NICE! Sanders thread

posthuman · Apr 6, 2016

according to all kinds of people in both major parties and also outside of those parties, Hilary is untrustworthy. one of the least trusted people in politics in America today, period.
so . . .

the closest i've heard Sanders come to "viciously attacking" any candidate is saying that Trump is a pathological liar, and he prefaced that remark by saying he doesn't like to speak ill of people, apologizing for saying it before he even said it - he didn't even bring it up, he was being asked direct questions about what he thought of Trump & his campaign by some moderators in a debate.
is that the comment you're talking about Mitspa?

actually, i think the evidence bears Sanders out on that comment. Trump does not have a good record with the fact-checking people, and he keeps on lying about innocuous, easily verifiable things like the number of people at his rallies even after it's been made quite public that what he says isn't true. that's pathological behavior, right? *shrug* me no psychiatrist.

posthuman · Apr 6, 2016

posthuman said:

. . . so why is the DNC still treating her like a shoe-in and the best choice to run? why do people keep voting for her?
i think the only person with a higher unfavorability rating and lower trust level than her at all is Trump, among all the possible nominees. Sanders has been far outperforming her in every head-to-head poll vs GOP candidates for 6 or 8 months. she wins almost all the head-to-head polls, but not by as much as Sancers does. Sanders beats Kasich in polls, but Clinton either doesn't or is more or less tied. she's probably going to be indicted by the FBI soon, possibly even before the election. she's losing a lot of momentum in her campaign vs Sanders, and Sanders hasn't even been attacking her -- in a general election, whoever the GOP candidate is, they are certainly gong to go after her! and now that she's been attacking Sanders, she's alienating all the independents, fringe republicans and democratic base that supports him. polls show that a lot of those people would either vote for another party or not vote at all if she wins the nomination - but the same polls show more of her supporters would switch to Sanders if he wins.

so what's the deal with her? is the DNC just assuming that Trump will be the GOP nominee, and figures it won't matter who runs against him; any democrat would win that election? and assuming either the FBI will be nice enough to wait until after the election before pursuing her, or find nothing and just drop all that email server stuff?
exactly how much behind-the-scenes machinery is in place setting her up to be the next president? are they just so invested by this point in pushing her candidacy that they can't stop now?

it seems to make sense to me, from the DNC's point of view, that Sanders is the better, safer candidate to run against any GOP choice. any thoughts on that?

Devonmcknight68 · Apr 6, 2016

Welfare takes away the right for people to fail. Big government shouldn't come with the middle classes money and bail out those who have not been able to make it. If some one isn't making it then they should work harder, not get a free-be. That's what their friends and family are for. Plus socialism is for big government, and I think all government should do is creat laws and protect its citizens with the military, not tell me how to raise my kids and spend my money.

Kayiw1 · Apr 6, 2016

Sirk said:

Yes, I've considered that ever since George Bush passed the Patriot Act! Not worth it. We souldn't have to give up our freedom/security FROM government&police in order to be protected BY them!

Kayiw1 · Apr 6, 2016

Mitspa said:

I have posted 3 videos of Trumps hateful and vicious talk and all Trump supporters did was either call me a liar or defend what he said, and you can't come up with ONE to support you claim?

Mitspa · Apr 6, 2016

Kayiw1 said:

Well don't blame me for what someone else did to you...and I don't have time to go looking for Bernie clips

Sirk · Apr 6, 2016

Kayiw1 said:

It had a sunset clause. Why didn't they let it expire?

Desdichado · Apr 6, 2016

Sirk said:

Reagan said a government program has the closest thing to an eternal life that we will see on this earth.

I believe it.

psychomom · Apr 6, 2016

Devonmcknight68 said:

this. this is my concern with Mr. Sanders. i'm not saying i see a viable alternative, and don't intend to demean the man.

but having dealt all week with healthcare in the hands of the government, i am weary and frustrated.
(and bald! i got so frustrated i snatched myself bald!

)

what i see in the Scriptures is a command for the Church to care for those unable to care for themselves, not the government. when the gov't takes over this job, bureaucracies are created. as a necessity, that takes funds (lots and lots of $$) from those in need and those funds are spent, imo, unwisely.

do you know, all my parents' children managed to graduate from high school without a federal department of education?
personally, i'd like to see a much, much smaller gov't. both federal and state gov'ts are really great at wasting taxpayer money.

sigh... apologies for the rant.

