[quote]ZEB wrote:
I watched NBC on Sunday just to see what they were saying about the Hillary Clinton scandal. I was shocked to see that they were not only acknowledging it but talking about who else could step in to lead the party. One commentator was at the Iowa State Fair (where Trump was giving free rides to kids in his helicopter) asking democrats what they thought about Hillary. He said he was shocked at the number of democrats who told him that they just donāt trust Hillary anymore. Letās be clear here this is NBC, not FOX.
Of course I asked myself when did you trust her? But okay better late than never. People are coming around to her lying ways. If she gets the nomination, which I am only beginning to doubt, she will be defeated by a sizable margin against the right GOP ticket. [/quote]
I think you got the Democrats nailed , I think the Republicans are in the same place , establishment candidates are owned by Corporate America . Everything establishment candidates will do will benefit Corporate America and just give lip service to working America . Hence you get Trump and Sanders , I personally donāt think they are far off. I do feel Trump would sell out faster than Sanders[/quote]
Those rich people are getting rich on the backs of cheap labor and they will do what ever they can to get an endless supply of cheap labor.
[/quote]
Still not a fan of facts I see.
I can show you countless wealthy people whoās employees make quite a bit more, even at starting pay, than your average Joeā¦
But reality is too anti-Sanders for some.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
lol, nevermindā¦[/quote]
Yeah, typically Pitt. As long as it is the massive corporations he supports, itās all good for a politician to be owned by them. However, if the mega corp lobbies and he doesnāt like them āzmg end of dimacracyā.
Yeah, typically Pitt. As long as it is the massive corporations he supports, itās all good for a politician to be owned by them. However, if the mega corp lobbies and he doesnāt like them āzmg end of dimacracyā.
The left has no consistency
[/quote]
Yup, I thought my point was pretty straightforward.
I can show you countless wealthy people whoās employees make quite a bit more, even at starting pay, than your average Joeā¦
[/quote]
yep that is our problem today , too many good jobs out there
[/quote]
That is completely irrelevant to what I said. Itās telling that you have to build this strawman rather than actually address the topic at hand. It happens when your world view is built on a foundation of horseshit. You know, every Sanderās supporterās major flaw.
I can show you countless wealthy people whoās employees make quite a bit more, even at starting pay, than your average Joeā¦
[/quote]
yep that is our problem today , too many good jobs out there
[/quote]
That is completely irrelevant to what I said. Itās telling that you have to build this strawman rather than actually address the topic at hand. It happens when your world view is built on a foundation of horseshit. You know, every Sanderās supporterās major flaw.
[/quote]
I thought you vagie had quit hurting since our last discussion , now what the hell are you bitching about?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
now what the hell are you bitching about?
[/quote]
Your assertion was that the wealthy got that way by under paying employees.
I pointed out that I could provide countless number of examples of wealthy people with well paid employees. (Any law firm or CPA firm for example. Costco.)
To which your response was some non-sense about the job market as a whole, which is irrelevant to the assertion you made, nor my response.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I watched NBC on Sunday just to see what they were saying about the Hillary Clinton scandal. I was shocked to see that they were not only acknowledging it but talking about who else could step in to lead the party. One commentator was at the Iowa State Fair (where Trump was giving free rides to kids in his helicopter) asking democrats what they thought about Hillary. He said he was shocked at the number of democrats who told him that they just donāt trust Hillary anymore. Letās be clear here this is NBC, not FOX.
Of course I asked myself when did you trust her? But okay better late than never. People are coming around to her lying ways. If she gets the nomination, which I am only beginning to doubt, she will be defeated by a sizable margin against the right GOP ticket. [/quote]
I think you got the Democrats nailed , I think the Republicans are in the same place , establishment candidates are owned by Corporate America . Everything establishment candidates will do will benefit Corporate America and just give lip service to working America . Hence you get Trump and Sanders , I personally donāt think they are far off. I do feel Trump would sell out faster than Sanders[/quote]
Why would a Trump allegedly worth 10 billion dollars sell out to anyone? Whereas poor Bernie who doesnāt have a dime to his name might be willing to sell out to the highest bidder.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I watched NBC on Sunday just to see what they were saying about the Hillary Clinton scandal. I was shocked to see that they were not only acknowledging it but talking about who else could step in to lead the party. One commentator was at the Iowa State Fair (where Trump was giving free rides to kids in his helicopter) asking democrats what they thought about Hillary. He said he was shocked at the number of democrats who told him that they just donāt trust Hillary anymore. Letās be clear here this is NBC, not FOX.
Of course I asked myself when did you trust her? But okay better late than never. People are coming around to her lying ways. If she gets the nomination, which I am only beginning to doubt, she will be defeated by a sizable margin against the right GOP ticket. [/quote]
I think you got the Democrats nailed , I think the Republicans are in the same place , establishment candidates are owned by Corporate America . Everything establishment candidates will do will benefit Corporate America and just give lip service to working America . Hence you get Trump and Sanders , I personally donāt think they are far off. I do feel Trump would sell out faster than Sanders[/quote]
Why would a Trump allegedly worth 10 billion dollars sell out to anyone? Whereas poor Bernie who doesnāt have a dime to his name might be willing to sell out to the highest bidder.[/quote]
That is kind of my hope and that is one reason I may vote for him, right now he is pandering to what I call the nutty side of your party , just to get the nomination . After that I believe we will see a more palatable Trump.
