Bern it up with Sanders or burn it down with Trump

[fredtoast]

(03-10-2016, 01:47 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: It is the EXACT question I asked, twice.  Because Hillary is a typical tax and spend liberal, and Bernie is that on steroids.

It was nnot your original comment.  Here is what you said at first.

(03-09-2016, 05:11 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Isn't Bernie going to do exactly what you say Clinton will do, only on steroids?

...it's because he wants to go all-in on failed policies.  But I'll be damned if chasing out all the rich people from this country won't solve our inequality problem!

Basically rhetorical gibberish from the echo chamber that has no basis in reality.  But at least you mentioned "policies".  it wasn't until your response that we realized how you define "policies".  Basically you don't understand any detailed policies.  All you can grasp is the simplistic old trope "tax and spend".

Every government on earth that I know of "taxes and spends".  Please give me the list of countries that have succeeded without taxing or spending.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-11-2016, 03:02 PM)Benton Wrote: I like all of this. And the "common sense" classes are something I and a few others (Lucie I know) have advocated in the past. They aren't taught in schools and unfortunately they aren't taught at home any more either.

To the bold, I don't think I've ever posted it, but that's something I'd like to see. As an employer, it's hard to balance employee child care when several of my employees need to leave at 3 p.m. In our area, work days are typically 7-5 p.m. I'd like to see schools something closer to that, at least 8-4 p.m.



I'm not big on mandatory military. But something similar to some kind of civilian corps wouldn't be out of the question. How much it would cost to operate versus how much it would help taxpayers, dunno. But it's an interesting idea.

That wasn't exactly my goal with longer hours, I just wanted the teachers to have more time with the kids, the only other option was to cut back on summer vacation time, but I didn't want to do that if possible. I would also rather it be of a more college type of setting. When I went to school, we had 6 classes that you went to. Time is wasted by switching classes and setting up in the new one, etc. Just stop that stuff, have the classes 2-4 hours long depending on the topic, this would also give the teacher a chance to really teach it and the students time to absorb it better.


I'm not huge on Mandatory Military either, but it's a nice counter balance to giving everyone a free education and it would help instill pride in the kids and in our country along with giving them a chance to mature and feel like they can be somebody. Kids coming from poorer areas always feel trapped in a sense, at least this is a way to pull them out of their bad situations and get the bad influences away from them so that they can learn to make their own decisions. I know it's kinda corny sounding, but you'd be amazed how many lives will get changed from something as simple as this.

[fredtoast]

There is no reason that school should not be year round. Having the summer off is an anachronism from the bygone days of agrarian based economy. Children do not need to be out of school to help on the farm anymore.

They also retain more of what they learn if they do not take a 2-3 month break.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-11-2016, 04:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no reason that school should not be year round.  Having the summer off is an anachronism from the bygone days of agrarian based economy.  Children do not need to be out of school to help on the farm anymore.

They also retain more of what they learn if they do not take a 2-3 month break.

Oh I understand that part, we need to allow them to be kids and time for the parents to plan vacations. We can't give them off a week and then have a large number of parents trying to get off at the same time to go on a vacation. Not to mention that letting them off in the middle of the summer time helps by keeping the costs of electricity down by not having to run the AC's. Now if we were able to make a big initial investment in getting the schools fixed up, and putting up Solar Panels/Wind turbines, and that would also be a double win cause the students could be exposed to it at a much earlier age.

[JustWinBaby]

(03-11-2016, 03:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It was nnot your original comment.  Here is what you said at first.



Basically rhetorical gibberish from the echo chamber that has no basis in reality.  But at least you mentioned "policies".  it wasn't until your response that we realized how you define "policies".  Basically you don't understand any detailed policies.  All you can grasp is the simplistic old trope "tax and spend".

Every government on earth that I know of "taxes and spends".  Please give me the list of countries that have succeeded without taxing or spending.

So you continue to dodge the question I have asked, several times, pretending it was never asked.    Is Bernie proposing to spend more than Hillary?  Is he proposing to tax more?  I'm not making distinctions on the spending - he's proposing typical tax and spend liberal policies on steroids. 

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?  Have you ever had an original, insightful thought on this forum?  Your response to everything you don't understand and/or disagree with is "echo chamber".  