Oncefallen · Apr 6, 2016

Sirk said:

When you really think about it, we (as a nation) have been sacrificing freedom for security since the early 20th century. Our founding father's warned us at the birth of this nation what would happen if we weren't careful.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. – Benjamin Franklin

The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases. – Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. – Thomas Jefferson

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. – Thomas Jefferson

To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. .I place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared. – President Thomas Jefferson

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. – James Madison

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. – William Pitt

Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.
Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence

posthuman · Apr 6, 2016

having dealt all month with my own issues, i can attest that healthcare in the hands of private insurance isn't exactly a picnic either.

it's been brought up several times that the scriptural emphasis on caring for the poor & needy is aimed at the church, not the government. of course this is true, but it's not a basis for arguing that a 'good' government should not do the same thing. the Bible consists of all kinds of admonishment for righteousness of individuals - none of it is directed at describing how a government should operate.

some of you argue this way, that the Bible teaches believers to care for the poor, not governments, so the government should not do it, and then also turn around and argue that the government should enact laws against abortion, against gay marriage, against allowing certain forms of the expression of other religions, going to war against 'heathen' nations etc. and point at the morality outlined n the Bible as a basis for your belief that government should act this way -- when the Bible doesn't teach about governments in these areas either; it teaches that the church should not be involved in sexual deviance or idolatry or any other kind of unrighteous behavior.

don't you find that hypocritical?

if you want the government to reflect Christian values by enforcing moral behavior by restrictive laws, why can't i want the government to reflect Christian values by doing righteous acts?
if you point at the Bible to say the entire secular populace should be forced to exhibit certain forms of godly behavior, why not all godliness, or why not more especially those things that actively do good to others, like providing basic healthcare, when you can so strongly support laws that prohibit something like gay marriage, which does no one any physical harm?

America is not Israel. the Bible doesn't call us to be a holy nation, separated to Him -- and if you disagree with that, or if you think that even though we're not specifically called to be a nation that represents Christian values by its government, then why should you be content with a legalistic 'show' of these values, by prohibiting this and that, and not go further to actually support the government doing good works?

what do you call a person who claims they are 'christian' because they don't drink, smoke, cuss or dance -- but never actually shows any love to his neighbor? who only defines his Christianity by all the things he doesn't do? is that the kind of 'christian nation' you want us to be?

Sirk · Apr 6, 2016

posthuman said:

having dealt all month with my own issues, i can attest that healthcare in the hands of private insurance isn't exactly a picnic either.

it's been brought up several times that the scriptural emphasis on caring for the poor & needy is aimed at the church, not the government. of course this is true, but it's not a basis for arguing that a 'good' government should not do the same thing. the Bible consists of all kinds of admonishment for righteousness of individuals - none of it is directed at describing how a government should operate.

some of you argue this way, that the Bible teaches believers to care for the poor, not governments, so the government should not do it, and then also turn around and argue that the government should enact laws against abortion, against gay marriage, against allowing certain forms of the expression of other religions, going to war against 'heathen' nations etc. and point at the morality outlined n the Bible as a basis for your belief that government should act this way -- when the Bible doesn't teach about governments in these areas either; it teaches that the church should not be involved in sexual deviance or idolatry or any other kind of unrighteous behavior.

don't you find that hypocritical?

if you want the government to reflect Christian values by enforcing moral behavior by restrictive laws, why can't i want the government to reflect Christian values by doing righteous acts?
if you point at the Bible to say the entire secular populace should be forced to exhibit certain forms of godly behavior, why not all godliness, or why not more especially those things that actively do good to others, like providing basic healthcare, when you can so strongly support laws that prohibit something like gay marriage, which does no one any physical harm?

America is not Israel. the Bible doesn't call us to be a holy nation, separated to Him -- and if you disagree with that, or if you think that even though we're not specifically called to be a nation that represents Christian values by its government, then why should you be content with a legalistic 'show' of these values, by prohibiting this and that, and not go further to actually support the government doing good works?

what do you call a person who claims they are 'christian' because they don't drink, smoke, cuss or dance -- but never actually shows any love to his neighbor? who only defines his Christianity by all the things he doesn't do? is that the kind of 'christian nation' you want us to be?

you lost me at "good government". Our government will only ever be as good as the electorate. And right now the electorate seems a bit shady to me.

posthuman · Apr 6, 2016

Sirk said:

you want the government to reflect your Christian values, right?
that's why you would vote for a person who shares those values?
that's why you support some laws and are against some others?
because you want the government to, or think the government should be formed in a way that reflects Christian moral behavior? the behavior that the Bible encourages for individuals, not secular governments ?

