Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Varelse

Hillary has already "won" the Dem Nomination

383 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Paranormalcy

Hillary won the debate among Democratic "insiders". Of COURSE she did. Do you think these insiders, that reap the rewards of the corrupted system and Third Way corporatism, are going to hold Bernie's hand in the air? Their criteria for who won was all about the right talking points to hit, how to respond about foreign policy so as to tread PC but also threaten annihilation and give all the corporate and government warhawks semi-orgasmic lust, imagining the rewards to be reaped.

Luckily, not EVERYONE look at things like these people. Not even all the state Democratic party members. Not all the electors. We will see how this all progresses as the debates go on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

Hillary won the debate among Democratic "insiders". Of COURSE she did. Do you think these insiders, that reap the rewards of the corrupted system and Third Way corporatism, are going to hold Bernie's hand in the air? Their criteria for who won was all about the right talking points to hit, how to respond about foreign policy so as to tread PC but also threaten annihilation and give all the corporate and government warhawks semi-orgasmic lust, imagining the rewards to be reaped.

Luckily, not EVERYONE look at things like these people. Not even all the state Democratic party members. Not all the electors. We will see how this all progresses as the debates go on.

Referring to the "system" as "corrupt" is a turnoff for me -- it indicates a lack of contact with reality. There is no "system" and of course politics has corrupt elements, mostly that the voters are ignorant and vote for their personal interest rather than the good of the country.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

Referring to the "system" as "corrupt" is a turnoff for me -- it indicates a lack of contact with reality. There is no "system" and of course politics has corrupt elements, mostly that the voters are ignorant and vote for their personal interest rather than the good of the country.

What do you mean, "there is no system"? The whole world of politics and the way that it works for the benefit of those who are already on the gravy boat, and the way that it really is not concerned in the slightest with the people that it claims to represent.

In some countries, like the UK, I suppose you might be able to say there is no system, since no one in politics really has a clue what they want or what they're trying to, but I'm afraid they do know what they want in the world of American politics.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mbrn30000

Did you follow the last debate ? Did you get to see it ?

ETA - Hillary is back by wall street. Sanders is not.

Saunders is a Marxists. I doubt many in the private sector are backing him. the unions also back Hillary. the problem with Marxists, they promise the moon, but they send you the bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mbrn30000

What do you mean, "there is no system"? The whole world of politics and the way that it works for the benefit of those who are already on the gravy boat, and the way that it really is not concerned in the slightest with the people that it claims to represent.

In some countries, like the UK, I suppose you might be able to say there is no system, since no one in politics really has a clue what they want or what they're trying to, but I'm afraid they do know what they want in the world of American politics.

perhaps he means, people are corrupt in government but not all of them. but I am not sure I buy all of that. there are too many private bills in our tax code giving advantage to some businesses or even some individuals. Unless I can get one of those private bills to help me, I am against all of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

What do you mean, "there is no system"? The whole world of politics and the way that it works for the benefit of those who are already on the gravy boat, and the way that it really is not concerned in the slightest with the people that it claims to represent.

In some countries, like the UK, I suppose you might be able to say there is no system, since no one in politics really has a clue what they want or what they're trying to, but I'm afraid they do know what they want in the world of American politics.

Well of course those who are doing well are doing well. That is only to be expected, and as a general rule those who aren't doing well are not doing well for a variety of reasons, luck being way down the list.

What I mean that there is no system is objecting to the word as though it meant "conspiracy."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

Saunders is a Marxists. I doubt many in the private sector are backing him. the unions also back Hillary. the problem with Marxists, they promise the moon, but they send you the bill.

Actually they have no idea who to send the bill to, but promises don't cost anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormalcy

Saunders is a Marxists. I doubt many in the private sector are backing him. the unions also back Hillary. the problem with Marxists, they promise the moon, but they send you the bill.

