Bernie Sanders

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by Forty Two » Wed Jan 20, 2016 2:19 pm

Seth wrote:
piscator wrote:Sanderclaus is going to eliminate all human want by chopping off the ends of the bell curve. They won't grow back.
Pure quill socialist equality: Everybody's going to be equally miserable in their poverty.
If everyone is equal, there is no poverty. QED.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by Forty Two » Wed Jan 20, 2016 2:44 pm

rEvolutionist wrote:
Forty Two wrote:http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/heres ... le/2580846

Bernie wants almost $20 trillion in tax hikes over the next decade.

Oh, you'll feel the Bern alright....good and hard.
You'll get tax hikes (higher tax intake per GDP) under a republican gov. Traditionally the 'righter' the government the higher the government spending and taxing. This is the insidious scam that is neoliberalism. Pretend you're for actual economic liberalism and a smaller government, and be the exact opposite.
This is not correct. First, higher tax "intake" as compared to GDP is not a "tax hike." If GDP goes up then tax intake will go up and taxes collected will go up even if taxes are not "raised." Example -- if you have 20% tax rate and GDP is one trillion dollars, then your taxes collected on incomes will be X. As GDP goes up, then so do incomes and that same 20% tax rate will produce a greater tax "intake." Taxes haven't been raised, though.

The terms right and left are deceptive nowadays. Bern is left, for sure, but he's not a liberal. And, liberal is not "right." Further, definitions have changed over the decades, and a Republican of the 1960s, which would indeed have supported higher taxes than Democrats then, was not necessarily "right." Back then and even up through the 1980s there were conservative Republicans and liberal Republicans, and conservative Democrats and liberal democrats. Over the last few decades there has been coalescing of conservatives in the GOP and liberals and leftists in the Democrat Party. But, if you are looking over time and categorizing "Republicans" as "right" and Democrats as "left" you'll be making a historical mistake.

The elected Republicans of 50 years ago would not be conservatives today. Note Richard Nixon's policies -- proposed a national health plan with federal subsidies -- The Democrats did not support him on that (Ted Kennedy decades later lamented not supporting Nixon on that) -- he proposed a negative income tax for the poor -- he expanded the food stamp program, and enacted supplemental security income programs for the disabled and elderly -- he supported affirmative action in government programs -- -- he created the Environmental Protection Agency -- Nixon's dealings with China were supported by liberals, not conservatives. One of the greatest foreign policy successes of the last 50 years -- Nixon's opening up to China -- was eschewed by Democrats and criticized by conservatives. So, Nixon would not be considered either conservative or on the right today.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by Forty Two » Wed Jan 20, 2016 2:49 pm

rachelbean wrote:I would like the opportunity to renounce my citizenship, but they made it extremely expensive and more difficult as of a couple years ago. $2,350 plus more in tax if you earn over a certain amount (which I don't).
http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/10/pf/taxe ... -renounce/

So as long as I still have to file taxes and they make it really hard for me to leave permanently, I definitely should be able to vote :lay:
Obama and the Democrats made it more difficult to choose to give up American citizenship? How liberal of them....

Why do you have to file taxes? Do you earn money in the US? Is this a thing where you have to declare your worldwide in come and then they let you off the hook if you pay income tax over in the UK?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 52893
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by pErvinalia » Wed Jan 20, 2016 2:57 pm

Forty Two wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
Forty Two wrote:http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/heres ... le/2580846

Bernie wants almost $20 trillion in tax hikes over the next decade.

Oh, you'll feel the Bern alright....good and hard.
You'll get tax hikes (higher tax intake per GDP) under a republican gov. Traditionally the 'righter' the government the higher the government spending and taxing. This is the insidious scam that is neoliberalism. Pretend you're for actual economic liberalism and a smaller government, and be the exact opposite.
This is not correct. First, higher tax "intake" as compared to GDP is not a "tax hike." If GDP goes up then tax intake will go up and taxes collected will go up even if taxes are not "raised." Example -- if you have 20% tax rate and GDP is one trillion dollars, then your taxes collected on incomes will be X. As GDP goes up, then so do incomes and that same 20% tax rate will produce a greater tax "intake." Taxes haven't been raised, though.