Sirk · Apr 6, 2016

posthuman said:

The bible encourages self governance. We have fallen way short of that and as a result we have "king" who takes our cattle and sends our children to war.

psychomom · Apr 6, 2016

posthuman said:

goodness, post, was this directed at me?

i certainly never claimed America is any kind of Christian nation. i don't expect any kind of Godly laws coming from either DC or, in my case, Albany. the only thing i do decry is abortion, and i can't apologize for opposing the wholesale slaughter of the unborn.
you are naturally very free to require whatever you think best from the people in DC whom we all employ.

perhaps i can impose upon your kindness and ask you to address my concerns regarding the fiscal aspect of the whole thing... or do you believe the unavoidable waste of the funds is justified by the good it would do?
i'm really just trying to understand.

honestly, i am having a hard time seeing how further socialism will help that whole income disparity business.
seems to me unless there's a dramatic change in tax law (and probably other law, too) it will only serve to shrink the middle class further.

please forgive me if i upset you? ♥
headed off to bed, but i'll try to check back tomorrow.

Kayiw1 · Apr 7, 2016

Sirk said:

Right! I totally agree!!!

posthuman · Apr 7, 2016

psychomom said:

no not at you mom, and not mad. sorry i didn't even think about it seeming like i was snapping at you! ♥

a couple other people have brought up the same criticism about social welfare policies, not just here but in some other forums, and i've been thinking about it a while, trying to understand if it's justified or not, that's all. so when you mentioned it too, i spilled out some of what i've been thinking.

i'm sure that the nation is very much a secular one - but we do have a representative government designed to function in a way that emulates the collective will of the citizens. some people here on this forum have taken that idea so far as to state that in a democracy, the elected officials & sitting officeholders are not the "authorities appointed by God" that we are commanded by scripture to obey, honor and respect, but the individual citizens are, since our vote puts them in or removes them from power. ((i think that's a bogus way of trying to get around having to treat certain presidents with respect)).
if the government should represent the individuals, and the individuals have a certain ethic, i think it's not unreasonable for the government to carry out functions that are in keeping with that ethos. we already act like it should do that when we oppose permissive laws that allow people to behave in a way we find unethical, and we justify it by pointing at Biblical morality, so in some ways we already ask that the government display through law the morality the Bible teaches for individuals. but i'm just repeating myself now...

fiscally i think some of these things really save the country money in the long run. unemployment and food stamps help prevent people from turning to crime to meet their needs and stabilize the economic interaction of the market with those individuals who receive aid. that money goes back into the market as a whole; it doesn't just sit in people's pockets. education prepares people to be productive taxpaying adults, so they can bolster the economy rather than drain it. healthcare paid for through for-profit middlemen seems like it is obviously more expensive than cutting out some of that middle-man skimming ((i don't want the government to "take over" healthcare like the UK - just to set up a universal single-payer kind of insurance pool that covers basic care)).

the expense of healthcare and secondary education in particular are big drains on the middle class, and healthcare in particular is a big burden to small businesses to provide insurance for. if those costs could in some part be spread out across the tax base, it would benefit the middle class. these things are also out of the reach of the lower class, or economically crippling to attain, so they are a pressure keeping a segment of the poor out of the middle class. i ain't no economist, but this is some of how i think things like this can help address the growth of the income gap.

i think waste and fraud need to be targeted and rooted out, without sacrificing the good that social welfare programs do. i think we should have strict limits on how long a person can receive most kinds of welfare, and job training and placement programs should be working hand in hand with those offices directly.
ideally of course i would want to eliminate all waste -- not just in these kinds of programs, but in all government spending, that's soaked in pork and bloated with blank-check, black-program military spending. the biggest thing we spend money on as a country is the military -- good grief! just think how we could actually be a great nation if we could spend even half of that money on infrastructure and things that benefit and bolster the citizenry itself! but it seems like military "waste" is a necessary thing we have to accept because of the 'good' it does us... and a self-sustaining expense because a lot of the way we use our military creates enemies for us, i.e. "job security"

i don't have much time - got to go to work now.
but i've been thinking a lot lately too how we got out of the Great Depression, and it seems like it was basically two things: massive "socialism" policies from the government, and world war.
history repeats itself, right? and now 7 or 8 years after the 'great recession' the strongest couple of candidates we have for president are one who wants to implement a lot of socialist reform and another (one or two) who wants to take us to war in the middle east.
i know that doesn't answer your question

just thought i'd toss it out there.

