Let me be clear


#1

Continuing the discussion from Bernie Sanders is more popular than Trump, but the press ignores him:

I’ll repeat Sanders thinks his 90% tax plan will work but as we’ve seen in France the moment you do that your top earners flee the nation and avoid the taxes. In this global economy one need not live or produce in America to have sales in America so I repeat again Sanders has no plan to pay for his dreams.

As for good health Sanders is ancient and the rigors of the office will no doubt be his undoing. As for Clinton she’s still suffering from her head injury and this is why she falls all the time and yes she does fall quite often.

I don’t look at NY Times they have lied so many times it’s not worth reading and I’ve even cancelled my subscription.

I don’t need mention Christie or Kasich neither are front runners and neither have been found guilty of anything nor charged with anything remotely as bad as violating Top Secret documents (over 2,000) or abandoning dozens of requests for security and leaving an ambassador and our military to die, or the loss of over six million dollars from the State department under her watch.

Really then you need more accurate data. Under Obama nine million people dropped out of the workforce. Real unemployment would be well over 10% if that had not happened. So rather than pretend this is a Rep vs Dem issue realize this is about what is best for the nation. Under Bush even with a war unemployment was better than it is now.

You like a lot of silly links which means you, yourself don’t understand what you talk about. Conservative states may have more crime I’ll stipulate to that but it is because people flock to those states as they also have more jobs, better economies and thus buy more things which can be stolen leading to higher crime. But lets compare the crime in Texas to Detroit which do you think has higher crime rates? It’s not the larger Texas that’s for sure. But then you’d have to understand how crime is documented and what crimes get hidden away due to liberal statistics.

I’ve worked for presidents on both sides of the aisle and have worked in law enforcement for the federal government for decades, do I know it all know. But apparently a bit more than others here.


#2

That’s because the baby boomers are retiring. It would have happened regardless. The “real” unemployment rate remains the same.


#3


#4

You are honestly in good company here then. Last night I was not the only Intel person at this party thingy I attended, but the dudes from the NSA and aclu were bff’s. There are all kinds here :smiley:

I personally am going to vote for Sanders in the primary, and Hillary in the general. And my hope is my vote will push her further towards progressive policies.

We will see, but the delegate counts are looking fairly conclusive.


#5

And one of the side effects of the ACA is to allow some of us to retire earlier than 65. Before the ACA, many of us who have medical histories and pre-existing conditions were effectively uninsurable, forcing us to stay employed until we became eligible for Medicare.


#6

They’re already fleeing and avoiding taxes. What would be different is that we can take a little out of their pockets as they’re trying to keep the door from hitting them on the ass.

Also, what you call “top earners” in reality are “top raking in the dough doing nothing but investing in exotic finance instruments”. They don’t earn anything. They’re awarded dividends for their investments, and are markedly less important than people who actually produce stuff and render services. If all the hedgefund managers disappeared overnight do you know how fast the world would compensate?


#7
for (my $i=0; $i<@oh-fuckitit-all-the-likes-i-have; $i++) {
 CarryOnAndAcceptMyLikes('RatMan');
}

#8

What are you doing, mr. smartypants? Because it looks like this post is a response to a Jim_Kirk in a thread from December?

I realize that this here series of tubes can be confusing to navigate. DON’T PANIC. I’m on the welcoming committee and here to help.

If you want to talk about Trump, who you seem to favour, you can join here. As you will see, we’ve lots of opinions about Drumpfbro.

If you want to talk about Clinton, you can join this thread. Ask for Khepra. Please do, I think you two have the best words.

The pro-Sanders socialists tend to hang out over there. They tend to bandy around statistics liberally, so your mileage may vary.


#9


#10

Reality is a little more complex than that, but definitely doesn’t support that hypothesis:

Reality does have a well known liberal bias.


#11

Is that true? Seeing as most conservative states actually take more from the government in assistance than they put back in taxes, they must have a damn good excuse for needing all that aid from the federal government, what with their booming economies.


#12

#NO


#13

… and only one is running. Christie dropped out almost a month ago.

The rest of your post is just mistaken or posturing and your appeal from authority is quite frankly pathetic, but I see others are pointing out the details of all that, so I thought I’d just mention that you don’t appear to be aware of who is running.


#14

Oh dear, how did I end up here? This is the probably the most incoherent, inaccurate and unappealing opening post for a bbs thread I’ve ever seen.

Ugh.


#15

Let me be clear, this is probably nothing more than another one of @Michael.Lederman’s ineffective drivebys

 


#16

I guess I should be impressed.


#17

Oh, hell, why not? Oh. My. Glob.

“I’ll repeat Sanders thinks his 90% tax plan will work but as we’ve seen in France the moment you do that your top earners flee the nation and avoid the taxes. In this global economy one need not live or produce in America to have sales in America so I repeat again Sanders has no plan to pay for his dreams.”

90% tax plan? That’s a Straw Man argument. There is no 90% tax rate.
http://datatitian.com/bernie-tax/
There used to be, under Eisenhower (Republican). And how did the economy do back then?

“As for good health Sanders is ancient and the rigors of the office will no doubt be his undoing. As for Clinton she’s still suffering from her head injury and this is why she falls all the time and yes she does fall quite often.”

Supposition and conjecture. Are you a doctor? Are you Bernie’s doctor? Hillary’s? No? Here’s a letter from Bernie’s actual doctor.

“You are in overall very good health and active in your professional work, and recreational lifestyle without limitation.”

As far as Hillary’s health, well, I’m a Bernie fan, I don’t follow Hillary as closely. Yes, I’ve seen some reports of her stumbling, and I’m not sure what to make of it.

“I don’t look at NY Times they have lied so many times it’s not worth reading and I’ve even cancelled my subscription.”

Ad hominem argument.

"I don’t need mention Christie or Kasich neither are front runners and neither have been found guilty of anything nor charged with anything remotely as bad as violating Top Secret documents (over 2,000) or abandoning dozens of requests for security and leaving an ambassador and our military to die, or the loss of over six million dollars from the State department under her watch.”

Tu quoque argument.

Try addressing the issue. And yes, isn’t hindsight wonderful? You’re arguing against something two and a half month old. (Geez, get a life, man, Get A Life! :slight_smile: ) Christie has withdrawn and Kasich is not a frontrunner, true, but so what? As it turns out, Trump and Cruz hold the number 2 and number 3 spots on the aforementioned Falsehood List, right after the honorable Dr. Ben Carson. Oh, and we know you don’t trust the New York Times, but this was a list they were quoting from PolitiFact, so you’ll have to enlarge you list of information sources you don’t trust.

“Really then you need more accurate data. Under Obama nine million people dropped out of the workforce. Real unemployment would be well over 10% if that had not happened. So rather than pretend this is a Rep vs Dem issue realize this is about what is best for the nation. Under Bush even with a war unemployment was better than it is now.”

A touch ad hominem there, I think, but I’ll let it pass. Others have addressed this in far more detail than I feel like doing right now.

“You like a lot of silly links which means you, yourself don’t understand what you talk about. Conservative states may have more crime I’ll stipulate to that but it is because people flock to those states as they also have more jobs, better economies and thus buy more things which can be stolen leading to higher crime. But lets compare the crime in Texas to Detroit which do you think has higher crime rates? It’s not the larger Texas that’s for sure. But then you’d have to understand how crime is documented and what crimes get hidden away due to liberal statistics.”

Definitely ad hominem here, but from you, I’ll consider it a compliment and give your argument the well-considered thought it deserves.


“I’ve worked for presidents on both sides of the aisle and have worked in law enforcement for the federal government for decades, do I know it all know. But apparently a bit more than others here.”

I’m glad that’s working out so well for you.


#18

You could have just left it at this.


#19

Started here…

…got to here…

…and, oddly enough, came to find that I agree with something in this stupid-ass screed:

You’re absolutely right–you do need more accurate data.


#20

What a tedious thread. I think a constitutional would be a good idea for everyone in here.