This is only partially true. SOME Unions back Hillary. Many back Sanders, including the FEDERAL postal carriers union. The mainstream corporatists are going to have a hard time explaining away federal unions backing a *gasp* socialist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

This is only partially true. SOME Unions back Hillary. Many back Sanders, including the FEDERAL postal carriers union. The mainstream corporatists are going to have a hard time explaining away federal unions backing a *gasp* socialist.

Government unions vote for a socialist -- and you say this is hard to explain? Dear me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

Saunders is a Marxists. I doubt many in the private sector are backing him. the unions also back Hillary. the problem with Marxists, they promise the moon, but they send you the bill.

No he's not , that's exactly what we were told to believe about Obama. Obama is not a Marxist either, but I believed that he was when I listened to certain people like Glen Beck and fox news, republicans for that matter. I'm not defending Obama he plays games he's not authentic same as Hillary isn't. but, Bernie is , he's organic, he's true. Rand Paul isn't even true. Rand is afraid of being taxed. And so he mocks about Bernie and tosses around his dreams as some fairy tale Utopia. It can be done, but people are going to have to get more informed about how our politicians are in wall streets pockets. Bernie is not and Rand will do very little about it. It won't change.

I was wondering about something, while our embassy's were being attacked Obama pretty much just wanted us out of there . The attacks on American Embassy's were numerous. He did nothing to stop them, so it seems. Maybe we just don't belong there and that's why he didn't bother . I hope we never rebuild there and that we stay out of other people's business.

Putin mentioned that he only has two military bases in the world, yet America has like 900 military bases overseas, maybe a little less. But America & it's allies will have the world to believe that Putin is the bigger danger. I'm not defending Putin. But we cause a lot of problems in the world, so has the U.K . I don't want those minded people running the world any longer.

We put so much money into maintaining weapons that will destroy the planet , meanwhile Isis is running about. There has to be cuts.

I think if anything Bernie is too radical for the people same as Ron Paul was. We lost that opportunity.

Edited by Ellapennella
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mbrn30000

No he's not , that's exactly what we were told to believe about Obama. Obama is not a Marxist either, but I believed that he was when I listened to certain people like Glen Beck and fox news, republicans for that matter. I'm not defending Obama he plays games he's not authentic same as Hillary isn't. but, Bernie is , he's organic, he's true. Rand Paul isn't even true. Rand is afraid of being taxed. And so he mocks about Bernie and tosses around his dreams as some fairy tale Utopia. It can be done, but people are going to have to get more informed about how our politicians are in wall streets pockets. Bernie is not and Rand will do very little about it. It won't change.

I was wondering about something, while our embassy's were being attacked Obama pretty much just wanted us out of there . The attacks on American Embassy's were numerous. He did nothing to stop them, so it seems. Maybe we just don't belong there and that's why he didn't bother . I hope we never rebuild there and that we stay out of other people's business.

Putin mentioned that he only has two military bases in the world, yet America has like 900 military bases overseas, maybe a little less. But America & it's allies will have the world to believe that Putin is the bigger danger. I'm not defending Putin. But we cause a lot of problems in the world, so has the U.K . I don't want those minded people running the world any longer.

We put so much money into maintaining weapons that will destroy the planet , meanwhile Isis is running about. There has to be cuts.

I think if anything Bernie is too radical for the people same as Ron Paul was. We lost that opportunity.

Bernie is a marxists. he wants us even more socialists than Norway. Putin only has two bases because the soviet union collapsed and most countries don't want him. We have most of our foreign bases because we rule the sea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

You might want to check his record since he's been in the Senate, Ella. It's as real as anyone's.

Rand , what a disappointment.

3 min. video. wait for Rand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

Bernie is a marxists. he wants us even more socialists than Norway. Putin only has two bases because the soviet union collapsed and most countries don't want him. We have most of our foreign bases because we rule the sea.

Less socialist than Eisenhower.

ETA - what exactly is ruling ? ruling what ?

Edited by Ellapennella

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

So Norway is the last remaining hardline Socialist state then. I thought the standard of living was quite high there. Universal healthcare, high standards of education. What a ghastly nightmare that would be.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

Bernie is a marxists. he wants us even more socialists than Norway. Putin only has two bases because the soviet union collapsed and most countries don't want him. We have most of our foreign bases because we rule the sea.

