Who Do You Support?

[Uranus]

So who would you support as President?

Donald Trump?

Bernie Sanders?

Hillary Clinton?

And why?

[Moriya]

Sanders. He's the only one out of the three that isn't shady. (imo)

[Emerald Dream]

VT Daily Chronicle :arrow: Ramblings of the Wise

This is certain to turn into a debate.

[Melodic]

Bernie Sanders. Nothing much to say, I just believe in most of his political opinions. Also he seems like he cares about everyone in this country which is what we need at this point.

[Sugaree]

Sanders. He's the only one out of the three that isn't shady. (imo)

Sanders has as much dirt as any other person running for president. How about the fact that he was nothing more than a bum before he became mayor of Burlington, VT? The guy has no concept of how an economy works, considering all of his paychecks for the last 35+ years come from government work. On top of that, he's still substantially more rich than the people he claims to defend (having made over $200k last year!). He gets free health care for life, body guards for life, job security, and a bunch of other benefits because he's a career politician.

I support Trump because he's the exact opposite of all the other candidates. He's the modern American success story. He takes nothing and turns it into something over the course of four decades, wisely invests his money, and makes himself into a worldwide brand. It's been decades since a candidate has run on the platform of "America first". His stances on immigration, taxes, and healthcare reform are all things that this country needs. It's about time the people get a say in an election and get what they vote for, and I think Trump, as a businessman, knows the consequences of reneging on promises.

Read "Art of the Deal" and "Art of the Comeback". You'll get a lot of insight into how Trump thinks and the methods behind everything.

[DriveAlive]

As my signature suggests, I am all for Trump/Clinton for president. Honestly, I am now a #NeverBernie supporter as I think anyone would be better for this country than him. I think I side with Trump on just a few more issues than Clinton, so I will probably vote for him, but I will still be fine with her winning.

[James Dean]

Trump.

Because he says what I'm thinking about. Plus I love seeing people act all pissy. America has been fucked for quite a while and has been a laughing stock.

Everybody wants to come here still, so it's not going to make a difference.

[Just JT]

Sanders, because I think he's the most honest of the three

[Uranus]

I'm with Trump. Lately he has shown a great deal in positive actions.
For example just recently.
y9B8-eAR1gA

Also I trust he will do the right thing. He should being A very successful businessman. I believe he will "Make America Great Again"
And I trust he won't damage the economy, anymore than it already is, intentionally. Due to the fact of having many businesses, if he messes us up, he messes himself up, and if that happens, countries that are already laughing at us for having billions, if not trillions, will have more to laugh at. I know its not A strong reason, but I believe that trump is the man for the job, and he CAN make a big difference.

[dxcxdzv]

Trump.
Because I like the fact that a sentence starting with "I believe" contains 85.14% of the time no valid argumentation.
Also because I'm curious to see how fucked up America will be. :3

[Body odah Man]

Sanders. He's the only one out of the three that isn't shady. (imo)

Agreed.

[mattsmith48]

Sanders has as much dirt as any other person running for president.


How about the fact that he was nothing more than a bum before he became mayor of Burlington, VT?
And thats wrong because?

The guy has no concept of how an economy works, considering all of his paychecks for the last 35+ years come from government work. On top of that, he's still substantially more rich than the people he claims to defend (having made over $200k last year!). He gets free health care for life, body guards for life, job security, and a bunch of other benefits because he's a career politician.

He almost makes the minimum a senator makes it would be like complaining Tom Brady makes 2 million a year. and making $200K a year doesnt make you bad in economy?

I support Trump because he's the exact opposite of all the other candidates. He's the modern American success story. He takes nothing and turns it into something over the course of four decades, wisely invests his money, and makes himself into a worldwide brand. It's been decades since a candidate has run on the platform of "America first". His stances on immigration, taxes, and healthcare reform are all things that this country needs. It's about time the people get a say in an election and get what they vote for, and I think Trump, as a businessman, knows the consequences of reneging on promises.

Read "Art of the Deal" and "Art of the Comeback". You'll get a lot of insight into how Trump thinks and the methods behind everything.

Some one who got bankrupt 4 times and who failed with a casino is not the kind of guy I would trust with money. What about is stances on taxes and healthcare you like? why what he would do be better for you then the other cadidates?

[DriveAlive]

And thats wrong because?



He almost makes the minimum a senator makes it would be like complaining Tom Brady makes 2 million a year. and making $200K a year doesnt make you bad in economy?



Some one who got bankrupt 4 times and who failed with a casino is not the kind of guy I would trust with money. What about is stances on taxes and healthcare you like? why what he would do be better for you then the other cadidates?

I am so sick of people bringing up bankruptcy as if it is the horrible negative. Trump works in a level of business finance where bankruptcy is a legitimate strategy. If anything, he is the master of the pivot. When something is ineffective, he pivots and focuses his resources on something more profitable. It allows him to minimize his failures and maximize his successes.

[Leprous]

As my signature suggests, I am all for Trump/Clinton for president. Honestly, I am now a #NeverBernie supporter as I think anyone would be better for this country than him. I think I side with Trump on just a few more issues than Clinton, so I will probably vote for him, but I will still be fine with her winning.

Does this mean you side with him on the abortion issue? Honestly I'm actually curious how a Trump supported would react to this but yeah you ain't replying.

(talking about the Clinton thread btw)

[dxcxdzv]

I am so sick of people bringing up bankruptcy as if it is the horrible negative. Trump works in a level of business finance where bankruptcy is a legitimate strategy. If anything, he is the master of the pivot. When something is ineffective, he pivots and focuses his resources on something more profitable. It allows him to minimize his failures and maximize his successes.
The argument "he's a billionaire businessman so he knows how to rule a country" is probably one of my favorites.

[DriveAlive]

Does this mean you side with him on the abortion issue? Honestly I'm actually curious how a Trump supported would react to this but yeah you ain't replying.

(talking about the Clinton thread btw)

No, I disagree with Trump on abortion. However, I believe that abortion is a rather mute point unless SCOTUS decides to make a ruling so it does not really matter what the president thinks. There is the issue of Planned Parenthood, but I have a feeling that it will be used for bargaining and end up untouched.

[DriveAlive]

The argument "he's a billionaire businessman so he knows how to rule a country" is probably one of my favorites.

That is not why he would make a good president. Trump has demonstrated throughout his career a propensity for leadership and managerial success. These are the qualities most necessary for a president.

[dxcxdzv]

That is not why he would make a good president. Trump has demonstrated throughout his career a propensity for leadership and managerial success. These are the qualities most necessary for a president.
Donald Trump said that he would negotiate with China to erase public debt on 8 years.
He also said that he will also push creditors to accept write-downs on their government holdings.
Besides being paradoxical this is also suicidal.

This already has been discussed on the #NeverTrump thread.

[DriveAlive]

Donald Trump said that he would negotiate with China to erase public debt on 8 years.
He also said that he will also push creditors to accept write-downs on their government holdings.
Besides being paradoxical this is also suicidal.

This already has been discussed on the #NeverTrump thread.

Trump does this with his own businesses and has been successful. We have disasterous deals with China that need to be renegotiated and the level of waste and debt that result is preposterous. Not to mention the non-compete contracts that the government loves. If anything, Trump will get us the best price for our spending and deals.

[Leprous]

No, I disagree with Trump on abortion. However, I believe that abortion is a rather mute point unless SCOTUS decides to make a ruling so it does not really matter what the president thinks. There is the issue of Planned Parenthood, but I have a feeling that it will be used for bargaining and end up untouched.

Honestly when a man that's running for president says something like this you should start wondering if he's fucking sane. Also the wall, what do you think about that? Because that is a prime example of racism right there, and like it or not, Trump is racist.

[DriveAlive]

Honestly when a man that's running for president says something like this you should start wondering if he's fucking sane. Also the wall, what do you think about that? Because that is a prime example of racism right there, and like it or not, Trump is racist.

I am actually a big supporter of the wall. I think that one of the biggest problems facing America today (as evinced by New Hampshire) is drug abuse. If a wall cut cut even 30% of drug traffic across that border and free up border patrol for better enforcement, it would dramatically improve the country.

[CoolGuy108]

So who would you support as President?

Donald Trump?

Bernie Sanders?

Hillary Clinton?

And why?

Trump

Because he is 100% American. His policies arent actually too radical. Aka, essentially everything he has proposed has either been done before, or is already in place, but is not enforced under the current administration

[CoolGuy108]

Sanders, because I think he's the most honest of the three

Like that time he said "White people dont know what its like to be poor"

[mattsmith48]

Trump

Because he is 100% American. His policies arent actually too radical. Aka, essentially everything he has proposed has either been done before, or is already in place, but is not enforced under the current administration

If wanting to ban an entire religion for no reason is not radical I dont know what is.

And yes we all remember the last time someone tried to deport an entire group millions of people it was about 80 years ago that worked out very well

[CoolGuy108]

If wanting to ban an entire religion for no reason is not radical I dont know what is.

And yes we all remember the last time someone tried to deport an entire group millions of people it was about 80 years ago that worked out very well

1. It is a *temporary ban* on Muslims from *some* countries. You want a Paris? You want a Belgium? You want more San bernardino?

2. You do know that what Trump has proposed isnt that hard right. Obama administration is rather lax on illegal immigration right? Can we agree on that?
Because the Obama administration has deported just around 3 million illegal immigrants. And they dont even care! Imagine if someone actually cared about illegal immigration and enforced rules that are already there...

[mattsmith48]

1. It is a *temporary ban* on Muslims from *some* countries. You want a Paris? You want a Belgium? You want more San bernardino?

2. You do know that what Trump has proposed isnt that hard right. Obama administration is rather lax on illegal immigration right? Can we agree on that?
Because the Obama administration has deported just around 3 million illegal immigrants. And they dont even care! Imagine if someone actually cared about illegal immigration and enforced rules that are already there...

1. Does were done by muslims who were already in the country

2. 3 million already too many people and it was done over the last 8 years. They estimate that theres currently about 12 millions people that are in the US illegally. Trump wants to deported them all at once thats gonna be chaotic and there gonna realize its imposible

[Leprous]

1. It is a *temporary ban* on Muslims from *some* countries. You want a Paris? You want a Belgium? You want more San bernardino?

2. You do know that what Trump has proposed isnt that hard right. Obama administration is rather lax on illegal immigration right? Can we agree on that?
Because the Obama administration has deported just around 3 million illegal immigrants. And they dont even care! Imagine if someone actually cared about illegal immigration and enforced rules that are already there...

Actually buddy I live in Belgium and what Trump is telling is not true at all. Brussels is and has always been a beautifull city that we are proud of. The fact you believe it's a shithole here without even knowing what it's like yourself is just downright stupid. Reise tell him how Paris his.

You know what Obama's problem was? He had to clean up the mess caused by Bush, that's why he didn't achieve everything he wanted. Also, technicly you guys are still the illegals who kicked out the natives.