The terms right and left are deceptive nowadays. Bern is left, for sure, but he's not a liberal. And, liberal is not "right." Further, definitions have changed over the decades, and a Republican of the 1960s, which would indeed have supported higher taxes than Democrats then, was not necessarily "right." Back then and even up through the 1980s there were conservative Republicans and liberal Republicans, and conservative Democrats and liberal democrats. Over the last few decades there has been coalescing of conservatives in the GOP and liberals and leftists in the Democrat Party. But, if you are looking over time and categorizing "Republicans" as "right" and Democrats as "left" you'll be making a historical mistake.

The elected Republicans of 50 years ago would not be conservatives today. Note Richard Nixon's policies -- proposed a national health plan with federal subsidies -- The Democrats did not support him on that (Ted Kennedy decades later lamented not supporting Nixon on that) -- he proposed a negative income tax for the poor -- he expanded the food stamp program, and enacted supplemental security income programs for the disabled and elderly -- he supported affirmative action in government programs -- -- he created the Environmental Protection Agency -- Nixon's dealings with China were supported by liberals, not conservatives. One of the greatest foreign policy successes of the last 50 years -- Nixon's opening up to China -- was eschewed by Democrats and criticized by conservatives. So, Nixon would not be considered either conservative or on the right today.
Tl;dr. Your first paragraph is confused. I'm talking about tax intake as a proportion of GDP. And you'll find since the advent of neoliberalism, despite outward claims to the contrary, the "right" side of politics often taxes and spends more (proportion GDP) than the "left", around the world. This is because neoliberalism, as per my definition in my blog post I linked a week or two ago, is about protecting certain industries, interests and power bases, than economic liberalism and small government.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"My penis is VERY small" - Cunt.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by Forty Two » Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:08 pm

rEvolutionist wrote:That's insane! (the cost)
Indeed. It's a leftist policy. Socialists have traditionally favored things like expatriates losing their property and money to the State if they decide to leave. So, a higher fee to renounce citizenship, naturally, discourages people from doing so. Higher prices tend to push demand down, of course, because fewer people can afford it. Also, as was noted above by Rachel, there is an additional fee for those with more means -- what she's referred to is a tax -- if your income and/or net worth meet a certain level, then you get socked with sort of a "capital gains" tax penalty for the privilege of leaving. It's "Oh, you want to leave? Not with that money, you don't...."
ch
As Marx wrote, one of the principles to be furthered in advanced countries is the "confiscation of the property of emigrants and rebels."

Why? Because socialism means there is no private property, and property and means of production are to be controlled by the State (representing the community). You can't have people just leaving the community with the community's resources (people's money is not "their" money, it's the community's money). So, if they want out and we can't shoot them, then take their property.

It would be politically unfeasible to further that interest dramatically nowadays, because people would be like -- hey, what the? You're seizing my property because I want switch to be a citizen of Sri Lanka? Da fuq you say? So, they just jack up the fee and impose an onerous tax to get part of the way there.

A liberal policy, on the other hand, would not impose onerous barriers to emigration, because liberals believe that people should be free to associate and to disassociate themselves, including with countries. A liberal believes that choosing to become a citizen of one country and renouncing another should not be unreasonably fettered by punitive charges. Naturally, it makes sense that fees would be charged to pay for the process and the paperwork, and whatnot. It's not the rest of the taxpayer's responsibility to pay for an emigrant's expenses on renunciation of or relinquishment of citizenship, but to impose confiscatory fees and taxes, that's a different matter. Leftists believe in that kind of thing. And, they ain't liberal.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by Forty Two » Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:11 pm

rEvolutionist wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
Forty Two wrote:http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/heres ... le/2580846

Bernie wants almost $20 trillion in tax hikes over the next decade.

Oh, you'll feel the Bern alright....good and hard.
You'll get tax hikes (higher tax intake per GDP) under a republican gov. Traditionally the 'righter' the government the higher the government spending and taxing. This is the insidious scam that is neoliberalism. Pretend you're for actual economic liberalism and a smaller government, and be the exact opposite.
This is not correct. First, higher tax "intake" as compared to GDP is not a "tax hike." If GDP goes up then tax intake will go up and taxes collected will go up even if taxes are not "raised." Example -- if you have 20% tax rate and GDP is one trillion dollars, then your taxes collected on incomes will be X. As GDP goes up, then so do incomes and that same 20% tax rate will produce a greater tax "intake." Taxes haven't been raised, though.