Every government "taxes and spends".  Wow.  Earth-shattering observation, counselor.  How exactly is that supposed to be a counter or refutation to the point I made?

Here you go Fred.....This doesn't come from the "echo chamber", ooops, my bad it comes from the LEFT-WING echo chamber:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/politics/left-leaning-economists-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html?_r=0

"...his agenda, in total, would increase the size of the government 40%, surpassing any government explosion since WWII"

[fredtoast]

(03-11-2016, 05:06 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: So you continue to dodge the question I have asked, several times, pretending it was never asked.    Is Bernie proposing to spend more than Hillary?  Is he proposing to tax more?  I'm not making distinctions on the spending - he's proposing typical tax and spend liberal policies on steroids. 

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?  Have you ever had an original, insightful thought on this forum?  Your response to everything you don't understand and/or disagree with is "echo chamber".  

Every government "taxes and spends".  Wow.  Earth-shattering observation, counselor.  How exactly is that supposed to be a counter or refutation to the point I made?

Here you go Fred.....This doesn't come from the "echo chamber", ooops, my bad it comes from the LEFT-WING echo chamber:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/us/politics/left-leaning-economists-question-cost-of-bernie-sanderss-plans.html?_r=0

"...his agenda, in total, would increase the size of the government 40%, surpassing any government explosion since WWII"

Here is the point that went over your head.

Just because Bernie and Hillary both want to tax and spend that does not mean they have the same policies.

Your definition of "policy" is just too simplistic.

Isn't every Republican and Libertarian also going to "tax and spend".  how can we have any sort of discussion about the nuance of different policies when you can not even see them?

So to answer your question.  "Yes,  Bernie Sanders is going to tax and spend.  But the same could be said for every single candidate on the ballot."  Your overly simplistic definition of "policies" makes your question meaningless.

Noe please answer my question.  What country has been successful with no taxes or spending?

[Aquapod770]

(03-09-2016, 04:27 PM)Benton Wrote: I don't know if it's a "burn it down" but I think a lot of people are just tired of the same shit. The majority of the GOP ticket are career politicians who are going to try to spend more and tax the rich less. Doesn't work.  Clinton is like most of the career politicians who are going to try to spend more and tax the poor less. Doesn't work.

Bernie and Trump offer two very different approaches. Trump, largely, is just advocating a lot of the already hashed out GOP platform — bomb people, blame illegals for all the problems, complain about taxes — but he doesn't have the same track record of doing absolutely nothing to help like the other candidates on his ticket. Bernie is voicing something different than his party and has a record to back it up, but we've become conditioned to fear old white guys.

Bernie is the definition of a career politician, just not an established democrat. 


As to the OP, I know a lot of republicans who will not vote for Trump. (Personally if it comes down to Trump vs Hilldog I'm going 3rd party) I'd hope there are some Bernie supporters who wouldn't support Hillary. Though from what I've seen they will most likely cave and vote for her no matter who the republican nomination is. They've bought in to the "all republicans are the spawn of satan" line of thinking. 

[Benton]

(03-11-2016, 05:13 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is the point that went over your head.

Just because Bernie and Hillary both want to tax and spend that does not mean they have the same policies.

 ...

Isn't every Republican and Libertarian also going to "tax and spend".  how can we have any sort of discussion about the nuance of different policies when you can not even see them?
 
 

And that's the problem with discussing it with some people. Every candidate running is going to tax someone to pay for their plan to fix things. No candidate has a plan that includes cutting taxes, cutting spending, creating jobs, restoring infrastructure and operating at an efficient level.

[fredtoast]

(03-11-2016, 05:16 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: They've bought in to the "all republicans are the spawn of satan" line of thinking. 

No.  They are just members of a political party that supports a certain position on several different issues.  They agree with the position on the issues even if they do not like the individual candidate.

And surely you are not suggesting that the Republicans are any different are you?

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(03-09-2016, 06:36 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I've been considering giving the finger to establishment politics. 
I'm going to have a look at Gary Johnson first though.

(03-09-2016, 06:41 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Yep, if it's Trump or Cruz I'm voting Gary Johnson.

.....voted for him last election.