If you have some brains you should know not all Muslims are bad people, I have friends in Dubai and Malaysia and can confirm that they are amazing people. Also Obama was 100% American. Actually you guys aren't, neither is he, the natives are, not you.
DriveAlive Actually, the biggest problem you guys have are well...you guys. School shootings don't happen here, we have gun control. You know it's true.

Also, the wall is racism at it's finest. As I said, Trump is racist, does that mean you like a racist president that will probably bomb the middle east as soon as he get's elected?

[dxcxdzv]

Reise tell him how Paris his.

It's full of bread and wine bruh.

[CoolGuy108]

1. Does were done by muslims who were already in the country

2. 3 million already too many people and it was done over the last 8 years. They estimate that theres currently about 12 millions people that are in the US illegally. Trump wants to deported them all at once thats gonna be chaotic and there gonna realize its imposible

Please link me to exactly where he says "all at once". That seems a bit far fetched. And btw, 3 million people gone with this administration....and we havent heard anything chaotic about it...

[LRSSS02]

Bernie Sanders. Nothing much to say, I just believe in most of his political opinions. Also he seems like he cares about everyone in this country which is what we need at this point.

Which opinions?

[CoolGuy108]

Actually buddy I live in Belgium and what Trump is telling is not true at all. Brussels is and has always been a beautifull city that we are proud of. The fact you believe it's a shithole here without even knowing what it's like yourself is just downright stupid. Reise tell him how Paris his.

You know what Obama's problem was? He had to clean up the mess caused by Bush, that's why he didn't achieve everything he wanted. Also, technicly you guys are still the illegals who kicked out the natives.

If you have some brains you should know not all Muslims are bad people, I have friends in Dubai and Malaysia and can confirm that they are amazing people. Also Obama was 100% American. Actually you guys aren't, neither is he, the natives are, not you.
DriveAlive Actually, the biggest problem you guys have are well...you guys. School shootings don't happen here, we have gun control. You know it's true.

Also, the wall is racism at it's finest. As I said, Trump is racist, does that mean you like a racist president that will probably bomb the middle east as soon as he get's elected?

What do you mean "what Trump is telling". Im not talking about Trump rn, I was talking about the attacks in Brussels that injured many people including over 10 US Citizens.

Obama had to clean up what Bush did? Sure, to an extent. But he cant even say the words "Radical Islamic Terrorism". ANd he did nothing to improve the economy. entered into office with 7Trillion in debt, now its 19 trillion. Useless

"Also, technicly you guys are still the illegals who kicked out the natives."
If you want to get technical, then fine. Those natives didnt come from there either, they came over the Bering Land Bridge. No one is native to anywhere unless they are from the Great Rift Valley where the human genome originated. Pls stop

"If you have some brains you should know not all Muslims are bad people"
I never said all Muslims are bad people. No one did actually. All you have done is insult someones intelligence. Not smart.

"Also, the wall is racism at it's finest. As I said, Trump is racist, does that mean you like a racist president that will probably bomb the middle east as soon as he get's elected?"

Illegal immigrants arent a race buddy. And what do you mean bomb the middle east, he has been against wars such as the war in Iraq ever since it was proposed. There are many interviews documenting this. Only people he wants to continue bombing, along with a majority of other countries such as GB, France, and Russia is ISIL.

[CoolGuy108]

Which opinions?

Apparently all of them lol. Im guessing that also includes "White people dont know what its like to be poor" lol

[Sugaree]

And thats wrong because?

It's wrong because he made no attempts to better himself. Interviews with people who knew him before his tenure as mayor of Burlington said that he was a moocher and blood sucker.



He almost makes the minimum a senator makes it would be like complaining Tom Brady makes 2 million a year. and making $200K a year doesnt make you bad in economy?

That still makes him part of the top 5% of wealthy people in the United States. He is far away from being a middle class warrior.



Some one who got bankrupt 4 times and who failed with a casino is not the kind of guy I would trust with money. What about is stances on taxes and healthcare you like? why what he would do be better for you then the other cadidates?

Trump's businesses went bankrupt, not Trump himself. Trump the person has never gone bankrupt. Personal bankruptcy and business bankruptcy are not the same thing. On top of that, his casino failed because the area around it went down the economic shit hole. Bankruptcy and failure is part of business. Trump has lost money on many investments, and he so much as admits his failures that he learned from.

His stance on taxes I like for the fact that it simplifies and cuts out a lot of the bullshit of the current tax code. Take a look on his website: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

Healthcare reform is something he should talk about more. As a businessman, he knows how hard it is to sell a product that is heavily regulated. Again, take a look: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform

[dxcxdzv]

ANd he did nothing to improve the economy. entered into office with 7Trillion in debt, now its 19 trillion. Useless

The economy is not only about public debt.

[mattsmith48]

It's wrong because he made no attempts to better himself. Interviews with people who knew him before his tenure as mayor of Burlington said that he was a moocher and blood sucker.

Any link to that?

That still makes him part of the top 5% of wealthy people in the United States. He is far away from being a middle class warrior.

I still dont see how it makes him bad on the economy



Trump's businesses went bankrupt, not Trump himself. Trump the person has never gone bankrupt. Personal bankruptcy and business bankruptcy are not the same thing. On top of that, his casino failed because the area around it went down the economic shit hole. Bankruptcy and failure is part of business. Trump has lost money on many investments, and he so much as admits his failures that he learned from.

His stance on taxes I like for the fact that it simplifies and cuts out a lot of the bullshit of the current tax code. Take a look on his website: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

Healthcare reform is something he should talk about more. As a businessman, he knows how hard it is to sell a product that is heavily regulated. Again, take a look: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform

Regulation are there to protected the customer and its part of the business you need to work with it. And why is that better then public health care which is what almost all developed countries have?

[Melodic]

Which opinions?

I strongly support his views on womens, racial, and LGBT equality. I'm also a big supporter on free college tuition. Disability rights. Free health care. I just don't understand why we are arguing whether or not people should have rights to be happy, healthy and successful.

Apparently all of them lol. Im guessing that also includes "White people dont know what its like to be poor" lol

No. I can support a politician and disagree with some of their political views. Also, I actually don't agree that white people don't know what it's like to be poor. Personally, I'm a white person and was poor until a year ago. But thank you for speaking on my behalf. :)

[Leprous]

What do you mean "what Trump is telling". Im not talking about Trump rn, I was talking about the attacks in Brussels that injured many people including over 10 US Citizens.

Obama had to clean up what Bush did? Sure, to an extent. But he cant even say the words "Radical Islamic Terrorism". ANd he did nothing to improve the economy. entered into office with 7Trillion in debt, now its 19 trillion. Useless

"Also, technicly you guys are still the illegals who kicked out the natives."
If you want to get technical, then fine. Those natives didnt come from there either, they came over the Bering Land Bridge. No one is native to anywhere unless they are from the Great Rift Valley where the human genome originated. Pls stop

"If you have some brains you should know not all Muslims are bad people"
I never said all Muslims are bad people. No one did actually. All you have done is insult someones intelligence. Not smart.

"Also, the wall is racism at it's finest. As I said, Trump is racist, does that mean you like a racist president that will probably bomb the middle east as soon as he get's elected?"

Illegal immigrants arent a race buddy. And what do you mean bomb the middle east, he has been against wars such as the war in Iraq ever since it was proposed. There are many interviews documenting this. Only people he wants to continue bombing, along with a majority of other countries such as GB, France, and Russia is ISIL.

This post just shows how stupid you actually are.

You said "Do you want another Belgium", you said Belgium was the shithole, not Brussels. Also I can say "do you want another USA" because of 9/11 and all the school shootings. Want me to call your country a shithole? So because 10 US citizens got injured we are a bad country? Yeah aight sure nice arguement.

If you don't think all Muslims are bad people why agree with all of them getting kicked out? Let's see how the economy survives that, how will you send them away? Can't just tell them to fuck off.

"Illegal immigrants aren't a race so Trump isn't racist" That's not how this works. At all.

[LRSSS02]

I strongly support his views on womens, racial, and LGBT equality. I'm also a big supporter on free college tuition. Disability rights. Free health care. I just don't understand why we are arguing whether or not people should have rights to be happy, healthy and successful.

What part makes it free, the part where he will raise taxes to an insane level, or the part where it will break the economy?

[Croconaw]

I support Bernie Sanders.

[phuckphace]

As my signature suggests, I am all for Trump/Clinton for president. Honestly, I am now a #NeverBernie supporter as I think anyone would be better for this country than him. I think I side with Trump on just a few more issues than Clinton, so I will probably vote for him, but I will still be fine with her winning.

if you side with Trump on anything then Sanders is the logical second-choice, I think.

Sanders' rallies and support base is, if we're being honest, a lot whiter than that of Hillary. with Berniebros you can sense an unmistakable subtext of crypto-nationalism that is simply absent in those of Clinton. I know you're probably just scared of the 90% income tax or whatever, but I can assure you that the People's Republic of Sanders meme is less scary than the ~30% white reality that President Clinton will foist on us.

note that BLM also picked up on that subtext, hence why they crashed Sanders' rally. I'll leave you with that thought.

No, I disagree with Trump on abortion. However, I believe that abortion is a rather mute point unless SCOTUS decides to make a ruling so it does not really matter what the president thinks. There is the issue of Planned Parenthood, but I have a feeling that it will be used for bargaining and end up untouched.

yeah this.

abortion is a distractionary non-issue that the POTUS can't do anything about. plus I think most right-leaning politicians are privately more ambivalent about it than they let on since it's tied to lower crime rates for reasons that should be obvious by now.

Also the wall, what do you think about that? Because that is a prime example of racism right there, and like it or not, Trump is racist.

your posts in ROTW are 90% some variant of "omfg racist SMDH!!!"

boring, tbqh fam. get good.

[Leprous]

if you side with Trump on anything then Sanders is the logical second-choice, I think.

Sanders' rallies and support base is, if we're being honest, a lot whiter than that of Hillary. with Berniebros you can sense an unmistakable subtext of crypto-nationalism that is simply absent in those of Clinton. I know you're probably just scared of the 90% income tax or whatever, but I can assure you that the People's Republic of Sanders meme is less scary than the ~30% white reality that President Clinton will foist on us.

note that BLM also picked up on that subtext, hence why they crashed Sanders' rally. I'll leave you with that thought.



yeah this.

abortion is a distractionary non-issue that the POTUS can't do anything about. plus I think most right-leaning politicians are privately more ambivalent about it than they let on since it's tied to lower crime rates for reasons that should be obvious by now.



your posts in ROTW are 90% some variant of "omfg racist SMDH!!!"

boring, tbqh fam. get good.

Omg you're soooo racist damn Phuck.

<3

[Porpoise101]

the People's Republic of Sanders meme is less scary than the ~30% white reality that President Clinton will foist on us]
Can't wait for people to all be mixed race beige people like me :P 2040 is the magic year!

Anyways, I agree in some way. He is very protectionist on trade and isolationist. For Trump and Sanders, it's 'America First!'

[Sugaree]

Any link to that?

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/bernie-sanders-the-bum-who-wants-your-money/


http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-vermont-119927



I still dont see how it makes him bad on the economy

A man who can't understand how a free market works should have no say on how a national economy is ran. Sanders has no concept of how the United States economy runs and works. We are suppose to be a free market that relies on private industry. Sanders believes that the government should take care of people, cradle to grave, and sees no issue with government getting involved in the economy to the point where government IS the economy.

Maybe if you read about how an economy runs, how it is maintained, and how things such as wealth are made, you'd realize how much of an idiot Sanders and his supporters are.


Regulation are there to protected the customer and its part of the business you need to work with it. And why is that better then public health care which is what almost all developed countries have?

While regulations are needed in order to keep competitiveness in the market and prevent monopolies from forming, they should never regulate how a business runs itself. Businesses are taxed heavily enough that people have their pay cut, hours taken away, and benefits ripped from them. If you allow a business to grow and manage its money without having to take most of it, you'd have a much healthier and stronger middle class. While taxes are inevitable and are necessary to keep the government running, the government has no right to take 15% of my paycheck to fund programs I don't support.

Public healthcare is an absolute shit-show when you compare it to privatized health systems. Public healthcare is based on one principal: that it is a human right to receive healthcare. There's multiple problems with this in the case of the United States:

1. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that people have the right to receive healthcare. The Preamble of the US Constitution says that the purpose of the document is to "promote the general welfare," not provide for it. Therefor, any argument that you have a "right" to receive healthcare is not valid.

2. If everyone has a right to healthcare, prices are going to immediately skyrocket. When the Affordable Care Act went into affect a few years ago, premiums from major insurance companies began to go through the roof for millions of Americans. My family's premium for health insurance went up 45%, and we're considered one of the lucky for not getting slammed with higher premiums. Many people couldn't afford a 60 or 70% markup on insurance, so they dropped. That forced them to go onto the public marketplace and pay the same amount for government insurance, which limited them severely from what doctors they could see, prescription medication payments, and even what HOSPITAL they were allowed to use in an emergency. Taxes would also increase massively, which means people will be forced to take lower paychecks, take a second job, and put even more people on government assistance. It would take YEARS for these prices to go down, but even then, if everyone has the right to healthcare, what do you think happens? My next point explains it.

3. Everyone now has a right to healthcare, regardless of how much they're paying. Since there is no incentive for doctors and medical professionals to gravitate towards people with more money, patients are punished by waiting to see a doctor. They also suffer by having to get government approval for things such as chemotherapy or special surgery. Why? Because public healthcare is funded by how much people are putting into it. If the majority of public healthcare recipients are poor and can't pay that much, most of their bill gets subsidized. Subsidizing costs the government money which could be used to give more people approval for cancer treatment or to have hip replacements. All major operations are run through committees that have no connection to the patient or the doctor. It's run by bureaucrats who are glorified paper and pencil pushers as to who lives and who dies. So if you want to be at the mercy of some suit-and-tie government employee and be treated as a number, rather than as a person, I hope you're fine with having your healthcare rationed.

4. It gives people the impression that there is a Big Brother who will always watch and care for them. A government is not meant to support people from the moment they're born to the moment they die. It is a disservice to citizens to be coddled and treated as children their entire lives. How do you think people like the Wright brothers, Thomas Edison, and many other famous people (American or otherwise) did what they accomplished? They took life by the reigns and took care of themselves. What does it teach young children about perseverance, fortitude, and self-reliance if we tell them that someone will always take care of their fuck ups?

5. Quality of care would decrease quickly. Why do you think people are willing to pay more for health care? Because in this economy, especially when you're talking about personal services, money is often the biggest factor. "Bang for your buck" is a good way to look at it. If Company A wants me to pay them X amount for standard care, and Company B says they'll give me better care and benefits for LESS, I'll go with Company B. Public healthcare systems give their patients the same level of care. Any doctor will tell you that no two patients are the same, so why give everyone the same one-size-fits-all plan when different people have different needs? I'd rather pick a plan that fits exactly what I need, where I can pick and choose what I want in it, instead of wasting money on shit I'll never use.

According to a 2013 Gallup poll, 56% of Americans do not believe that it is the "responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage." In 2012, Gallup found that 54% of Americans opposed the idea of federally-financed universal health coverage. By giving people the ability to purchase plans on the private market, you're giving them more choices. Public healthcare forces people who already work hard to barely make ends meet to work HARDER to subsidize healthcare for people who can't afford it, some of whom are lifelong leeches to the system who refuse to get a job if government sends them a paycheck every month.

Resources for healthcare are limited, much like everything else. While I support having a government program to help the poor with attaining a certain standard of healthcare, forcing everybody to accept a standard is not the government's job. Programs like Medicaid, I think, are wonderful. However, the standards for them are low because funding forces them to get dirt cheap doctors, equipment, and supplies. If Medicaid received more funding like Medicare does every year, I think you'd see a much more drastic improvement for those who rely on Medicaid as a primary provider. Here's something that might interest you:

A January 2014 study published in Science found that of 10,000 uninsured Portland, Oregon residents who gained access to Medicaid, 40% made more visits to emergency rooms, even though they, like all US residents, already had guaranteed access to emergency treatment under federal law. I read that in an article of Science Magazine two years ago (the article was "Medicaid Increases Emergency-Department Use: Evidence from Oregon's Health Insurance Experiment," if you were interested in reading it). While Medicaid is different for every state, I think it's strange that people feel that things such as emergency rooms actually require you to have insurance. Federal law states that no hospital is allowed to refuse a person treatment if they go into an emergency room, no matter how small or large the issue is. So if you have public healthcare, and this 40% starts making MORE emergency room trips, what's that going to do to the available resources? It's going to make them harder to get a hold of, that's what.

[Microcosm]

Trump came out and said he will undo everything Obama has done to act with the rest of the modern world on climate change. He said that he would remove America from the deals and reparations we committed to at the climate change conference in Paris. He'd do all that in the name of supporting American industry and the free market.

Personally, I think the protection of the planet is much more important than the thriving of American industry. We can live without a great industry, but we, or more accurately our children or children's children, cannot live without a healthy climate. I think Obama's moves on climate change have been the crowning achievement of his presidency(also the Iran nuclear deal, which Trump also disapproved of).

I think that Trump's ability to handle a national economy would be fantastic, but it could potentially damage the United States' policy on climate to an irreparable state especially if he gets a majority of the people on board with it, but I doubt that the latter will happen.

I'd rather have someone like Bernie who, even though he isn't fantastic with all things economy, has a consistent track record of fighting for noble causes like workers' rights, African American equality, women's equality, anti-big-business, and especially climate. He seems to value these big picture ideas that help the world as a whole more than Trump's ideas which would help American industry at the expense of the world climate.

I honestly believe that if Donald Trump presents himself to other countries' leaders in even a remotely similar fashion to how he presented himself to the American people in his campaign, he would be laughed at like most Americans laugh at him now. The thing is, though, I don't think he would present himself like that, which also makes me think he's putting on a YUGE facade just to get votes, which makes him dishonest, which makes him awfully similar to the career politicians that he claims to be against.

The reason people are often against career politicians is because they are blatantly and objectively dishonest, and I don't think the Donald is in reality anything like how he presents himself to the people. I think he's personally more down-to-earth and business-minded. That facade of semi-racial remarks and such to arouse the American people's hatred of groups such as the government irritates me for two reasons: (1) because I know he's saying it only to get people's attention(aka flat out lying) and (2) because most of it is objectively wrong rhetoric that exploits the American people.

"The point is that if you are a little different, or a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you."

-Donald J. Trump in The Art of the Deal

[mattsmith48]

A man who can't understand how a free market works should have no say on how a national economy is ran. Sanders has no concept of how the United States economy runs and works. We are suppose to be a free market that relies on private industry. Sanders believes that the government should take care of people, cradle to grave, and sees no issue with government getting involved in the economy to the point where government IS the economy.

Maybe if you read about how an economy runs, how it is maintained, and how things such as wealth are made, you'd realize how much of an idiot Sanders and his supporters are.

While regulations are needed in order to keep competitiveness in the market and prevent monopolies from forming, they should never regulate how a business runs itself. Businesses are taxed heavily enough that people have their pay cut, hours taken away, and benefits ripped from them. If you allow a business to grow and manage its money without having to take most of it, you'd have a much healthier and stronger middle class. While taxes are inevitable and are necessary to keep the government running, the government has no right to take 15% of my paycheck to fund programs I don't support.

First off how the fuck does this explain why the fact he makes $200K a year makes him bad on the economy?
Secondly what makes you think Bernie Sanders doesnt how a free market works or how the economy of the US works? Also theres shit the live that the goverment should take care of and pay for like health care, like education, like prisons... Private companies only think about 1 thing its profit they dont give a shit if someone cant afford an education to get a good job, they dont give a fuck if someone dies because they cant afford their medication their goal is to make money. When you cut taxes of businesses they just put that extra money in their pockets they never give it back to the workers with higher pay, benifits, or more hours. The reason because people with lower income pay so much in taxes its because businesses and billionaires in the US pay very little taxes if they were paying their fair share of taxes you wouldnt pay that much in taxes.



Public healthcare is an absolute shit-show when you compare it to privatized health systems. Public healthcare is based on one principal: that it is a human right to receive healthcare. There's multiple problems with this in the case of the United States:

It is a Human right to receive healthcare your abillity to get a treatment or not shouldnt be base on whether or not you can afford it.


1. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that people have the right to receive healthcare. The Preamble of the US Constitution says that the purpose of the document is to "promote the general welfare," not provide for it. Therefor, any argument that you have a "right" to receive healthcare is not valid.

A Constitution can be changed. Also it doesnt say that if you cant afford to see a doctor and get medication for something go fuck your self and die

2. If everyone has a right to healthcare, prices are going to immediately skyrocket. When the Affordable Care Act went into affect a few years ago, premiums from major insurance companies began to go through the roof for millions of Americans. My family's premium for health insurance went up 45%, and we're considered one of the lucky for not getting slammed with higher premiums. Many people couldn't afford a 60 or 70% markup on insurance, so they dropped. That forced them to go onto the public marketplace and pay the same amount for government insurance, which limited them severely from what doctors they could see, prescription medication payments, and even what HOSPITAL they were allowed to use in an emergency. Taxes would also increase massively, which means people will be forced to take lower paychecks, take a second job, and put even more people on government assistance. It would take YEARS for these prices to go down, but even then, if everyone has the right to healthcare, what do you think happens? My next point explains it.

ok 1. if everyone have the right to healthcare it doesnt matter if you can afford it or not because the goverment pays for it.

2. The reason the price for the insurence went up is because when the isurence companies realize that it was gonna pass and they wouldnt be able to charge as much they want after it pass so before it went into effect they jacked up the price as much as they could thats why your parents and other people had to pay more. If the goverment starts paying for health care they can regulate how much the shit is worth how much a pill is worth, how much it cost for a treatment, how much is a surgery, they negociate with the doctors unions it all gets under control.