The terms right and left are deceptive nowadays. Bern is left, for sure, but he's not a liberal. And, liberal is not "right." Further, definitions have changed over the decades, and a Republican of the 1960s, which would indeed have supported higher taxes than Democrats then, was not necessarily "right." Back then and even up through the 1980s there were conservative Republicans and liberal Republicans, and conservative Democrats and liberal democrats. Over the last few decades there has been coalescing of conservatives in the GOP and liberals and leftists in the Democrat Party. But, if you are looking over time and categorizing "Republicans" as "right" and Democrats as "left" you'll be making a historical mistake.

The elected Republicans of 50 years ago would not be conservatives today. Note Richard Nixon's policies -- proposed a national health plan with federal subsidies -- The Democrats did not support him on that (Ted Kennedy decades later lamented not supporting Nixon on that) -- he proposed a negative income tax for the poor -- he expanded the food stamp program, and enacted supplemental security income programs for the disabled and elderly -- he supported affirmative action in government programs -- -- he created the Environmental Protection Agency -- Nixon's dealings with China were supported by liberals, not conservatives. One of the greatest foreign policy successes of the last 50 years -- Nixon's opening up to China -- was eschewed by Democrats and criticized by conservatives. So, Nixon would not be considered either conservative or on the right today.
Tl;dr. Your first paragraph is confused. I'm talking about tax intake as a proportion of GDP. And you'll find since the advent of neoliberalism, despite outward claims to the contrary, the "right" side of politics often taxes and spends more (proportion GDP) than the "left", around the world. This is because neoliberalism, as per my definition in my blog post I linked a week or two ago, is about protecting certain industries, interests and power bases, than economic liberalism and small government.
Your mixing up concepts when you talk about "proportion of GDP." If a tax is X on incomes, and GDP drops, then the ratio of taxes to GDP goes up. I.e. X/GDP is less than X/(GDP-Y). That's not an increase in taxes. You're mixing things up.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 52893
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by pErvinalia » Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:12 pm

I knew it! Thanks Obama the Marxist!
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"My penis is VERY small" - Cunt.

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 52893
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by pErvinalia » Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:15 pm

Forty Two wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
Forty Two wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
Forty Two wrote:http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/heres ... le/2580846

Bernie wants almost $20 trillion in tax hikes over the next decade.

Oh, you'll feel the Bern alright....good and hard.
You'll get tax hikes (higher tax intake per GDP) under a republican gov. Traditionally the 'righter' the government the higher the government spending and taxing. This is the insidious scam that is neoliberalism. Pretend you're for actual economic liberalism and a smaller government, and be the exact opposite.
This is not correct. First, higher tax "intake" as compared to GDP is not a "tax hike." If GDP goes up then tax intake will go up and taxes collected will go up even if taxes are not "raised." Example -- if you have 20% tax rate and GDP is one trillion dollars, then your taxes collected on incomes will be X. As GDP goes up, then so do incomes and that same 20% tax rate will produce a greater tax "intake." Taxes haven't been raised, though.

The terms right and left are deceptive nowadays. Bern is left, for sure, but he's not a liberal. And, liberal is not "right." Further, definitions have changed over the decades, and a Republican of the 1960s, which would indeed have supported higher taxes than Democrats then, was not necessarily "right." Back then and even up through the 1980s there were conservative Republicans and liberal Republicans, and conservative Democrats and liberal democrats. Over the last few decades there has been coalescing of conservatives in the GOP and liberals and leftists in the Democrat Party. But, if you are looking over time and categorizing "Republicans" as "right" and Democrats as "left" you'll be making a historical mistake.

The elected Republicans of 50 years ago would not be conservatives today. Note Richard Nixon's policies -- proposed a national health plan with federal subsidies -- The Democrats did not support him on that (Ted Kennedy decades later lamented not supporting Nixon on that) -- he proposed a negative income tax for the poor -- he expanded the food stamp program, and enacted supplemental security income programs for the disabled and elderly -- he supported affirmative action in government programs -- -- he created the Environmental Protection Agency -- Nixon's dealings with China were supported by liberals, not conservatives. One of the greatest foreign policy successes of the last 50 years -- Nixon's opening up to China -- was eschewed by Democrats and criticized by conservatives. So, Nixon would not be considered either conservative or on the right today.
Tl;dr. Your first paragraph is confused. I'm talking about tax intake as a proportion of GDP. And you'll find since the advent of neoliberalism, despite outward claims to the contrary, the "right" side of politics often taxes and spends more (proportion GDP) than the "left", around the world. This is because neoliberalism, as per my definition in my blog post I linked a week or two ago, is about protecting certain industries, interests and power bases, than economic liberalism and small government.
Your mixing up concepts when you talk about "proportion of GDP." If a tax is X on incomes, and GDP drops, then the ratio of taxes to GDP goes up. I.e. X/GDP is less than X/(GDP-Y). That's not an increase in taxes. You're mixing things up.
What you are failing to see is that this is most certainly not a reduction in the size of the state.

