- 6,425
- KCCO
How did you go from WWII to ISIS..... cuz.. that's nowhere near what I was defining.
[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016
- Thread starter Sanji Himura
- 10,343 comments
- 407,818 views
- Status
- 1,391
- Chicago
- Silberc
- Silberc
The term would be idiotic savant. I believe.
- 6,425
- KCCO
Or jack of all trades, master of none...
- 1,391
- Chicago
- Silberc
- Silberc
He definitely seems to be a master of one trade, I didn't have time to learn anything else kind of guy. The fact that he's a seventh day Adventist, he wants a flat tax(really?) and said he was for the constitutional protection of all humans regardless of sexual orientation, etc but then went on to say(not even a couple sentences later) that he was against gay marriage. That's the problem with the republicans. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
They want to keep gays from marrying, religion in schools, and stem cell research down but yet talk down on Sharia law. Not to mention the fact they hate when people talk about the public owning certain things.
They want to keep gays from marrying, religion in schools, and stem cell research down but yet talk down on Sharia law. Not to mention the fact they hate when people talk about the public owning certain things.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Your obvious hatred for the man has completely removed all of your objectivity. You really have no clue what you're talking about.
CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,315
- United States
Well, one of those two actually exists...
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
I would like to thank everyone who has posted in this thread in the last 24 hours for reminding me why I hate politics and listening to people discuss it. Name calling, insults, and ad hominem attacks in both directions. These were all directed at the candidates, but the amount of negativity here is a reflection of our political system today.
It says something when you agree with someone but refuse to say so because you don't want to be associated with the individual.
It says something when you agree with someone but refuse to say so because you don't want to be associated with the individual.
- 798
- Cincinnati, Ohio
- Brown352
Bernie Sanders. That is all, he's the most logical pick, I understand other peoples bias and being afraid of the word Socialism, but he's the last hope for this country in my eyes. Conservative policies don't move a country forward. That's all from me, knowing the way some of the people are on here, it will be pointless to have an argument, so I won't be responding, may watch, but won't respond. Because compared to some of my classes, and just life in general. This is the place I least want to have a debate about politics.
Good day everyone.
Good day everyone.
- 904
- orlando,FL,USA
Personally I couldn't care if Sanders is a Socialist is or not, point is he wrong everything. Lets not forget the fact he's in the same bomb Iran camp as warmonger Clinton. Also speaking, the ultimate take down of Sanders:
http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-461-the-fallacies-of-bernie-sanders/
Conservative or Democrat...neither of the policies from either of the parties have moved the countries as the policies of both are exactly the same e.g. MORE GOVERNMENT.
CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,315
- United States
- 120
Your obvious hated for everyone with differing views as you has completely removed your objectivity. YOU have really no clue what you are talking about.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
I don't always agree with @Johnnypenso but he's right, in my opinion, to say that objectivity has faded when a poster resorts to calling somebody a creature...
- 904
- orlando,FL,USA
Well that is true some extenT...one thing though its nice that Paul and Cruz are bringing the Fed into the conversation and on foreign policy both Trump and Paul look are far more sane than Clinton, Sanders(who support drone strikes) and the rest of the GOP.
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
Agreed. I do these threads for honest debate on the issues. Resorting to calling someone a creature, intentional or otherwise, goes against that spirit.
*also it proves your points invalid.
What's wrong with simplifying the tax code? The top 1% actually pays 45% of all income taxes, that is nearly half of all federal income. Take that and compare to corporations that pay 40% capital gains taxes, it is little wonder why they are seeking tax havens in the Caribbean, or "legislating" tax breaks, they want to pay lower taxes like the rest of us. I actually support a flat tax. It forces the federal government to live within its means.
Last edited:
- 4,221
- Louisville, KY
- ukfan758
Because that means millionaires and billionaires and big business are keeping more money to themselves while the lower class is seeing their rates go up and paying more even though they are already struggling. The only people that are not really affected by the flat tax are the middle class.
BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
That, I'm afraid, will never happen no matter what form the taxation takes.
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
You seriously think that? Part of the reason why I support a flat tax is to clear tax breaks on the corporations, eliminate tax havens, need I go on? Now granted the 40% capital gains tax needs to be conversely reduced, a simple 8% tax on people and 25% on corporations will greatly impact our economy.
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
OP Alert: It has been made public that Lincoln Chafee, the man who would force the metric system on the USA, has withdrawn over the weekend, according to the Glenn Beck radio show. OP has been amended accordingly.
- 2,620
- Lincoln, NE
- huskeR_32
I can only assume you threw this unnecessary bit in there because you're opposed to the idea, and I'd be interested in hearing why.