3. Like I said before someone shouldnt die just because they cant afford to see the doctor or get medication.


3. Everyone now has a right to healthcare, regardless of how much they're paying. Since there is no incentive for doctors and medical professionals to gravitate towards people with more money, patients are punished by waiting to see a doctor. They also suffer by having to get government approval for things such as chemotherapy or special surgery. Why? Because public healthcare is funded by how much people are putting into it. If the majority of public healthcare recipients are poor and can't pay that much, most of their bill gets subsidized. Subsidizing costs the government money which could be used to give more people approval for cancer treatment or to have hip replacements. All major operations are run through committees that have no connection to the patient or the doctor. It's run by bureaucrats who are glorified paper and pencil pushers as to who lives and who dies. So if you want to be at the mercy of some suit-and-tie government employee and be treated as a number, rather than as a person, I hope you're fine with having your healthcare rationed.

Everyone is paying for public healthcare trough their taxes and its put in the budget just like anything else.

4. It gives people the impression that there is a Big Brother who will always watch and care for them. A government is not meant to support people from the moment they're born to the moment they die. It is a disservice to citizens to be coddled and treated as children their entire lives. How do you think people like the Wright brothers, Thomas Edison, and many other famous people (American or otherwise) did what they accomplished? They took life by the reigns and took care of themselves. What does it teach young children about perseverance, fortitude, and self-reliance if we tell them that someone will always take care of their fuck ups?

1. ''That Big Brother who will always watch and care for them'' its call the millitary

2. Like I said earlier theres some shit the goverment should be paying for. Look at other countries that have public health care they do good, they dont accomplish less because they dont pay when they go to the hospital.


5. Quality of care would decrease quickly. Why do you think people are willing to pay more for health care? Because in this economy, especially when you're talking about personal services, money is often the biggest factor. "Bang for your buck" is a good way to look at it. If Company A wants me to pay them X amount for standard care, and Company B says they'll give me better care and benefits for LESS, I'll go with Company B. Public healthcare systems give their patients the same level of care. Any doctor will tell you that no two patients are the same, so why give everyone the same one-size-fits-all plan when different people have different needs? I'd rather pick a plan that fits exactly what I need, where I can pick and choose what I want in it, instead of wasting money on shit I'll never use.

Quality of care wouldnt decrease in fact it would increase it to a lower cost and everyone would be getting the same thing at the same cost. The reason people will pay more for health care if they have too is because they know at some point your gonna get sick and there gonna have to see a doctor and get treatments.

Your already wasting money on shit you dont use because the way a insurense work is you give them money on a regular basis so if your ever getting sick or hurt your cover but if you dont get sick your paying for shit you dont need, now with public healthcare if you get sick you go to see a doctor you get a treatment you get out goverment pays for it, if you dont get sick no one pays anything.


According to a 2013 Gallup poll, 56% of Americans do not believe that it is the "responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have health care coverage." In 2012, Gallup found that 54% of Americans opposed the idea of federally-financed universal health coverage. By giving people the ability to purchase plans on the private market, you're giving them more choices. Public healthcare forces people who already work hard to barely make ends meet to work HARDER to subsidize healthcare for people who can't afford it, some of whom are lifelong leeches to the system who refuse to get a job if government sends them a paycheck every month.

Resources for healthcare are limited, much like everything else. While I support having a government program to help the poor with attaining a certain standard of healthcare, forcing everybody to accept a standard is not the government's job. Programs like Medicaid, I think, are wonderful. However, the standards for them are low because funding forces them to get dirt cheap doctors, equipment, and supplies. If Medicaid received more funding like Medicare does every year, I think you'd see a much more drastic improvement for those who rely on Medicaid as a primary provider. Here's something that might interest you:

A January 2014 study published in Science found that of 10,000 uninsured Portland, Oregon residents who gained access to Medicaid, 40% made more visits to emergency rooms, even though they, like all US residents, already had guaranteed access to emergency treatment under federal law. I read that in an article of Science Magazine two years ago (the article was "Medicaid Increases Emergency-Department Use: Evidence from Oregon's Health Insurance Experiment," if you were interested in reading it). While Medicaid is different for every state, I think it's strange that people feel that things such as emergency rooms actually require you to have insurance. Federal law states that no hospital is allowed to refuse a person treatment if they go into an emergency room, no matter how small or large the issue is. So if you have public healthcare, and this 40% starts making MORE emergency room trips, what's that going to do to the available resources? It's going to make them harder to get a hold of, that's what.

ok the 1st thing is more about educating people on what the options are. Here we have Public healthcare and theres almost no one who would accept to change to what americans have.

for the 3rd thing yes thats one of the only down side of public heathcare is that more people go to the emergency room. Here its terrible how much people there is, but atlease they know if theres something wrong they wont go bankrupt or die because they cant afford treatment.

[DriveAlive]

First off how the fuck does this explain why the fact he makes $200K a year makes him bad on the economy?
Secondly what makes you think Bernie Sanders doesnt how a free market works or how the economy of the US works? Also theres shit the live that the goverment should take care of and pay for like health care, like education, like prisons... Private companies only think about 1 thing its profit they dont give a shit if someone cant afford an education to get a good job, they dont give a fuck if someone dies because they cant afford their medication their goal is to make money. When you cut taxes of businesses they just put that extra money in their pockets they never give it back to the workers with higher pay, benifits, or more hours. The reason because people with lower income pay so much in taxes its because businesses and billionaires in the US pay very little taxes if they were paying their fair share of taxes you wouldnt pay that much in taxes.





It is a Human right to receive healthcare your abillity to get a treatment or not shouldnt be base on whether or not you can afford it.




A Constitution can be changed. Also it doesnt say that if you cant afford to see a doctor and get medication for something go fuck your self and die



ok 1. if everyone have the right to healthcare it doesnt matter if you can afford it or not because the goverment pays for it.

2. The reason the price for the insurence went up is because when the isurence companies realize that it was gonna pass and they wouldnt be able to charge as much they want after it pass so before it went into effect they jacked up the price as much as they could thats why your parents and other people had to pay more. If the goverment starts paying for health care they can regulate how much the shit is worth how much a pill is worth, how much it cost for a treatment, how much is a surgery, they negociate with the doctors unions it all gets under control.

3. Like I said before someone shouldnt die just because they cant afford to see the doctor or get medication.




Everyone is paying for public healthcare trough their taxes and its put in the budget just like anything else.



1. ''That Big Brother who will always watch and care for them'' its call the millitary

2. Like I said earlier theres some shit the goverment should be paying for. Look at other countries that have public health care they do good, they dont accomplish less because they dont pay when they go to the hospital.




Quality of care wouldnt decrease in fact it would increase it to a lower cost and everyone would be getting the same thing at the same cost. The reason people will pay more for health care if they have too is because they know at some point your gonna get sick and there gonna have to see a doctor and get treatments.

Your already wasting money on shit you dont use because the way a insurense work is you give them money on a regular basis so if your ever getting sick or hurt your cover but if you dont get sick your paying for shit you dont need, now with public healthcare if you get sick you go to see a doctor you get a treatment you get out goverment pays for it, if you dont get sick no one pays anything.




ok the 1st thing is more about educating people on what the options are. Here we have Public healthcare and theres almost no one who would accept to change to what americans have.

for the 3rd thing yes thats one of the only down side of public heathcare is that more people go to the emergency room. Here its terrible how much people there is, but atlease they know if theres something wrong they wont go bankrupt or die because they cant afford treatment.

Everyone likes to claim that a mandatory single payer healthcare system would be more efficient and provide better care, but the reality is that the private sector will always provide higher quality for those who can pay. If you see the horrendous hospitals in England and then compare them to a private hospital in America, you will see this. With a single payer system, your healthcare will be limited by what is most cost-effective for the government, not what is the best possible care for you.

With that said, I do believe that medical treatment is a right of all people. As a nation, we should not let our citizens die in the streets because they cannot afford care. However, a single payer system is not the way to do it. We should be requiring those who can pay for it do so, and expand Medicaid to help those who cannot.

[Flapjack]

Everyone likes to claim that a mandatory single payer healthcare system would be more efficient and provide better care, but the reality is that the private sector will always provide higher quality for those who can pay. If you see the horrendous hospitals in England and then compare them to a private hospital in America, you will see this. With a single payer system, your healthcare will be limited by what is most cost-effective for the government, not what is the best possible care for you.

With that said, I do believe that medical treatment is a right of all people. As a nation, we should not let our citizens die in the streets because they cannot afford care. However, a single payer system is not the way to do it. We should be requiring those who can pay for it do so, and expand Medicaid to help those who cannot.

What terrible hospitals in England? If there are terrible hospitals then that should be fixed but what you're forgetting is that people in England can chose to go private, but most don't.

[Flapjack]

I think that Trump's ability to handle a national economy would be fantastic

f00njIl9iAM

[CoolGuy108]

I strongly support his views on womens, racial, and LGBT equality. I'm also a big supporter on free college tuition. Disability rights. Free health care. I just don't understand why we are arguing whether or not people should have rights to be happy, healthy and successful.



No. I can support a politician and disagree with some of their political views. Also, I actually don't agree that white people don't know what it's like to be poor. Personally, I'm a white person and was poor until a year ago. But thank you for speaking on my behalf. :)

Fair enough. Honestly Bernie does have some good ideas on how to get equality for lots and lots of people. And thats good.

But it isnt free college tuition. Thats a lie. Its free tuition only for state colleges, private ones stay as expensive as they want. Plus the need for all the money to spend all these kids to school will raise taxes a lot. Idk about you, but anything regarding not higher, but much higher taxes, I usually stay away from it.

[mattsmith48]

Fair enough. Honestly Bernie does have some good ideas on how to get equality for lots and lots of people. And thats good.

But it isnt free college tuition. Thats a lie. Its free tuition only for state colleges, private ones stay as expensive as they want. Plus the need for all the money to spend all these kids to school will raise taxes a lot. Idk about you, but anything regarding not higher, but much higher taxes, I usually stay away from it.

Yes you need to raise the taxes a little to pay for it thats why hes gonna raise taxes on wall street and other billionaire like that orange guy running for president on the republican side

[mattsmith48]

Everyone likes to claim that a mandatory single payer healthcare system would be more efficient and provide better care, but the reality is that the private sector will always provide higher quality for those who can pay. If you see the horrendous hospitals in England and then compare them to a private hospital in America, you will see this. With a single payer system, your healthcare will be limited by what is most cost-effective for the government, not what is the best possible care for you.

With that said, I do believe that medical treatment is a right of all people. As a nation, we should not let our citizens die in the streets because they cannot afford care. However, a single payer system is not the way to do it. We should be requiring those who can pay for it do so, and expand Medicaid to help those who cannot.

What about the ones who can pay for it but when they get sick they have to go backrupt to get treatments what do you do witth does people?

[DriveAlive]

What about the ones who can pay for it but when they get sick they have to go backrupt to get treatments what do you do witth does people?