Additionally, a higher tax as proportion of GDP is a more onerous tax burden. On average a citizen pays more tax per unit of economic gain.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"My penis is VERY small" - Cunt.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by Forty Two » Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:30 pm

It would only be a more onerous tax burden if GDP was taxed, which it isn't. Incomes are taxed. Sales are taxed. If GDP goes down that does not mean that the average citizen is paying more in tax. He could be paying less, if incomes have also gone down. You are, again, confusing different things.

If an average American makes $50,000 per year, and pays a 25% tax, his taxes don't go up if GDP goes down and his taxes don't go down if GDP goes up. The ratio of his tax paid to GDP changes, but that is neither a tax burden on him or a tax benefit, and it does not change his burden either way. He still makes $50k and pays 25% of it.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 52893
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by pErvinalia » Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:34 pm

Of course it is a burden as he gets a reduced share of the collective prosperity windfall over that period.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"My penis is VERY small" - Cunt.

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 52893
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by pErvinalia » Wed Jan 20, 2016 3:36 pm

Put it this way, are you better or worse off, in the long run, if you pay $5k tax in a country with a GDP per capita of $40k vs $30k?
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"My penis is VERY small" - Cunt.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by Forty Two » Wed Jan 20, 2016 4:28 pm

rEvolutionist wrote:I knew it! Thanks Obama the Marxist!
Deflect all you want. The idea of penalizing emigrants is not a liberal policy. It is a leftist policy. I didn't call him a Marxist, but is, essentially, an incremental socialist. He supports socialist ideals and Marxist principles, but he adheres to the notion that the "change" to come needs to be done incrementally. Read a lilttle Stanley Kurtz. And, Obama was supported and funded early in his political career by Ayers and Dohrn, Carl Davidson and Alice Palmer - his involvement in ACORN and the Woods Fund of Chicago. Obama was appointed by Ayers as chairman of the Chicago Annenburg Challenge organization which was a leftist group. When Obama first ran for office in the 90s, he was endorsed by the New Party (socialist) in Illinois, and he was involved in and got the support of the Democratic Socialists of America. The Communist Party USA backed Obama's reelection in 2012. John Case of the Communist Party USA wrote a piece about the election in 2012 and referred to incrementalism and not being able to "win everything at once" but the election of Obama was "essential" to their goals of a "different class configuration."

Obama is supported by people who think he is advancing their goals. Also, his upbringing, early life, and educational background all demonstrate a support for Marxist socialist principles. Does he advocate immediate, drastic adoption of socialism in the US? No, of course not. He is a creature of the modified tactic of incrementalism -- a gradual shift over time to the hard left.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 52893
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by pErvinalia » Wed Jan 20, 2016 4:43 pm

Hello Seth.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"My penis is VERY small" - Cunt.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by Forty Two » Wed Jan 20, 2016 5:14 pm

rEvolutionist wrote:Hello Seth.
What would you say if a candidate was getting the enthusiastic support of the Koch Bros, and, say a Stormfront and the National States' Rights Party. And, the candidate held a chairman position in a Dominionist educational organization whose goal was to expand the notion of the US as a Christian nation founded on Christian principles.

Would you poo poo the idea that he was a right wing supporter of fascist principles?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
pErvinalia
Off his meds
Posts: 52893
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Bernie Sanders

Post by pErvinalia » Wed Jan 20, 2016 5:23 pm

The communist party (who mustn't be a Marxist party, as the Marxists DETEST social democratic moderates, and are ideologically opposed to incremental change in favour of revolutionary overthrow) must have adopted the lesser of two evils approach (and they haven't run their own candidate since 1984 - no pun intended ;) ). The reality is your system (and ours for a different reason) is a two party system. You are always going to get one or the other until you sort out campaign financing and the disenfranchisement of voters.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"My penis is VERY small" - Cunt.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests