Democratic Election Thread

[BigRedBuster]

This is just damn funny...no matter who you are.

 

[ZRod]

 

Just founds some nudes of all 6 males left in the race...PM if you want them

 

Moriane, what is your email?

Why would you need my e-mail address?

Because he's a Nigerian prince, duh!

[Landlord]

This is just damn funny...no matter who you are.

 

 

 

It's funny, but it's also a really elementary, poor understanding of what socialism actually is.

[Creighton Duke]

^^^^

Oh? Please enlighten us to what socialism actually is.

[Army_Allen]

^^^^

Oh? Please enlighten us to what socialism actually is.

What the sign guy is describing is communism which is not the same as Socialism. Communism was the ideology that no matter the job you did you got paid the same and everyone was equal (minus the fact that the whole system was corrupt at the top) whereas Socialism is the idea that what should be basic rights (education higher than HS, Medicine and healthcare etc) should be able to be readily available or free to anyone no matter your economic status. The surplus that the one percent holds right now with all the tax breaks available to them would be enough to help out those that aren't as privileged as you. Much of that money shouldn't be in that top 1 percent anyways as the wealth isn't being dispersed evenly among workers even in the slightest.

[Creighton Duke]

 

^^^^

Oh? Please enlighten us to what socialism actually is.

What the sign guy is describing is communism which is not the same as Socialism. Communism was the ideology that no matter the job you did you got paid the same and everyone was equal (minus the fact that the whole system was corrupt at the top) whereas Socialism is the idea that what should be basic rights (education higher than HS, Medicine and healthcare etc) should be able to be readily available or free to anyone no matter your economic status. The surplus that the one percent holds right now with all the tax breaks available to them would be enough to help out those that aren't as privileged as you. Much of that money shouldn't be in that top 1 percent anyways as the wealth isn't being dispersed evenly among workers even in the slightest.

 

To the bolded part, why?

 

And do you think that those in the highest tax brackets would continue to act the same, therefore creating the excess tax revenue that you allude to, without certain incentives?

 

Even if they acted the exact same, how much would the extra revenue from the one percent ACTUALLY help? Let's ask Neil and....Keely

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmji36q8E4o

 

EDIT: I don't know how to imbed the youtubez. I'm bad at internet.

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

 

 

^^^^

Oh? Please enlighten us to what socialism actually is.

What the sign guy is describing is communism which is not the same as Socialism. Communism was the ideology that no matter the job you did you got paid the same and everyone was equal (minus the fact that the whole system was corrupt at the top) whereas Socialism is the idea that what should be basic rights (education higher than HS, Medicine and healthcare etc) should be able to be readily available or free to anyone no matter your economic status. The surplus that the one percent holds right now with all the tax breaks available to them would be enough to help out those that aren't as privileged as you. Much of that money shouldn't be in that top 1 percent anyways as the wealth isn't being dispersed evenly among workers even in the slightest.

To the bolded part, why?

 

And do you think that those in the highest tax brackets would continue to act the same, therefore creating the excess tax revenue that you allude to, without certain incentives?

 

Even if they acted the exact same, how much would the extra revenue from the one percent ACTUALLY help? Let's ask Neil and....Keely

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmji36q8E4o

 

EDIT: I don't know how to imbed the youtubez. I'm bad at internet.

For future reference, to embed a YouTube video, just copy the URL in between the following brackets:

 

[ YouTube ][ /YouTube ]

 

One of the mods could fix it for you if they're feeling generous.

 

For anybody that caught the debate, what was the highlight of it for you? For me, it was Bernie getting hammered on the Fidel video. That was pretty brutal.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

^^^^

Oh? Please enlighten us to what socialism actually is.

What the sign guy is describing is communism which is not the same as Socialism. Communism was the ideology that no matter the job you did you got paid the same and everyone was equal (minus the fact that the whole system was corrupt at the top) whereas Socialism is the idea that what should be basic rights (education higher than HS, Medicine and healthcare etc) should be able to be readily available or free to anyone no matter your economic status. The surplus that the one percent holds right now with all the tax breaks available to them would be enough to help out those that aren't as privileged as you. Much of that money shouldn't be in that top 1 percent anyways as the wealth isn't being dispersed evenly among workers even in the slightest.

 

To the bolded part, why?

 

And do you think that those in the highest tax brackets would continue to act the same, therefore creating the excess tax revenue that you allude to, without certain incentives?

 

Even if they acted the exact same, how much would the extra revenue from the one percent ACTUALLY help? Let's ask Neil and....Keely

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmji36q8E4o

 

EDIT: I don't know how to imbed the youtubez. I'm bad at internet.