As far as Sanders , I am sure he has had many opportunities to sell out and in my opinion has not
That is kind of my hope and that is one reason I may vote for him, right now he is pandering to what I call the nutty side of your party , just to get the nomination . After that I believe we will see a more palatable Trump.[/quote]
He first has to get the nomination and that will be no easy task.
[quote]As far as Sanders , I am sure he has had many opportunities to sell out and in my opinion has not
[/quote]
Iām of a more moderate (though do lean left) guy myself. Quick background: Iām a white, middle-class, college-educated (for whatever thatās worth), raised-by-hard-republicans, married 29 yr. old guy. At this moment, Hillary just isnāt the right fit in my mind. I like Bernie, if not for the only reason being that the guy lays it all out on the line (comparatively speaking vs. everyone else out there - save for maybe Trump). Iāll admit, the reason I state that Iām moderate is because Iām constantly torn. I see validity to arguments on both sides, yet Iāve never felt truly confident with any candidate on either side in my 11 years of being legally of age to vote.
When it comes to those who banter on about socialism, handouts, and āgiving a mouse a cookieā perspectives, I cannot help but feel that above all else, education is the most important topic of debate. I like parts of the socialized education idea, mostly due to the fact that it is a constitutional right in this country for all citizens to have the opportunity to advance themselves on all fronts, and education is that opportunity for most citizens. I say āmostā because there are the few who are genetically gifted to advance in other areas without it (i.e. sports). Denying the very opportunity is, IMO, un-American. If there is a way to privatize, or come up with a better hybrid approach, to education where low-income citizens can have access to quality education, then Iām all ears. If this already exists, then it has not been brought to my attention.
Iām no happier about the percentage of Americans who abuse the social safety nets than even the farthest-right of republicans. However, there are millions of Americans who are working multiple jobs, making unlivable wages (read comfortable), and are struggling every single day just to maintain their qualifications for those safety net programs. These folks need legitimate help, and they deserve it. Because even though those individuals may not be as fortunate to be educated to the levels that many of us here are, they work their asses off and still get nowhere. Do they not deserve a fair shot? Expanding affordable (and in some instances, yes, maybe āfreeā) education to these folks may just be worth it, and may turn another 10% of our population into comfortably-living, educated individuals who can now pay their share in taxes, which in turn fuels the wheel further.
If you like a guy that disavows personal property rights and believes that the government owns everything, you arenāt moderate.
The only reason an unlivable wage is possible is because of support programs. Without them, it would literally be impossible to pay someone less than what they could live on.
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
I like parts of the socialized education idea, mostly due to the fact that it is a constitutional right in this country for all citizens to have the opportunity to advance themselves on all fronts, and education is that opportunity for most citizens.[/quote]
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If you like a guy that disavows personal property rights and believes that the government owns everything, you arenāt moderate.
The only reason an unlivable wage is possible is because of support programs. Without them, it would literally be impossible to pay someone less than what they could live on.
[/quote]
Itās almost like youāre saying government subsidies are intended to help the ultra-wealthy and not Joe Averageorpoor. That canāt be true, because my feels tell me otherwise.
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
I like parts of the socialized education idea, mostly due to the fact that it is a constitutional right in this country for all citizens to have the opportunity to advance themselves on all fronts, and education is that opportunity for most citizens.[/quote]
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
I like Bernie, if not for the only reason being that the guy lays it all out on the line (comparatively speaking vs. everyone else out there - save for maybe Trump). .[/quote]
Soā¦ because heās honest about taking away from those he deems not worthy of keeping what they earn, in order to give it to those to literally purchase votes so he can continue to do nothing for a living, youāre cool with that, because he is open about the fact he wants to use the government to take things away from the people he chooses to harm?
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
I like parts of the socialized education idea, mostly due to the fact that it is a constitutional right in this country for all citizens to have the opportunity to advance themselves on all fronts, and education is that opportunity for most citizens.[/quote]
Apologies, where did I go wrong in my wording?
[/quote]
If you find the constitutional right that you mentioned(or a right to an education), then I apologize and request that you point it out.
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
If there is a way to privatize, or come up with a better hybrid approach, to education where low-income citizens can have access to quality education, then Iām all ears. If this already exists, then it has not been brought to my attention.
[/quote]
There used to be. Catholic and other religiously affiliated schools. They are still going, but have been in a pretty drastic decline over the past 30 or so years. Though there are numerous reasons for that decline, high property/school taxes basically force families that choose private school to pay two tuitions.
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
If there is a way to privatize, or come up with a better hybrid approach, to education where low-income citizens can have access to quality education, then Iām all ears. If this already exists, then it has not been brought to my attention.
[/quote]
There used to be. Catholic and other religiously affiliated schools. They are still going, but have been in a pretty drastic decline over the past 30 or so years. Though there are numerous reasons for that decline, high property/school taxes basically force families that choose private school to pay two tuitions.
[/quote]
Iāve got my choice of three for elementary and middle. High school I have two in the surrounding area, and Iām going to get buttraped in cost.
Still, an exponentially better education where the kids arenāt herded like cattle tied down based on age. They are place by skill level, imagine fucking that.
I donāt have an issue with theology classes, in fact think they should be part of public school.