Ever thought that most of the countries that America occupies don't actually really want them there? (see, for example, Okinawa)?

And who appointed America to rule the sea, anyway?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mbrn30000

Ever thought that most of the countries that America occupies don't actually really want them there? (see, for example, Okinawa)?

And who appointed America to rule the sea, anyway?

i think we beat Japan in a war. nobody appoints you to rule the sea, you just do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

i think we beat Japan in a war. nobody appoints you to rule the sea, you just do it.

Not if it's international waters, you don't. That's arrogance to the utmost if you assume you have the right to "rule" that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mbrn30000

Not if it's international waters, you don't. That's arrogance to the utmost if you assume you have the right to "rule" that.

our allies depend on us. why don't you shake your fist at the sky? I didn't make the rules nor thank goodness did you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ellapenella

The entire world would be upset, or should be upset if Hillary wins the Primary.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

our allies depend on us. why don't you shake your fist at the sky? I didn't make the rules nor thank goodness did you.

Neither did America. Who are these allies who depend on you? What do they depend on you for? protection? From whom? All those mad tyrants? (A large proportion of whom are Valued Allies of "The West")? You think Russia, or China, or Iran, are going to block international trade and extort the Free World if America didn't take it on itself to police it?

I know none of this is to do with Clinton, but your opinions are so deluded they really can't pass uncommented.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

As the candidates go in the US, seems to me -- keep in mind I'm just an ignorant foreigner who doesn't know anything about the States -- that the only Democrat who seems to have any sense in Clinton, and the only Republicans are the two from Florida. The favorite on this board seems to be the socialist from Vermont, although all I've seen from him is complaint that millionaires exist and quotes of doubtful statistics on the fact that money tends to make money. I have no problem with taxing wealth, except that will just make the tax advisers and all the avoidance schemes, which otherwise would be uneconomic, that much more appealing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormalcy

It's not about millionaires existing. It's about the rampant income inequality where 58% of the ENTIRE income of the whole country goes to the top 1/10 of 1% in our country. Our CEOs get paid a ratio of 970:1 vs average workers, making the US #1 in that ratio by about 150 times more than the highest other country which I think is like 90, if I remember correctly.

Our politicians are not just "influenced" by money, but our Supreme Court ruled that money is free speech, so you can't curtail it, they took the limits off the banks being able to gamble with everyone's money without having the actual assets to back up their gambles, the anit-trust and anti-monopoly laws got repealed, so banks can deal in both private everyday banking AND investment banking and speculation, without limit, which is what caused the "too big to fail" disaster in the first place, and there are so many corporate tax loopholes in our system, though supposedly taxes on corporations and/or the rich are around 37%, we lose BILLIONS each year by many companies paying NO tax at all - I forgot to add the ruling that "corporations are people" and have rights like any citizen, except being sued or going to jail - kind of important oversights.

That's what this stuff is needed, to actually fix the "outs" that is letting companies make unfettered profits and paying no taxes on their profit, while the GOP are proposing flat tax rates, even say the 10%, which means a struggling $25,000 income person pays $2500 in taxes, while someone that makes 10 million pays a million.

The person that pays a million isn't going to feel it, they're practically make it back in a savings account. Then the GOP want to cut health and welfare benefits and social security and say the US spends way too much on "entitlements", which the citizens pay into, yet they consistently don't include ACTUAL war and defense spending on ONE of their damn pie charts. Social Secuirty is set up in such a way to pay for itself, that it isn't even PART of the US budget, like the post office that also pays for itself. Yet these are always targeted, and the Social Security fund has been raided and groped so many times it should be able to identify where on the doll it was touched.

Government gets revenue from TAXES, that most of the citizenry have no choice or option but to pay, even the ones that get child tax credits or refunds - they still pay. Rich people and corporations and businesses have a $100,000 cap currently, beyond which they only pay taxes on 100k, even if they made 3 billion dollars last year - again, most don't pay any at ALL due to generous loopholes. So the US continues to be defrauded and evaded by people smoking cigars made out of $100 bills, while the GOP screams at everybody to blame poor people, unions and teachers, because you know, they hold all the power and abuse the system.