 

I had totally forgotten about that video and interview. It really is very telling.

Look, I'm all for making sure various people are paying they fair share. However, the mantra of "Let's force the rich to pay for it" is wearing thin and eventually, the math just doesn't work. Sure, it makes some people feel better by socking it to those evil rich people. But......at some point you have to look at the bigger picture here.

[BigRedBuster]

 

^^^^

Oh? Please enlighten us to what socialism actually is.

What the sign guy is describing is communism which is not the same as Socialism. Communism was the ideology that no matter the job you did you got paid the same and everyone was equal (minus the fact that the whole system was corrupt at the top) whereas Socialism is the idea that what should be basic rights (education higher than HS, Medicine and healthcare etc) should be able to be readily available or free to anyone no matter your economic status. The surplus that the one percent holds right now with all the tax breaks available to them would be enough to help out those that aren't as privileged as you. Much of that money shouldn't be in that top 1 percent anyways as the wealth isn't being dispersed evenly among workers even in the slightest.

 

I am trying to reconcile your post with this quote attributed to Sanders in another thread.

 

“What being a socialist means is … that you hold out … a vision of society where poverty is absolutely unnecessary, where international relations are not based on greed … but on cooperation … where human beings can own the means of production and work together rather than having to work as semi-slaves to other people who can hire and fire.

 

 

 

In this quote, Bernie isn't just talking about making sure education and health care are available to all. He is basically saying that there is this system of producing goods is not owned by business owners and that the income from that production is disbursed evenly no matter if you deserve to be hired or fired.

 

So, in essence, let's say there is a factory that makes socks and I want to garner benefit from that factory. I don't actually have to go do a job and do it well....hell....I don't even have to get "hired" there because there isn't even such a thing as "being hired". And, if I'm not "hired" there....there isn't any form of management in the factory that can say...."Your fired" even if I don't give a crap about contributing in a positive way to producing socks. Hey....I'm still going to get the same benefits from society and the sock factory than the guy that is working his ass off to make it work.

 

Now....how is that not the same as the bolded part in your post? And, if there are going to be different levels of compensation in our society, who decides what people get paid? The government? The management of the company? Oh...wait....you can't be hired or fired so I'm not sure how management can do their job. Do you just open the doors and if people show up in the morning they get to go to work? There must be a certain amount of people in the world that would rather go make socks than go fishing. Hey...sorry....if we are all going to be paid no matter what....I'm going fishing instead.

[Army_Allen]

 

 

 

 

 

 

^^^^

Oh? Please enlighten us to what socialism actually is.

What the sign guy is describing is communism which is not the same as Socialism. Communism was the ideology that no matter the job you did you got paid the same and everyone was equal (minus the fact that the whole system was corrupt at the top) whereas Socialism is the idea that what should be basic rights (education higher than HS, Medicine and healthcare etc) should be able to be readily available or free to anyone no matter your economic status. The surplus that the one percent holds right now with all the tax breaks available to them would be enough to help out those that aren't as privileged as you. Much of that money shouldn't be in that top 1 percent anyways as the wealth isn't being dispersed evenly among workers even in the slightest.

To the bolded part, why?

 

And do you think that those in the highest tax brackets would continue to act the same, therefore creating the excess tax revenue that you allude to, without certain incentives?

 

Even if they acted the exact same, how much would the extra revenue from the one percent ACTUALLY help? Let's ask Neil and....Keely

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmji36q8E4o

 

EDIT: I don't know how to imbed the youtubez. I'm bad at internet.

I had totally forgotten about that video and interview. It really is very telling.

Look, I'm all for making sure various people are paying they fair share. However, the mantra of "Let's force the rich to pay for it" is wearing thin and eventually, the math just doesn't work. Sure, it makes some people feel better by socking it to those evil rich people. But......at some point you have to look at the bigger picture here.

 

You know that debate between that kid and that dude was unfair from the start. Just because she doesn't have all the answers etc doesn't mean it's not a viable plan. Taxpayers now are spending billions upon billions upon trillions even on our military and as a former military enlisted, that is obnoxious. What happens when we move some of those funds to something just as important in education while also minimalizing the amount of absurd deductions the top 1 percent get, and you'd find the funds needed to support free public tuition to public universities.

 

Two studies came out recently and the first (my fiance was told about this one in her business econ class so I don't have all the info) showed nearly 50% of companies pay no taxes at all and some even get paid from the government annually. The second is that after the many many deductions the 1 percent are able to find, with the best accountants in the world that aren't available to most people, they pay less percentage wise that both your lower and middle class citizens. What's fair in that?

[HuskerShark]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

^^^^

Oh? Please enlighten us to what socialism actually is.