That is why there is this thing called insurance.

[mattsmith48]

That is why there is this thing called insurance.

But if you get lets say Cancer the cost of the insurance if they still want to insure you will go up. With single payer if you get Cancer everything stays at the same price. And like i said earlier if you dont get sick your bassically paying for nothing, you might as well go to the casino and play the slot machines.

[DriveAlive]

But if you get lets say Cancer the cost of the insurance if they still want to insure you will go up. With single payer if you get Cancer everything stays at the same price. And like i said earlier if you dont get sick your bassically paying for nothing, you might as well go to the casino and play the slot machines.

One of the aspects of Obamacare that I actually like is the requirement to cover pre-existing conditions.

If you do not get sick with a a single payer system, you are still paying for everyone else.

With private healthcare, you pay for the level of coverage and care you want. This offers you a wide variety of options based on your personal situation and needs. It allows you to access the best possible care if you want. With a mandatory single payer system, everyone is offered the same level of care, which limits your choices on what type of care you want and decreases the overall quality of healthcare in order to maintain reasonable costs.

[mattsmith48]

One of the aspects of Obamacare that I actually like is the requirement to cover pre-existing conditions.

If you do not get sick with a a single payer system, you are still paying for everyone else.

With private healthcare, you pay for the level of coverage and care you want. This offers you a wide variety of options based on your personal situation and needs. It allows you to access the best possible care if you want. With a mandatory single payer system, everyone is offered the same level of care, which limits your choices on what type of care you want and decreases the overall quality of healthcare in order to maintain reasonable costs.

Just want to know by type of care what do you mean?

[DriveAlive]

Just want to know by type of care what do you mean?

I mean which hospital I go to, which doctor I see, which test/procedure I have done, which joint replacement I have put in, etc.

[mattsmith48]

I mean which hospital I go to, which doctor I see, which test/procedure I have done, which joint replacement I have put in, etc.

With public health care you get to chose all those things with out having to worry about the cost

[DriveAlive]

With public health care you get to chose all those things with out having to worry about the cost

No, because what you can choose is limited by what is most cost-effective. Otherwise, we would bankrupt the system. Secondly, you do have to worry about the cost. You are the one paying for it. You have to pay more in taxes to pay for your healthcare.

[mattsmith48]

No, because what you can choose is limited by what is most cost-effective. Otherwise, we would bankrupt the system. Secondly, you do have to worry about the cost. You are the one paying for it. You have to pay more in taxes to pay for your healthcare.

You know people in countries who dont have healthcare also pay taxes. its just instead of our taxes being use for stupid shit like wars like you guys do its being use on usefull stuff like heath care and other social programs

[DriveAlive]

You know people in countries who dont have healthcare also pay taxes. its just instead of our taxes being use for stupid shit like wars like you guys do its being use on usefull stuff like heath care and other social programs

You know you guys have been heavily involved in the Middle East too and have just relied on U.S. Forces to help cover your costs of combat...but that is not the point right now. I am entirely in agreement that the government should be cutting costs and not waste money on wars. Expenses must be kept at a bare minimum. But while you want to then take all of the money that is saved and continue to tax people in order to pay for a single payer system, I want to reduce taxes because of the cut costs to give people more money that they can spend on the level of healthcare that they want.

[mattsmith48]

You know you guys have been heavily involved in the Middle East too and have just relied on U.S. Forces to help cover your costs of combat...but that is not the point right now. I am entirely in agreement that the government should be cutting costs and not waste money on wars. Expenses must be kept at a bare minimum. But while you want to then take all of the money that is saved and continue to tax people in order to pay for a single payer system, I want to reduce taxes because of the cut costs to give people more money that they can spend on the level of healthcare that they want.

You know that was that fucker who was running the country for a decade that decieded to fight stupid wars in the middle east.

People will always pay taxes might as well be used for something that profits to everyone like healthcare

[DriveAlive]

You know that was that fucker who was running the country for a decade that decieded to fight stupid wars in the middle east.

People will always pay taxes might as well be used for something that profits to everyone like healthcare

No, we should try to cut costs so that we can lower taxes and put more money into the pockets of the people.

[mattsmith48]

No, we should try to cut costs so that we can lower taxes and put more money into the pockets of the people.

But then when people loose their job or the price of the shit goes up what do you do?

[Kyle37]

I support Bernie, but if and when he loses I support Trump. They are the only two genuine candidates who won't screw America and every other country in the world from the back.

[Merk]

I don't like any if them. They are all clowns from nightmares.

[Microcosm]

So I was researching about Trump and saw that he was born in 1946. He's 69, Hillary is 68, and Sanders is 74. I was surprised that this election had much older people in it.

f00njIl9iAM

I think he could have been saying that for publicity. However, I myself don't know that much about the national and world economy so I suppose I'm not qualified to make a response on how much he knows.

[DriveAlive]

But then when people loose their job or the price of the shit goes up what do you do?

That is why we have Medicaid

[CoolGuy108]

Yes you need to raise the taxes a little to pay for it thats why hes gonna raise taxes on wall street and other billionaire like that orange guy running for president on the republican side

Trump already proposed taxing the rich more, including himself. Plus his tax plan gives more money back to the normal lower and middle people. For example If you are single and make less than 25k or a couple and make less than 50k, you pay no income tax.

Thats a big difference between Bernard who wants to increase taxes on all people.

[mattsmith48]

Trump already proposed taxing the rich more, including himself. Plus his tax plan gives more money back to the normal lower and middle people. For example If you are single and make less than 25k or a couple and make less than 50k, you pay no income tax.

Thats a big difference between Bernard who wants to increase taxes on all people.

You really think Trump is gonna raise the taxes on himself? He said during the Republican primaries and a few times after. he was gonna lower the taxes on the rich and big businesses, what do you think is more realistic for him.

Bernie will only raise taxes on the rich people

[DriveAlive]

You really think Trump is gonna raise the taxes on himself? He said during the Republican primaries and a few times after. he was gonna lower the taxes on the rich and big businesses, what do you think is more realistic for him.

Bernie will only raise taxes on the rich people

Trump said he wants lower taxes across the board, including a decreased corporate tax to increase business activity. His tax plan also include no income tax for the lowest tax bracket which is 25K or less a year for a single household and 50K or less for a family. His plan would benefit the poor the most.

[phuckphace]

Sanders believes that the government should take care of people, cradle to grave, and sees no issue with government getting involved in the economy to the point where government IS the economy.

Sanders doesn't promote a planned economy, he wants a welfare state similar to that of Norway.

of course he's nuts for believing that what works in white, homogeneous Norway can also work in los Estados Unidos, but that's beside the point.

While regulations are needed in order to keep competitiveness in the market and prevent monopolies from forming, they should never regulate how a business runs itself.

lol, you don't really believe this.

if you did, you'd be totally fine with working unlimited unpaid overtime or even the elimination of the guest-worker visa cap and training your (foreign) replacement before being terminated with no recourse.

Businesses are taxed heavily enough that people have their pay cut, hours taken away, and benefits ripped from them.

and yet somehow they're still managing to turn profits and there's a notable lack of companies going bankrupt from said taxation.

what actually happened is that upper management began culling their underlings in a heroic Randian quest to preserve their own bonuses. I'm no fan of Obamacare, but let's not delude ourselves here.

If you allow a business to grow and manage its money without having to take most of it, you'd have a much healthier and stronger middle class.

Fortune 500 CEO discovers foolproof way to restore 1950s values and culture with this one weird Form 1120 filing trick! >>Click HERE<< to learn his secrets!

While taxes are inevitable and are necessary to keep the government running, the government has no right to take 15% of my paycheck to fund programs I don't support.

according to Congress they do.

Congress > your opinion.

1. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that people have the right to receive healthcare.

it also doesn't provide for things like a child pornography cyber-crime task force or those regulations that prevent Rand Corp. from dumping depleted uranium in your backyard but I don't hear you complaining about that.

look I hate getting taxed to pay for Shaniqua/Baby-Boomer care as much as you do but this is some seriously bad Timothy McVeigh-tier Constitutional logic.

-paragraphs-

this is the kind of dogmatic free-market glorification that people are getting tired of, including many of us on the right. all systems which contain people have their flaws, but it comes across as extremely disingenuous to hype up the flaws of one system while completely ignoring those of the other.

the only thing worse than getting second rate care free at the point of use is getting second rate care with a $30,000 price tag. the ridiculousness of an itemized $50 charge for a toothbrush or $100 for a hospital gown is only the tip of the shit-berg here. but I forget, if you can't afford this chump change you obviously didn't pull yourself up by your bootstraps and will yourself into a six-figure job.

your spiel about Big Brother treating its public patients as numbers is especially bizarre given the behavior of the insurance bureaucracies that is notorious and well-documented. any guesses as to what happens in your glorious privatized system when someone turns their empty pockets out at the front desk?

[mattsmith48]

Trump said he wants lower taxes across the board, including a decreased corporate tax to increase business activity. His tax plan also include no income tax for the lowest tax bracket which is 25K or less a year for a single household and 50K or less for a family. His plan would benefit the poor the most.

Thats now how shit works if you lower tax on bussiness and billionaires they will just keep that money in their pockets instead of putting it back in the economy.

[Judean Zealot]

Thats now how shit works if you lower tax on bussiness and billionaires they will just keep that money in their pockets instead of putting it back in the economy.

Money being taxed under corporate tax codes aren't 'in anyone's pocket'. It is company money, and thus earmarked for reinvestment. Seriously, corporate taxation is a terrible idea unless the government desperately needs the revenue.

[DriveAlive]

Thats now how shit works if you lower tax on bussiness and billionaires they will just keep that money in their pockets instead of putting it back in the economy.

Right now, businesses our leaving Ameirca for countries with lower tax rates. The more competitive we make our rates for corporations, the more of them will stay. This in turn is what creates jobs and stimulates the economy.

[Typhlosion]

I wish I could support Kasich, the only candidate I liked. In the lack of him as a viable choice, I say Bernie Sander for trying socialist-influences in the US. He's far from a socialist, I know, but I think it's worth the try.

But Trump? Hell naw. Worse is that my father, who has a PhD in Physics, supports him. Oh well.

[DriveAlive]

I wish I could support Kasich, the only candidate I liked. In the lack of him as a viable choice, I say Bernie Sander for trying socialist-influences in the US. He's far from a socialist, I know, but I think it's worth the try.

But Trump? Hell naw. Worse is that my father, who has a PhD in Physics, supports him. Oh well.
Sounds like your father is pretty smart then :)

[mattsmith48]

I wish I could support Kasich, the only candidate I liked. In the lack of him as a viable choice, I say Bernie Sander for trying socialist-influences in the US. He's far from a socialist, I know, but I think it's worth the try.

But Trump? Hell naw. Worse is that my father, who has a PhD in Physics, supports him. Oh well.

How hes he far from socialist? Free health care and Free College sound pretty socialist to me

Smart people can do stupid shit too they are allowed its just this one might cause WWIII

[sqishy]

I'm putting this here because I feel it's relevant in getting to see where your fav candidate is. It's on extremism.

