonym is a stark reminder that it was the Russians, at the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942, who began the defeat of Nazism.

 

This historical fact (so often forgotten, or buried because of its inconvenience by McCarthyite politicians) is a small indicator of what a socialist system can achieve. (Actually, not at all "small"....the cost in human life of the Russian sacrifice is incalculable.)

 

In the "socialist/capitalist" argument (within America), it might be more to the point to pose the question:

 

would you prefer Jeff Bezos or the Government of the United States to make a profit of one trillion dollars a year?

 

(Please don't offer the glib reply that ONLY a capitalist organization could produce that kind of profit.  Assume for a moment that a 'socialist' corporation could make that kind of money.  THEN what?  what follows as far as you are concerned?

Would you prefer that profit to go towards support of the basic welfare system that we now have in most countries.  Or would you prefer it went towards buying a new yacht for Mr Bezos??????

Edited January 28, 2020 by blazes

[mogandave]

On 1/27/2020 at 12:41 PM, sucit said:

Why are you against free college? High school is free in the states. Are you against free high school? 

 

All you need to do, and look, do it for yourself, not for me or anyone else... for yourself. Look at the numbers in the Scandinavian countries. Look at how well educations is handled in Finland for example. Look at their healthcare systems, and how much more effective they are in terms of outcomes and expenditures. 

 

If these countries have all effectively implemented these policies already, how can you possibly call it buying votes? 

Everyone in Scandinavian counties go to collage? 
 

Do they all get doctorates?

[mogandave]

On 1/27/2020 at 1:08 PM, sucit said:

You can't make this <deleted> up. I absolutely love it.

 

Let me just tell others what you have said here:

 

"The conclusions do not support my position so they must be untrue"

 

And meanwhile, I noticed you never cited any of the studies we should in fact be looking at, the ones that prove the amazing US healthcare system to be superior to all 

 

lol All those pesky scientific studies that contradict your positions. 

 

All jokes aside, people who wont accept facts simply cannot be taken seriously. 

As always, the left has to resort to lying. I said no such thing. 
 

You never sited a study either.