What the sign guy is describing is communism which is not the same as Socialism. Communism was the ideology that no matter the job you did you got paid the same and everyone was equal (minus the fact that the whole system was corrupt at the top) whereas Socialism is the idea that what should be basic rights (education higher than HS, Medicine and healthcare etc) should be able to be readily available or free to anyone no matter your economic status. The surplus that the one percent holds right now with all the tax breaks available to them would be enough to help out those that aren't as privileged as you. Much of that money shouldn't be in that top 1 percent anyways as the wealth isn't being dispersed evenly among workers even in the slightest.

To the bolded part, why?

 

And do you think that those in the highest tax brackets would continue to act the same, therefore creating the excess tax revenue that you allude to, without certain incentives?

 

Even if they acted the exact same, how much would the extra revenue from the one percent ACTUALLY help? Let's ask Neil and....Keely

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmji36q8E4o

 

EDIT: I don't know how to imbed the youtubez. I'm bad at internet.

I had totally forgotten about that video and interview. It really is very telling.

Look, I'm all for making sure various people are paying they fair share. However, the mantra of "Let's force the rich to pay for it" is wearing thin and eventually, the math just doesn't work. Sure, it makes some people feel better by socking it to those evil rich people. But......at some point you have to look at the bigger picture here.

You know that debate between that kid and that dude was unfair from the start. Just because she doesn't have all the answers etc doesn't mean it's not a viable plan. Taxpayers now are spending billions upon billions upon trillions even on our military and as a former military enlisted, that is obnoxious. What happens when we move some of those funds to something just as important in education while also minimalizing the amount of absurd deductions the top 1 percent get, and you'd find the funds needed to support free public tuition to public universities.

 

Two studies came out recently and the first (my fiance was told about this one in her business econ class so I don't have all the info) showed nearly 50% of companies pay no taxes at all and some even get paid from the government annually. The second is that after the many many deductions the 1 percent are able to find, with the best accountants in the world that aren't available to most people, they pay less percentage wise that both your lower and middle class citizens. What's fair in that?

So in your mind, it would be a good idea to hammer taxes on the companies that create people's jobs and pay their bills?

[Army_Allen]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

^^^^

Oh? Please enlighten us to what socialism actually is.

What the sign guy is describing is communism which is not the same as Socialism. Communism was the ideology that no matter the job you did you got paid the same and everyone was equal (minus the fact that the whole system was corrupt at the top) whereas Socialism is the idea that what should be basic rights (education higher than HS, Medicine and healthcare etc) should be able to be readily available or free to anyone no matter your economic status. The surplus that the one percent holds right now with all the tax breaks available to them would be enough to help out those that aren't as privileged as you. Much of that money shouldn't be in that top 1 percent anyways as the wealth isn't being dispersed evenly among workers even in the slightest.

To the bolded part, why?

 

And do you think that those in the highest tax brackets would continue to act the same, therefore creating the excess tax revenue that you allude to, without certain incentives?

 

Even if they acted the exact same, how much would the extra revenue from the one percent ACTUALLY help? Let's ask Neil and....Keely

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmji36q8E4o

 

EDIT: I don't know how to imbed the youtubez. I'm bad at internet.

I had totally forgotten about that video and interview. It really is very telling.

Look, I'm all for making sure various people are paying they fair share. However, the mantra of "Let's force the rich to pay for it" is wearing thin and eventually, the math just doesn't work. Sure, it makes some people feel better by socking it to those evil rich people. But......at some point you have to look at the bigger picture here.

You know that debate between that kid and that dude was unfair from the start. Just because she doesn't have all the answers etc doesn't mean it's not a viable plan. Taxpayers now are spending billions upon billions upon trillions even on our military and as a former military enlisted, that is obnoxious. What happens when we move some of those funds to something just as important in education while also minimalizing the amount of absurd deductions the top 1 percent get, and you'd find the funds needed to support free public tuition to public universities.

 

Two studies came out recently and the first (my fiance was told about this one in her business econ class so I don't have all the info) showed nearly 50% of companies pay no taxes at all and some even get paid from the government annually. The second is that after the many many deductions the 1 percent are able to find, with the best accountants in the world that aren't available to most people, they pay less percentage wise that both your lower and middle class citizens. What's fair in that?

So in your mind, it would be a good idea to hammer taxes on the companies that create people's jobs and pay their bills?

multi billion dollar companies that wouldn't feel the hurt from it other than being sour their scummy use of loopholes that allowed them to pay next to nothing in respect to what they made? Sure. Not every company fits that though.

[BigRedBuster]

Double post.

[Whistlebritches]

 

 

 

 

 

^^^^

Oh? Please enlighten us to what socialism actually is.