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
- 6,425
- KCCO
Not hatred towards the man. There is nothing wrong with him. His ideas are stupid and will produce futile results...
QFT
Like he said, it is one of the only differences of change plausible to come...
We wonder why the US struggles in Maths and Sciences, when the rest of the world which uses metric systems excel.
- 904
- orlando,FL,USA
This article is amazing and why? The author basically spells out how the GOP is practically handing the presidency to someone unelectable like Clinton:
http://original.antiwar.com/eland/2...emocratic-nomination-lets-look-at-her-record/
If only the GOP focus on the Federal Reserve(as its the main reason why America's economic woes continue to worsen) and completely repudiate the neoconservatives they'll have a high chance of taking the presidency.
Speaking of, David Stockman's brilliant takedown of the Clinton...
http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/hillary-hasnt-learned-a-thing-from-the-iraq-disaster/
That sad thing about Clinton, antiwar liberals would naturally fall behind her hawkish as they did with Obama.
http://original.antiwar.com/eland/2...emocratic-nomination-lets-look-at-her-record/
If only the GOP focus on the Federal Reserve(as its the main reason why America's economic woes continue to worsen) and completely repudiate the neoconservatives they'll have a high chance of taking the presidency.
Speaking of, David Stockman's brilliant takedown of the Clinton...
http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/hillary-hasnt-learned-a-thing-from-the-iraq-disaster/
That sad thing about Clinton, antiwar liberals would naturally fall behind her hawkish as they did with Obama.
Last edited:
- 6,425
- KCCO
- 904
- orlando,FL,USA
For starters, I'm neither a Republican nor Democrat. Secondly Sanders might of not have voted for the Iraq, but he voted to bomb Bosnia, like Republicans and Democrats a Israel-firster, support the stupid sanctions against Iran and lastly support Obama stupid and unconstitutional drone program.
That said how in the world is Sanders any different from Clinton on foreign policy?
- 6,425
- KCCO
Good to know we got that out, I retract the bias claim.
We are talking about the first Gulf War correct? There was no vote for any other following "wars" that were not authorized by congress.
Do you think the effects of Bosnia have directly affected any part of the way the US operates now today?
Because I've yet to see any direct results of such?
Have you seen this?
And as far as Clinton goes with it, I see two people on opposite sides of the spectrum, where Clinton falls back to popular opinion, rather than a defined policy as Sanders has had for eons...
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
I think that the point was that because Sanders refused to allow for congressional oversight (i.e. exercise their constitutional authority to declare war against Bosnia) on Clinton, Sanders is a hypocrite on his anti-war stance. If I recall correctly, he also opposed basically the same resolution from congress regulating Obama's attack on Libya.
(Source: http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-nato/)
- 6,425
- KCCO
Decent site I found.
Anyways, not doing anything while suspected genocide is occurring, should not be allowed by any means.
On the side of allowing redeployment in Iraq back in 08, it would've been a terrible idea to that so early, as we clearly see the consequences now of what would've resulted with an overwhelming yes (although, I think Washington was smart enough to realize then it was too early before knowledge of IS).
Calling a hypocrite just on the basic level is one thing, but without an in-depth knowledge or review of the situation is another. There's a clear difference when someone is being persecuted, no different than the Jews were in WWII, and attacking nations just because their policy is different than ours.
Anyways, not doing anything while suspected genocide is occurring, should not be allowed by any means.
On the side of allowing redeployment in Iraq back in 08, it would've been a terrible idea to that so early, as we clearly see the consequences now of what would've resulted with an overwhelming yes (although, I think Washington was smart enough to realize then it was too early before knowledge of IS).
Calling a hypocrite just on the basic level is one thing, but without an in-depth knowledge or review of the situation is another. There's a clear difference when someone is being persecuted, no different than the Jews were in WWII, and attacking nations just because their policy is different than ours.
- 4,464
- Azle, TX
- supermanfromazle
- SanjiHimura
You misunderstood me.
Sanders systematically opposed either legislation or intervention that would have been in the best interests of the United States. The Gulf War (the first one) and the entire operations in Afghanistan and Iraq were opposed, I'm putting my tin foil hat on here, simply because there were republicans in office. I get that not voting in favor of congressional regulation in Bosnia because there was ethnic cleansing going on is one thing, what I am calling Sanders a hypocrite for is his inaction (allowing unilateral strikes) over the same thing in Libya, where there was no ethnic cleansing going on.
What happened in Libya was that there was Qaddafi was trying to regulate the export of oil to the EU, something that he was well within his right to do. Obviously Obama wasn't going to put up with that.
- Status
Similar threads