NONE of the candidates, including Clinton, have ANY intention of doing jack abot this - except Bernie Sanders. #feelthebern

Edited by Paranormalcy
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

It's not about millionaires existing. It's about the rampant income inequality where 58% of the ENTIRE income of the whole country goes to the top 1/10 of 1% in our country. Our CEOs get paid a ratio of 970:1 vs average workers, making the US #1 in that ratio by about 150 times more than the highest other country which I think is like 90, if I remember correctly.

Our politicians are not just "influenced" by money, but our Supreme Court ruled that money is free speech, so you can't curtail it, they took the limits off the banks being able to gamble with everyone's money without having the actual assets to back up their gambles, the anit-trust and anti-monopoly laws got repealed, so banks can deal in both private everyday banking AND investment banking and speculation, without limit, which is what caused the "too big to fail" disaster in the first place, and there are so many corporate tax loopholes in our system, though supposedly taxes on corporations and/or the rich are around 37%, we lose BILLIONS each year by many companies paying NO tax at all - I forgot to add the ruling that "corporations are people" and have rights like any citizen, except being sued or going to jail - kind of important oversights.

That's what this stuff is needed, to actually fix the "outs" that is letting companies make unfettered profits and paying no taxes on their profit, while the GOP are proposing flat tax rates, even say the 10%, which means a struggling $25,000 income person pays $2500 in taxes, while someone that makes 10 million pays a million.

The person that pays a million isn't going to feel it, they're practically make it back in a savings account. Then the GOP want to cut health and welfare benefits and social security and say the US spends way too much on "entitlements", which the citizens pay into, yet they consistently don't include ACTUAL war and defense spending on ONE of their damn pie charts. Social Secuirty is set up in such a way to pay for itself, that it isn't even PART of the US budget, like the post office that also pays for itself. Yet these are always targeted, and the Social Security fund has been raided and groped so many times it should be able to identify where on the doll it was touched.

Government gets revenue from TAXES, that most of the citizenry have no choice or option but to pay, even the ones that get child tax credits or refunds - they still pay. Rich people and corporations and businesses have a $100,000 cap currently, beyond which they only pay taxes on 100k, even if they made 3 billion dollars last year - again, most don't pay any at ALL due to generous loopholes. So the US continues to be defrauded and evaded by people smoking cigars made out of $100 bills, while the GOP screams at everybody to blame poor people, unions and teachers, because you know, they hold all the power and abuse the system.

NONE of the candidates, including Clinton, have ANY intention of doing jack abot this - except Bernie Sanders. #feelthebern

Do you really think he is the first person in history to think you can solve economic problems by destroying wealth? It is a line as old as the Romans and of course plays on human envy -- a natural enough emotion but not of much use. He can't, even if he is serious, and I do hope he is not serious but just being a politician.

Tax the wealthy and they move away or find loopholes (they can afford the lawyers and so on needed), or just simply reduce economic activity enough to avoid the taxes. You end up harming the economy. Now some taxes, done in moderation, can be effective, but not what this idiot is spewing. Would you risk great amounts of money if when you win all that will happen is the special tax on millionaires will take it away?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

Oh, by the way, the way the US taxes are structured nowadays, the poor guy making 25,000 dollars is unlikely to be paying any income tax anyway, or maybe just a few percent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranormalcy

Yes but my ACTUAL point was the payments made under one of the many GOP proposed flat taxes. ANY current tax breaks are not automatically assumed because they'll change the entire system under their law. So the 10% $2,500 obviously stands, not "maybe just a few percent". Again, you obviously did not care to actually read what was written, but stopped halfway through and made assumptions. How have you EVER even kept UP, let alone, won ANY argument at UM or anywhere else, if this is how you participate? I'm frankly disappointed, not even on a personal level - just that anyone has this level of disregard for dialogue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.