What the sign guy is describing is communism which is not the same as Socialism. Communism was the ideology that no matter the job you did you got paid the same and everyone was equal (minus the fact that the whole system was corrupt at the top) whereas Socialism is the idea that what should be basic rights (education higher than HS, Medicine and healthcare etc) should be able to be readily available or free to anyone no matter your economic status. The surplus that the one percent holds right now with all the tax breaks available to them would be enough to help out those that aren't as privileged as you. Much of that money shouldn't be in that top 1 percent anyways as the wealth isn't being dispersed evenly among workers even in the slightest.

To the bolded part, why?

 

And do you think that those in the highest tax brackets would continue to act the same, therefore creating the excess tax revenue that you allude to, without certain incentives?

 

Even if they acted the exact same, how much would the extra revenue from the one percent ACTUALLY help? Let's ask Neil and....Keely

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmji36q8E4o

 

EDIT: I don't know how to imbed the youtubez. I'm bad at internet.

I had totally forgotten about that video and interview. It really is very telling.

Look, I'm all for making sure various people are paying they fair share. However, the mantra of "Let's force the rich to pay for it" is wearing thin and eventually, the math just doesn't work. Sure, it makes some people feel better by socking it to those evil rich people. But......at some point you have to look at the bigger picture here.

You know that debate between that kid and that dude was unfair from the start. Just because she doesn't have all the answers etc doesn't mean it's not a viable plan. Taxpayers now are spending billions upon billions upon trillions even on our military and as a former military enlisted, that is obnoxious. What happens when we move some of those funds to something just as important in education while also minimalizing the amount of absurd deductions the top 1 percent get, and you'd find the funds needed to support free public tuition to public universities.

 

Two studies came out recently and the first (my fiance was told about this one in her business econ class so I don't have all the info) showed nearly 50% of companies pay no taxes at all and some even get paid from the government annually. The second is that after the many many deductions the 1 percent are able to find, with the best accountants in the world that aren't available to most people, they pay less percentage wise that both your lower and middle class citizens. What's fair in that?

So in your mind, it would be a good idea to hammer taxes on the companies that create people's jobs and pay their bills?

 

You could look at what is going on in Kansas when you stop hammering companies with taxes. The state is currently running at such a deficit that public schools may not re-open on time this coming fall because they're being underfunded.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

^^^^

Oh? Please enlighten us to what socialism actually is.

What the sign guy is describing is communism which is not the same as Socialism. Communism was the ideology that no matter the job you did you got paid the same and everyone was equal (minus the fact that the whole system was corrupt at the top) whereas Socialism is the idea that what should be basic rights (education higher than HS, Medicine and healthcare etc) should be able to be readily available or free to anyone no matter your economic status. The surplus that the one percent holds right now with all the tax breaks available to them would be enough to help out those that aren't as privileged as you. Much of that money shouldn't be in that top 1 percent anyways as the wealth isn't being dispersed evenly among workers even in the slightest.

To the bolded part, why?

 

And do you think that those in the highest tax brackets would continue to act the same, therefore creating the excess tax revenue that you allude to, without certain incentives?

 

Even if they acted the exact same, how much would the extra revenue from the one percent ACTUALLY help? Let's ask Neil and....Keely

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmji36q8E4o

 

EDIT: I don't know how to imbed the youtubez. I'm bad at internet.

I had totally forgotten about that video and interview. It really is very telling.

Look, I'm all for making sure various people are paying they fair share. However, the mantra of "Let's force the rich to pay for it" is wearing thin and eventually, the math just doesn't work. Sure, it makes some people feel better by socking it to those evil rich people. But......at some point you have to look at the bigger picture here.

 

You know that debate between that kid and that dude was unfair from the start. Just because she doesn't have all the answers etc doesn't mean it's not a viable plan. Taxpayers now are spending billions upon billions upon trillions even on our military and as a former military enlisted, that is obnoxious. What happens when we move some of those funds to something just as important in education while also minimalizing the amount of absurd deductions the top 1 percent get, and you'd find the funds needed to support free public tuition to public universities.

 

Two studies came out recently and the first (my fiance was told about this one in her business econ class so I don't have all the info) showed nearly 50% of companies pay no taxes at all and some even get paid from the government annually. The second is that after the many many deductions the 1 percent are able to find, with the best accountants in the world that aren't available to most people, they pay less percentage wise that both your lower and middle class citizens. What's fair in that?

 

I call total BS. No taxes at all?

 

 

 

And...this was a woman that the protest put out there to argue their point and she is that uneducated on the subject? Gee....imagine how clueless the rest of the people are.