Try to keep an open mind :rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLNhPMQnWu4

(Yes, it's relatively old but it carries as good today as it ever did.)

[Typhlosion]

How hes he far from socialist? Free health care and Free College sound pretty socialist to me

Smart people can do stupid shit too they are allowed its just this one might cause WWIII

Free healthcare and education are indeed not the most capitalistic ideals, but that doesn't make him a socialist. Heck, Brazil has both of those but is not a socialist country. Socialism includes much more like privatization of companies or at least the syndication of corporatives. Russia was a socialist state. USA, under Bernie's presidency, would be still very far from socialist.

[Vlerchan]

Clinton, re., signature.

Bloomberg optimally.

He takes nothing and turns it into something over the course of four decades
You don't think that his father's wealth - and more importantly, father's wealth of connections - helped at all? I'm willing to concede that Trump probably has some amount of talent for real estate investment - and perhaps some of his other ventures - but he did not come from 'nothing'.

His stance on taxes I like for the fact that it simplifies and cuts out a lot of the bullshit of the current tax code.
I'm a supporter of a broad-based, low-rate flat tax and could get behind tax reform.

However Trump has stated before - after his suggestion to increase taxes on the rich was received negativity - that his original proposals are effectively just a guideline (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKCN0Y01J4). No-one can actually be sure what he's offering here.

Trump does this with his own businesses and has been successful.
Do you genuinely believe that the US declaring bankruptcy and reneging on it's debts would be anything even in the region of a corporate bankruptcy?

It's similarly dubious to claim that Trumps business management skills will translate to the realm of politics to the extent implied. The 'deals' that the US strikes are the product of teams of bureaucrats, normally with considerable experience, made after years-long, multi-round bargaining sessions. Normally, dozens of interests are juggled.

The United States also makes a return on issuing debt to China, i.e., China pays to hold U.S. debt because it's attempting to build reserves.

It is a *temporary ban* on Muslims from *some* countries. You want a Paris? You want a Belgium? You want more San bernardino?
You realise that nearly all of the attackers in Belgium and Paris were second-generation and citizens of the EU.

In San Berdardino, the male attacker was a second-generation US citizen, who when radicalised trafficked the female attacker into the state.

The issue if alienation. Your solution to this issue is not only unworkable, but the likelihood is that it will increase tensions.

Because the Obama administration has deported just around 3 million illegal immigrants. And they dont even care! Imagine if someone actually cared about illegal immigration and enforced rules that are already there...
The first point worth nothing is that the numbers deported is much greater than that of predecessors.

The second point worth noting is that the executive isn't as omnipotent as people seem to believe. In fact it's actually very weak and only operable in times of national crisis or considerable popularity. That Obama seems lax on immigration isn't so important when it's a bureaucracy - existing independent of the Obama administration - carrying out the relevant legislation.

ANd he did nothing to improve the economy.
There's broad consensus amongst economist that the stimulus package did a considerable amount of good for the state of the economy. It probably would have had an even stronger impact had Republican-governors not engaged in the level of state-level austerity they did.

entered into office with 7Trillion in debt, now its 19 trillion.
I have no idea why you believe this is an important indicater relevent to the line of argument.

http://cdn.tradingeconomics.com/charts/united-states-government-debt-to-gdp.png?s=usadebt2gdp&v=201604041725n&d1=19810120&d2=19890120

But - still - Wowzer(!).

---

In Europe, healthcare is also provided on the basis of need. There is a large private sector of competing hospitals, that people can access through their government insurance. Under European Union law, if your state doesn't cover a certain procedure then you can access it in another European state and bill your government.

It's a system that produces consistently great results.

---

Edit because I missed the fourth page.

On corporation taxation, listen to Judean Zealot. It should also be pointed out that companies aren't leaving the U.S. as a result of their higher corporate taxation rates, as much as just applying for tax-residence in countries like Ireland whilst their productive assets remain in their state of origin [which is great, to the sum of several billion in government revenue, for my standard of living] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement).

[Sugaree]

You don't think that his father's wealth - and more importantly, father's wealth of connections - helped at all? I'm willing to concede that Trump probably has some amount of talent for real estate investment - and perhaps some of his other ventures - but he did not come from 'nothing'.


To a degree, I do. The fact that people made fun of him for his father giving him a loan to start on his own was stupid. Obviously he needed something to start, his father was there to help. On top of that, Trump's father having connections certainly helped. I would have used those connections and strengthen them as much as I could if I were Donald. If you want to be successful, you have to surround yourself with people who have already succeeded.


I'm a supporter of a broad-based, low-rate flat tax and could get behind tax reform.

However Trump has stated before - after his suggestion to increase taxes on the rich was received negativity - that his original proposals are effectively just a guideline (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKCN0Y01J4). No-one can actually be sure what he's offering here.

I think that was a purely political move by Trump to say he would increase taxes on the rich. When it was received negatively, he backed off and took another route. By no means do I think Trump will get the tax plan laid out on his website through Congress. However, if he is using it as a guideline for tax reform, I think it's a good starting point.

[phuckphace]

To a degree, I do. The fact that people made fun of him for his father giving him a loan to start on his own was stupid. Obviously he needed something to start, his father was there to help. On top of that, Trump's father having connections certainly helped. I would have used those connections and strengthen them as much as I could if I were Donald. If you want to be successful, you have to surround yourself with people who have already succeeded.

if you ask me I like the fact that he had no qualms about admitting he had help getting started - it contrasts with a lot of other people in his income bracket who spin mythical yarns about building their huge fortunes singlehandedly (Warren Buffett, etc.) I think THE DONALD is well aware that his fortunes would be quite different had he been born to some Ellis Island prole instead of Fred Trump.

[mattsmith48]

To a degree, I do. The fact that people made fun of him for his father giving him a loan to start on his own was stupid. Obviously he needed something to start, his father was there to help. On top of that, Trump's father having connections certainly helped. I would have used those connections and strengthen them as much as I could if I were Donald. If you want to be successful, you have to surround yourself with people who have already succeeded.

Your right we shouldnt make fun of Trump because he got lucky. We should make fun of him because he went bankrupt 4 times and he thinks hes a succesfull businessman alot more funny.

[Flapjack]

I don't know what is more concerning... the horrific fact that a racist sexist biggot such as trump is this close to being president... or the fact that half the country is saying crap like 'We was all thinking it but hes just saying it' That means you are a racist sexist biggot but never admited to it in public before!!

I love the USA so much but Trumps large amount of support is concerning to say the least.

[mattsmith48]

I don't know what is more concerning... the horrific fact that a racist sexist biggot such as trump is this close to being president... or the fact that half the country is saying crap like 'We was all thinking it but hes just saying it' That means you are a racist sexist biggot but never admited to it in public before!!

I love the USA so much but Trumps large amount of support is concerning to say the least.

No the scary parts are 1. Those people have access to guns
2. Trump will have access to nuclear weapons when elected

[hesaidhesaid]

There should be a NEITHER option. (HAHA)

[mattsmith48]

Talking about scary shit about Donald Trump, Kim Jong Un endorsed him today... When the guy your planning to vote for as been endorse by the KKK, Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un you should probably rethink your choice

[DVDan19]

Hello from France !
From over the Atlantic, the big majority think that Sanders is the best for the USA. We don't know much about what happens over there, but what it's sure, it's that we are really against Trump. We already see USA as far right, and having such a candidate, he looks like an extreme extremist to us (even our far right extremist isn't as extreme as yours).
So yeah, when we see Trump's foreign policy, we wonder how wrong it would go with him as president...
I sincerely hope America will not choose Trump !

[DriveAlive]

Hello from France !
From over the Atlantic, the big majority think that Sanders is the best for the USA. We don't know much about what happens over there, but what it's sure, it's that we are really against Trump. We already see USA as far right, and having such a candidate, he looks like an extreme extremist to us (even our far right extremist isn't as extreme as yours).
So yeah, when we see Trump's foreign policy, we wonder how wrong it would go with him as president...
I sincerely hope America will not choose Trump !
So Marine Le Pen is not as far right?

[DVDan19]

So Marine Le Pen is not as far right?

For us she is, but she is way behind what you have

[Luminous]

I chose Sanders on the poll, but I'm not entirely sure I identify strongly with one particular candidate. My personal beliefs line up best with Bernie's, but that doesn't mean I agree with every aspect of his campaign nor does it mean I disagree with every aspect of Clinton's and Trump's. I care less about their personal reputation at the moment, because that's so arguable and who could really know the truth, but rather I lean towards what they promote and say they want to change/keep the same, and what I agree with. Personally, I feel more comfortable with Bernie's side on a lot of issues.
ie; he strongly supports LGBT rights
he wants equal pay for women
his views on race equality
I don't necessarily agree or disagree with his ideas for minimum wage or making college tuition-free, as well as other issues he's addressed., I'm rather undecided and I get both sides.

[DriveAlive]

One of the less talked about points when it comes to equal pay for women is that many of the statistics saying that women are payed X amount less than men ignore the fact the the men on average were working in the job longer and therefore are paid more for their seniority. I am not saying that gender inequality is not a real and serious issue, but I do hate being manipulated.

[Sugaree]

Your right we shouldnt make fun of Trump because he got lucky. We should make fun of him because he went bankrupt 4 times and he thinks hes a succesfull businessman alot more funny.

Luck has nothing to do with the circumstances you are born into. Luck does not exist. Try again.

[The Boom]

Trump.
Because I like the fact that a sentence starting with "I believe" contains 85.14% of the time no valid argumentation.
Also because I'm curious to see how fucked up America will be. :3


Thank you! Finally someone who thinks straight!:yes:

[everlong]

Although I know very little about the candidates, I know it's between Trump and Bernie for me. I need to look more into politics and really see who I support.

[mattsmith48]

Luck has nothing to do with the circumstances you are born into. Luck does not exist. Try again.

Your right theres no evidence that luck exist, when I say he got lucky its just an expression and it doesnt change that we shouldnt make fun that he got money from his dad but we should make fun of him because he went bankrupt 4 times and he thinks hes a succesfull businessman.

[Sugaree]

Your right theres no evidence that luck exist, when I say he got lucky its just an expression and it doesnt change that we shouldnt make fun that he got money from his dad but we should make fun of him because he went bankrupt 4 times and he thinks hes a succesfull businessman.


Plenty of businessmen go bankrupt, why don't you make fun of them? Going bankrupt does not mean you did not succeed. Trump's businesses went bankrupt for one reason: the market. His casino went under because Atlantic City suffered an incredibly bad economic recession after he built there. It was going good for a while before it fell back into the cesspit. His other brands (vodka, steaks, etc.) were bought after he declared them bankrupt. Bankruptcy happens all the time in business, and it's for a variety of factors. Success can be a factor, but often times, it's simply the market and economic climate that determines if a business survives.

Trump is successful on the real estate front. That's where the majority of his money came from. Real estate is not the easiest business to become successful in, but Trump was one of the very few who became a mogul in the field. So a few of his ventures turned out to be duds, so what? This is what happens in a free market, and Donald knows this. I don't see why it's funny to you that someone's ventures go bankrupt.

[FlyOnTheWall]

I am not from the Usa so it doesnt affect me but nobody they are all bad in their own way

[mattsmith48]

Plenty of businessmen go bankrupt, why don't you make fun of them? Going bankrupt does not mean you did not succeed. Trump's businesses went bankrupt for one reason: the market. His casino went under because Atlantic City suffered an incredibly bad economic recession after he built there. It was going good for a while before it fell back into the cesspit. His other brands (vodka, steaks, etc.) were bought after he declared them bankrupt. Bankruptcy happens all the time in business, and it's for a variety of factors. Success can be a factor, but often times, it's simply the market and economic climate that determines if a business survives.

Trump is successful on the real estate front. That's where the majority of his money came from. Real estate is not the easiest business to become successful in, but Trump was one of the very few who became a mogul in the field. So a few of his ventures turned out to be duds, so what? This is what happens in a free market, and Donald knows this. I don't see why it's funny to you that someone's ventures go bankrupt.

Trump's Real Estate is just selling is name to put on buildings he doesnt own any of those buildings the rest of his money is mostly from fraud. For the Bankruptcy other businessmen have gone bankrupt thats true, but going bankrupt 4 times, and still thinking your a good businessmen thats why we can fun of him for going bankrupt.

[Stronk Serb]

Trump's Real Estate is just selling is name to put on buildings he doesnt own any of those buildings the rest of his money is mostly from fraud. For the Bankruptcy other businessmen have gone bankrupt thats true, but going bankrupt 4 times, and still thinking your a good businessmen thats why we can fun of him for going bankrupt.

It depends on the size of the failed venture. Seeing how he is stil profitable, he is a good businessman. Here are several famous people who became far richer even though they went bankrupt. Besides, having someone inept in the trade telling him he is a bad businessman doesn't mean anything.


http://www.incomediary.com/went-bankrupt-now-worth-millions

[mattsmith48]

It depends on the size of the failed venture. Seeing how he is stil profitable, he is a good businessman. Here are several famous people who became far richer even though they went bankrupt. Besides, having someone inept in the trade telling him he is a bad businessman doesn't mean anything.


http://www.incomediary.com/went-bankrupt-now-worth-millions

How many of them went bankrupt more than once how many 4 times or more? Going bankrupt once it happens, sometimes you just do some mistakes or you just had a bad idea, but going bankrupt 4 times come on, Trump failed with a casino, a business where people literally give you money for nothing it.

[Hollywood]

It's going to come down to which one I hate the least rather than who I like the most. I'll probably vote for Clinton but I'll feel very dirty doing it.

[Stronk Serb]

It's going to come down to which one I hate the least rather than who I like the most. I'll probably vote for Clinton but I'll feel very dirty doing it.

Do presidential elections in the US have a minimal vote number like here? Here it was 50%+1, but they had to mend the constitution for the last presidential elections to be valid.

[Darkslidex7]

I honestly don't support either of them, I think the next president (probably trump) will be a failure and America will suck. Then I ask myself how tf do people support trump?? He's just a perverted, angry, millionaire who wants power...

[Hermes]

In a way I am glad I don't have to vote in that election. How does one choose between an unprincipled right-wing incompetent who will promise anything to get into power and a woman who has a proven track record of dishonesty?

[Bull]

Tough decision. I absolutely cannot vote for Trump. I am considering voting for the libertarian, but history indicates that just takes votes away from other candidates and does not win the election. What to do?

[mattsmith48]

In a way I am glad I don't have to vote in that election. How does one choose between an unprincipled right-wing incompetent who will promise anything to get into power and a woman who has a proven track record of dishonesty?

Tough decision. I absolutely cannot vote for Trump. I am considering voting for the libertarian, but history indicates that just takes votes away from other candidates and does not win the election. What to do?

One is a racist con man who only cares about one person himself and might start WWIII the other might be corrupt and have a terrible record of flip floping but atlease she wont make this planet unhabitable for anything to live on it, to me sounds like an easy choice, since whoever wins this thing will likely not be reelected in 4 years

[Fleek]

Clinton for President! Think about the children!

[Uniquemind]

I was for Bernie, but given the realities he does not have the support from the delegates he needs, Clinton will inherit my support by default.

But my support is in spirit only.

[Vlerchan]

How many former Berni Sanders supporters, here, now support Trump?

It seems like a catching trend in some of the darker corners of the internet.

since whoever wins this thing will likely not be reelected in 4 years
Trump actually could be, given his considerable success, so far, in externalising his own failures.

Clinton, though, won't last another election.

[Leprous]

Trump actually could be, given his considerable success, so far, in externalising his own failures.



Depends how hard Trump fucks up should he get elected though.

[Vlerchan]

Depends how hard Trump fucks up should he get elected though.
I'm actually quite confident it literally doesn't matter at all - notwithstanding the emergence of a competitor beholden to a similar Trumpain creed.

He has a core, that like the Brexit core, are just happy to offer a 'fuck you' to international-liberalism.

[Leprous]

I'm actually quite confident it literally doesn't matter at all - notwithstanding the emergence of a competitor beholden to a similar Trumpain creed.

He has a core, that like the Brexit core, are just happy to offer a 'fuck you' to international-liberalism.

I believe he will still keep a part of his supporters but should be ruin the country most people with a certain degree of common sense should know not to vote for him again.

[mattsmith48]

Trump actually could be, given his considerable success, so far, in externalising his own failures.

Clinton, though, won't last another election.

Trump will most likely end up doing something illegal and be impeach in is 1st year if not month as president or will doom us all by starting a nuclear war

[Devinsoccer]

Donald Trump
Cause I'm republican, and he wants to do stuff for the people, unlike the other two.

[Devinsoccer]

Clinton for President! Think about the children!

She says that, but when she becomes president, she will do whatever the democratic party wants her to do.

[ethan-s]

I don't support any of them. But i would vote for trump as the lesser of two evils. Now, if donald could get the US out of the UN, (and I was sure he could do this) I would support him in a heartbeat.

[Flapjack]

I don't support any of them. But i would vote for trump as the lesser of two evils. Now, if donald could get the US out of the UN, (and I was sure he could do this) I would support him in a heartbeat.
Why do you want to leave the UN???? I cannot stand Clinton but she will not destroy the USA but Trump will.

[Porpoise101]

I don't support any of them. But i would vote for trump as the lesser of two evils. Now, if donald could get the US out of the UN, (and I was sure he could do this) I would support him in a heartbeat.
What. Why would they leave the UN. The US is a founding member, arguably the most important. The US crafted that group. The US bases it in NYC.... Look man, I don't think the other nations will let us leave that organization seeing as we help fund some of it's (usually good) programs. If we leave, the Security Council will be divided between UK, France, Russia, and China also. Now I'm not saying the UN is imperfect, in my mind it is not fair and it needs to be restructured. But to leave it would be a mistake, when the USSR temporarily left it in the 50s, the Korean War was authorized and the UN forces retook the peninsula (until China intervened). That would have never happened if the USSR stayed. So to leave is to lose your voice, which is a worse alternative.

[ethan-s]

What. Why would they leave the UN. The US is a founding member, arguably the most important. The US crafted that group. The US bases it in NYC.... Look man, I don't think the other nations will let us leave that organization seeing as we help fund some of it's (usually good) programs. If we leave, the Security Council will be divided between UK, France, Russia, and China also. Now I'm not saying the UN is imperfect, in my mind it is not fair and it needs to be restructured. But to leave it would be a mistake, when the USSR temporarily left it in the 50s, the Korean War was authorized and the UN forces retook the peninsula (until China intervened). That would have never happened if the USSR stayed. So to leave is to lose your voice, which is a worse alternative.
LET us? they don't have to let us. did Britain let us leave? no. How do you explain them trying to force gun regs down the throats of OUR PEOPLE? :eek:

Why do you want to leave the UN???? I cannot stand Clinton but she will not destroy the USA but Trump will.
mark my words, trump will destroy the USA, but a lot less than shrillery will.

[Vlerchan]

How do you explain them trying to force gun regs down the throats of OUR PEOPLE?
If you mean the ATT, you should probably read it, since it's not designed at all to limit the rights of domestic citizens.

You should also probably read about the actual powers of the UN; or, in this case, just the legislative process that birthed the ATT.

[ethan-s]

I'm talking about how they say we need 'robust' gun regs.

[Flapjack]

I'm talking about how they say we need 'robust' gun regs.
and why don't we?

[ethan-s]

obviously, because we don't. we need radical militant and crazy dude control, not gun regs.

[Vlerchan]

I'm talking about how they say we need 'robust' gun regs.
I have no idea how you equate this to the UN forcing gun regulations down the throats of American people. It was just one commissioner, with basically zero realised legal power, stating his opposition to the statues-quo.

Would you also mind linking to the academic paper that you pulled that pie chart from? I would be interested in reading the analysis.

[Flapjack]

Would you also mind linking to the academic paper that you pulled that pie chart from? I would be interested in reading the analysis.
Nooo reality has a well-known liberal biasxD

[Porpoise101]

I'm talking about how they say we need 'robust' gun regs.
...so the UN didn't actually force anything and it was just an opinion. So there isn't anything really to complain about. Ideally, a proper United Nations should be able to exert complete control over the globe in such issues, but I'm already sure that you are against such an idea.

[Skylark]

Sanders has as much dirt as any other person running for president. How about the fact that he was nothing more than a bum before he became mayor of Burlington, VT? The guy has no concept of how an economy works, considering all of his paychecks for the last 35+ years come from government work. On top of that, he's still substantially more rich than the people he claims to defend (having made over $200k last year!). He gets free health care for life, body guards for life, job security, and a bunch of other benefits because he's a career politician.

I support Trump because he's the exact opposite of all the other candidates. He's the modern American success story. He takes nothing and turns it into something over the course of four decades, wisely invests his money, and makes himself into a worldwide brand. It's been decades since a candidate has run on the platform of "America first". His stances on immigration, taxes, and healthcare reform are all things that this country needs. It's about time the people get a say in an election and get what they vote for, and I think Trump, as a businessman, knows the consequences of reneging on promises.

Read "Art of the Deal" and "Art of the Comeback". You'll get a lot of insight into how Trump thinks and the methods behind everything.

Wisely invested his money? Are you talking about the man whose company has filed chapter 11 bankruptcy 4 times because of his various hotels and casinos being mismanaged and closing?

[Vilnius]

None of these choices. I'm thinking of voting for Gary Johnson, but I don't know enough about him to make an informed decision.

[Vlerchan]

None of these choices. I'm thinking of voting for Gary Johnson, but I don't know enough about him to make an informed decision.
End the FED.
Taxation is theft.
Etc. Etc.

Does the rest matter?

[Devinsoccer]

I want Trump to win the election, for multiple reasons. One, I'm a republican, and he is also a republican. Two, the Clinton's are buts and do whatever the democratic party wants them to do. Three, Trump is legit, he says truth, not lies. Lastly, he want things done by THE LAW. People crossing the border ILLEGALLY is wrong, and they should go back to where ever they came from in the first place.

[Bluebyrd]

Double the minimum wage AND make college free. How can the economy possibly survive under Sanders?! Trump all the way!

[Leprous]

Double the minimum wage AND make college free. How can the economy possibly survive under Sanders?! Trump all the way!

Punish women who want abortions all the way!

[mattsmith48]

Double the minimum wage AND make college free. How can the economy possibly survive under Sanders?! Trump all the way!

Because deporting 11 million people, building a wall, ban 1/3 of the world's population from entering the US and test 3 million people if they believe in sharia law and if they do deport them and starting WWIII is so much cheaper then raising the minimum wage, giving free college and free health care to people and when other countries did it their economy crashed instantly and they never recovered from it.

[Flapjack]

Double the minimum wage AND make college free. How can the economy possibly survive under Sanders?! Trump all the way!
Ya know giving money to the poor is better because they have a higher economic velocity right? Do you even know what economic velocity is? As for making college free, it certainly won't destroy the economy and may even improve the economy, an educated population does that.

[Vlerchan]

Anyone that will preach about peace in the entire world, I am happy to be back.:smile:
I figure the ultimate aim of all U.S. politicians is peace, there might just be dispute over what a lasting peace is, and how to obtain this.

---

The fact that Trump's policies are poor (notable that none of his economic policies were highlighted), really doesn't make Sander's policies any better.

EDIT.

For whatever reason I missed this.

Ya know giving money to the poor is better because they have a higher economic velocity right?
Except richer people make more efficient use of their funds, sustained long-run growth is contingent on the level of investment (investment also equals savings).

Under certain conditions, i.e., economic downturns, increasing the purchasing power of the poor might be preferable.

Do you even know what economic velocity is?
I don't believe it's a term used in actual economics. When economists refer to the same phenomenon as you do, they highlight what's called the higher 'propensity of consumption' of the poor (i.e., more of their income goes to consumption).

The only time velocity is mentioned, is when people are discussing the velocity of money. That refers to which the frequency that a given unit of currency is used to make purchases, which is of importance when we consider it's interaction with the money supply and what that means for inflation. Whilst I can see how it might seem equatable to the above, it is still technically incorrect.

As for making college free, it certainly won't destroy the economy and may even improve the economy, an educated population does that.
Consensus seems to rest on human capital not being as persuasive as the efficiency of the allocation of labour and capital, in explaining long-run growth (Jones 2015 (http://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/jones-facts040.pdf)).

Though, this thesis does have it's famed detractors (eg., Manuelli and Seshardi (2010) (http://www.econ.wisc.edu/~aseshadr/publication_pdf/humancap.pdf)), that making college free (when accessible funding options exist) is in anyway equivalent to the sort of factors Manuelli, Seshardi and others discuss in their use of developing state data is dubious at best. Furthermore, there's quite a clear consensus that the greatest gains from education are found at pre-school level and not college education (Burgees 2015: 25 - 26 (http://ftp.iza.org/dp9885.pdf)), which is the reason I believe that if investment is to be prioritised, it should be prioritised there. Irish data also shows that making college education free had a non-significant impact on social-mobility and college demographics (Denny 2010 (http://www.ucd.ie/geary/static/publications/workingpapers/gearywp201026.pdf)).

[mattsmith48]

I figure the ultimate aim of all U.S. politicians is peace, there might just be dispute over what a lasting peace is, and how to obtain this.

---

The fact that Trump's policies are poor (notable that none of his economic policies were highlighted), really doesn't make Sander's policies any better.

Listenning to Trump and Clinton none of them want peace and their foreign policies will only make shit worst and war last longer, Obama (who one the nobel peace prize) as not done anything to stop useless war infact he started new ones with the suport of every republican and most democrates, and Bush started this shit show we have in the middle east with war crimes and illegal wars which and give weapons to what is now ISIS. Does it look like those politician wanted peace?

The fact Trump's policies are incredably dangerous, racist and stupid Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un and the KKK have endorse him and Hitler if still alive would do endorse him too, doesnt make Clinton or Sanders or anyone elses policies better, it only makes politicians like Clinton look better.

[Vlerchan]

Listenning to Trump and Clinton none of them want peace and their foreign policies will only make shit worst and war last longer[.]
Worth noting that I'm broadly opposed to US foreign policy the last number of decades.

Nonetheless, do you genuinely believe that peace would spontaneously emerge and flourish if the United States was to retract it's slimy, belligerent tendrils from global affairs?

[...] and Bush started this shit show we have in the middle east with war crimes and illegal wars which and give weapons to what is now ISIS.
The Middle east was a geopolitical nightmare long before the United States began to stake its presence there.

I don't agree with the Iraq war - but it's the height of naivety to believe that anything 'started' with Bush, especially when at most all the United States did was fan the flames that states in the Middle East had already created for themselves.

he fact Trump's policies are [poor ...] doesnt make Clinton or Sanders or anyone elses policies better, it only makes politicians like Clinton look better.
Yes, I agree. Clinton2016.

[mattsmith48]

Worth noting that I'm broadly opposed to US foreign policy the last number of decades.

Nonetheless, do you genuinely believe that peace would spontaneously emerge and flourish if the United States was to retract it's slimy, belligerent tendrils from global affairs?


The Middle east was a geopolitical nightmare long before the United States began to stake its presence there.

I don't agree with the Iraq war - but it's the height of naivety to believe that anything 'started' with Bush, especially when at most all the United States did was fan the flames that states in the Middle East had already created for themselves.


I think fighting terrorism with terrorism and war crimes certainly didnt help the situation in the middle east and just made it worst. Bush's actions after 9/11 are definitely responsable for the creation of ISIS and other terrorist groups. Theyve been bombing Muslim countries for 15 years and counting and it just made shit worst. I think when something doesnt work for 15 years you should try something else. All those countries have millitary, I say get out of there let the locals try to figure things out

[DriveAlive]

I think fighting terrorism with terrorism and war crimes certainly didnt help the situation in the middle east and just made it worst. Bush's actions after 9/11 are definitely responsable for the creation of ISIS and other terrorist groups. Theyve been bombing Muslim countries for 15 years and counting and it just made shit worst. I think when something doesnt work for 15 years you should try something else. All those countries have millitary, I say get out of there let the locals try to figure things out
I would have to say Obama's actions in Libya are more responsible for ISIS.

[mattsmith48]

I would have to say Obama's actions in Libya are more responsible for ISIS.

In what way are they more responsible for ISIS?

[DriveAlive]

In what way are they more responsible for ISIS?

Because the Obama administration intervened in Libya and helped destabilize the country, leading to the rise of ISIS. This really was the biggest blunder of the Obama administration. I am not saying that Bush was any better and did not cause problems in the area, but ISIS is a product of Obama's policies.

[Flapjack]

I think fighting terrorism with terrorism and war crimes certainly didnt help the situation in the middle east and just made it worst. Bush's actions after 9/11 are definitely responsable for the creation of ISIS and other terrorist groups. Theyve been bombing Muslim countries for 15 years and counting and it just made shit worst. I think when something doesnt work for 15 years you should try something else. All those countries have millitary, I say get out of there let the locals try to figure things out
I agree with the first half, but not the second. We can't just leave it to the locals.

[Vlerchan]

I think fighting terrorism with terrorism and war crimes certainly didnt help the situation in the middle east and just made it worst. Bush's actions after 9/11 are definitely responsable for the creation of ISIS and other terrorist groups.
Like I said, I don't disagree that U.S. actions made the situation worse.

Though, whether a Sunni insurgency like ISIL would have formed irrespective of US intervention is an open question. No reason that the arab spring would have missed Iraq and provided the relevant power vacuum.

All those countries have millitary, I say get out of there let the locals try to figure things out
Worth noting that Obama significantly decreased the presence of the US in Iraq to the detriment of the Iraqi people (re., ISIL).

These states tend to have considerable ethnic, tribal, and ethno-religious cleavages, several of them were designed as to guard against them acting as competent, respectable consensus states, which stops them from taking decisive action on issues.

Because the Obama administration intervened in Libya and helped destabilize the country, leading to the rise of ISIS. This really was the biggest blunder of the Obama administration.
The greater blame should probably be placed on European governments. Following what was a profoundly successful intervention, the U.S. stood back and expected it's European-based NATO allies to take charge. This never happened, a power vacuum festered, and the current mess of today stands testament. That, and the Libyans themselves then preceded to set up poor electoral institutions that exacerbated ethnic and tribal divisions, and paralysed government.

So, there was a blunder on Obama's side, placing too much trust in his allies, but if we are to attack one party, let it be the Europeans.

Furthermore, it's worth considering the counterfactual. Libya was in the throngs of a civil war when the intervention happened: the UN sanctioned intervention as Ghaddafi looked keen to engage in brutal reprisals against the rebels, in a situation where neither side had an incentive to surrender. In the present time, it's nowhere near as bad as Syria, with at least one consequential actor neutered. The overwhelming likelihood, is that it'd still be a mess whether the intervention happened or not, possibly worse.

[mattsmith48]

Because the Obama administration intervened in Libya and helped destabilize the country, leading to the rise of ISIS. This really was the biggest blunder of the Obama administration. I am not saying that Bush was any better and did not cause problems in the area, but ISIS is a product of Obama's policies.

You dont think Bush attacking 3 different muslim countries isnt responsable for the creation of ISIS? Certainly one of the reason they hate the west dont you think?

I agree with the first half, but not the second. We can't just leave it to the locals.

Why not leave it to the locals?

Worth noting that Obama significantly decreased the presence of the US in Iraq to the detriment of the Iraqi people (re., ISIL).

he announce this week hes sending more people in Iraq when they already have over 5000 people from the US millitary there

These states tend to have considerable ethnic, tribal, and ethno-religious cleavages, several of them were designed as to guard against them acting as competent, respectable consensus states, which stops them from taking decisive action on issues.

So how do we fix this shit cuz what the US and other countries do right now doesnt work and make the locals hate the west even more

[Vlerchan]

he announce this week hes sending more people in Iraq when they already have over 5000 people from the US millitary there
December 18 - The last U.S. forces cross the border into Kuwait leaving just 150 troops attached to the huge U.S. embassy.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-usa-pullout-idUSTRE7BH08E20111218

The U.S. moved troops back when it realised that Iraq wasn't ready to be a sovereign state.

So how do we fix this shit cuz what the US and other countries do right now doesnt work and make the locals hate the west even more
Iraq's democratically elected government invited them back to Iraq.

Certainly one of the reason they hate the west dont you think?
Islamist movements had been on the rise since the late 1970s. Syria hosts a considerable native Islamist opposition that has nothing to do with anti-American sentiment, but rather opposition to secular Ba'athism.

[jamie_n5]

I am a Trump man.