Mitspa · Apr 7, 2016

These Bernie folks are the kind of people that end up in cults. Hillary folks end up in jail.

jennymae · Apr 7, 2016

Mitspa said:

Those Donald folks are the kind of people that end up behind walls...I believe the correct term is "incarcerated"...lol...jk

...maybe they and the Hillary folks can be joining forces...lol

psychomom · Apr 7, 2016

posthuman said:

no not at you mom, and not mad. sorry i didn't even think about it seeming like i was snapping at you! ♥

a couple other people have brought up the same criticism about social welfare policies, not just here but in some other forums, and i've been thinking about it a while, trying to understand if it's justified or not, that's all. so when you mentioned it too, i spilled out some of what i've been thinking.

i'm sure that the nation is very much a secular one - but we do have a representative government designed to function in a way that emulates the collective will of the citizens. some people here on this forum have taken that idea so far as to state that in a democracy, the elected officials & sitting officeholders are not the "authorities appointed by God" that we are commanded by scripture to obey, honor and respect, but the individual citizens are, since our vote puts them in or removes them from power. ((i think that's a bogus way of trying to get around having to treat certain presidents with respect)).
if the government should represent the individuals, and the individuals have a certain ethic, i think it's not unreasonable for the government to carry out functions that are in keeping with that ethos. we already act like it should do that when we oppose permissive laws that allow people to behave in a way we find unethical, and we justify it by pointing at Biblical morality, so in some ways we already ask that the government display through law the morality the Bible teaches for individuals. but i'm just repeating myself now...

fiscally i think some of these things really save the country money in the long run. unemployment and food stamps help prevent people from turning to crime to meet their needs and stabilize the economic interaction of the market with those individuals who receive aid. that money goes back into the market as a whole; it doesn't just sit in people's pockets. education prepares people to be productive taxpaying adults, so they can bolster the economy rather than drain it. healthcare paid for through for-profit middlemen seems like it is obviously more expensive than cutting out some of that middle-man skimming ((i don't want the government to "take over" healthcare like the UK - just to set up a universal single-payer kind of insurance pool that covers basic care)).

the expense of healthcare and secondary education in particular are big drains on the middle class, and healthcare in particular is a big burden to small businesses to provide insurance for. if those costs could in some part be spread out across the tax base, it would benefit the middle class. these things are also out of the reach of the lower class, or economically crippling to attain, so they are a pressure keeping a segment of the poor out of the middle class. i ain't no economist, but this is some of how i think things like this can help address the growth of the income gap.

i think waste and fraud need to be targeted and rooted out, without sacrificing the good that social welfare programs do. i think we should have strict limits on how long a person can receive most kinds of welfare, and job training and placement programs should be working hand in hand with those offices directly.
ideally of course i would want to eliminate all waste -- not just in these kinds of programs, but in all government spending, that's soaked in pork and bloated with blank-check, black-program military spending. the biggest thing we spend money on as a country is the military -- good grief! just think how we could actually be a great nation if we could spend even half of that money on infrastructure and things that benefit and bolster the citizenry itself! but it seems like military "waste" is a necessary thing we have to accept because of the 'good' it does us... and a self-sustaining expense because a lot of the way we use our military creates enemies for us, i.e. "job security"

i don't have much time - got to go to work now.
but i've been thinking a lot lately too how we got out of the Great Depression, and it seems like it was basically two things: massive "socialism" policies from the government, and world war.
history repeats itself, right? and now 7 or 8 years after the 'great recession' the strongest couple of candidates we have for president are one who wants to implement a lot of socialist reform and another (one or two) who wants to take us to war in the middle east.
i know that doesn't answer your question

just thought i'd toss it out there.

oh, i think i may see the trouble....
you're somewhat of an idealist (in a sociological sense, not a philosophical or ontological sense).
while i am a recovering pessimist! (but praise God, He is faithful and my mind is being renewed

)

as a woman, wife, mom, grandmom, i really, really don't like war. particularly acutely unnecessary war.
so i'm with you on the cut military spending gig.

did you ever read the book "New Deal or Raw Deal"? it gives a different perspective to FDR's policies.
i think it's quite possible they actually prolonged the depression, and it truly was WW2 that ended it.

as a recovering pessimist, i guess i don't place too much faith in the government as far as cutting waste or getting rid of fraud.
Mark owns a contracting business and one of his contracts is with the local housing authority...
it's tragic the stuff that goes on there.

but... it would be great if that did happen!!
universal single payer sounds okay, but that isn't what Sanders proposes, is it? he wants something more like what they have in Canada and the UK?

'free' college... i just wish it had happened before my kiddos had their education debt.

eh... they mostly went to private schools, anyway.

i'm still not convinced, but i am learning. thank you for taking the time to help with that. ♥

NICE! Sanders thread

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Kayiw1

Guest

Kayiw1

Guest

Mitspa

Guest

Banned

Senior Member

psychomom

Guest

Idiot in Chief

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

psychomom

Guest

Kayiw1

Guest

Senior Member

Mitspa

Guest

jennymae

Guest

psychomom

Guest