Sanders opens 12-point lead nationally: poll

Absolutely. It fits the definition like a glove. Any bets that the democrats won't notice it though?

 

Saying "I have second article that says I have the power to do whatever I want" is a sign of a dictator. That's what I am telling you.

 

On a 50k salary, roughly $36 goes to pay for food stamps. On a 50k salary, roughly 4k goes to pay for corporate subsidies.

"Free?" No. We just want our tax dollars to go towards something that benefits a greater segment of the society.

 

And yet when Trump and the GOP lowered the taxes of these businesses without providing them any additional incentive to give pay raises or lower the costs, the vast majority of corporations just purchased more of their own stock or kept the profit.

 

How does teaching a contract is not a contract if you scream loud enough benefiting society?

 

Not paying for college sounds great, until you graduate and then begin paying for college for the rest of your life.

On one hand, you pay your loan back for roughly 10 years. On the other hand, you pay for the loans of other students for the rest of your life.

Sounds dreamy, doesn't it?

 

This post makes no sense. What are you talking about?

 

Democrats give kid sniffing a total pass. They even support kid sniffers for president knowing he sniffs kids...

Don't get in that car people...

 

They are sniffing at our wallets!

 

It doesn't matter if all hell rages. If trusty Trey Gowdy says it's absurd, it's absurd. Besides, there are probably a hundred thousand DOJ alumni floating about. So in this political climate, it wouldn't be surprising if the list was fifty thousand instead of two.

 

Amazing that you won't even try to spin your way out of being called out and exposed for your double standards.

 

Taking on a student loan is a legal contract is it not Mr Lawyer? One not even bankruptcy can absolve is that not right Mr Lawyer?

I shouldnt have to explain contracts to you.. Please.

 

You'd have to prove that I have double standards first. Might I suggest finding a quote from me where I embraced or defended the Obama quote that you want me to attack?

 

To be fair any mention of Obama ( or others) has you screaming about "whataboutisms"

 

Paying student loans was not particularly relevant to the comment I made (or to any comment I have made on this thread), so it is unreasonable to think I would automatically know you were referencing student loans when you said legal contract. Relatedly, asking you to explain that post does not mean you need to explain contracts to me.

Yes, a student loan is a legal contract and the reason a bankruptcy cannot absolve the student loan is because of the way that the law is written. There is no common law requirement that student loans be exempt from bankruptcy law nor is there some Constitutional requirement that prevents the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch from absolving Student loan obligations.

 

I am only going to scream whataboutism to someone who refuses to even acknowledge or discuss the topic of the current news event and instead chooses to immediately resort to talking about someone or something else from years ago.

 

It fits directly with "Free".. You asked i answered in part .. You are so welcome.

 

Oh so you would never discuss Mars when the discussion is our climate then.. Good to know..

Thanks for explaining that!

 

First I've heard... I've never seen more sales on products than I do when I go to the store, and the company I work for gave an across the board raise. Almost everyone you listen to said they got a pay raise. Miraculously only democrats didn't get a raise or benefit from the tax decrease. And the ones who did have turned their support to Trump. That's another reason his popularity, in reality (not polls), has increased.

 

Unreal.

 

Not sure where to begin here TBZ - but you are confusing something in your ideology.

You are correct that handing over control to Gov't is part of socialism. It is your "handing over control to Gov't is Totalitarian" claim that is flawed - or at minimum completely unsupported.

The Declaration of Independence is all about handing over power to the some authority - aka - Gov't.

So the question is not whether we are authorizing Gov't to have power over us. The question is what are the conditions and limitations to that power.

By your definition - the US was conceived out of totalitarianism .. I reject this notion.

The enlightenment thinkers recognized the need to give power to some authority - in order to not have anarchy. Your perspective is some black and white paradigm where there is nothing in between.

So for protection from harm "Direct Harm - one person on another -( rape , theft, murder ) - some authority is given power .. because the people agreed - but there was a condition - "No man wants to be ruled over by another" - and for this reason that power was to be limited only to protection from harm.

12 years of school and we manage not to teach kids the founding principles - so forgive the sermonizing if you are aware of these things..

So by forming the nation - we agreed to hand over power to Gov't - There is no Nation that has not done so.

So the question is not if we have given up power - it is how much. Totalitarianism is the extreme - where Gov't controls everything - dictatorship with no public input.

Socialism is one form of control - this is primarily done through wealth redistribution - aka Taxes - and market regulations - "Who gets to play and who doesn't"

So if we take wealth redistribution as the measure of socialism - of which it is the main one - Trump makes Obama look like a fiscal conservative - Full Stop.

 

That explains a lot. The current news event is Sanders in a 12 point national lead in polls.

 

A Biden surrogate just resigned because she spread a doctored video of Bernie Sanders praising Communist leaders.

Bernie is less of a Communist than Trump is a Dictator.


Hahahahhha

 

This post makes no sense. You have conflated the Establishment with Socialism - a huge false premise right off the hop - or at least one that you need to seriously explain.

 

Perhaps I was not clear. What I said that I would "scream Whataboutism," I was specifically referring to the notion of accusing someone of Whataboutism. I was not saying that I would refrain from discussing other topics which you deem irrelevant to the conversation or that I would not respond to someone who discussed a topic that was irrelevant to the conversation.