OKAY. I'm going with Jill Stein if I can't go with Bernie

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Socialism is not freedom.

More government is not freedom.

The problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other peoples money-Margaret Thatcher

a reply to: xuenchen

Proportional Representation

It means when a party be it Dem or Pirate recieves votes, they get seats that are in proportion to the number of votes.

IE make 100 seat available, the Pirate party gets 5% of the votes or 5 seats, or the libertarian party gets 15% of the votes they get 15 seats, the same for the R&D's.

It takes away from the winner takes all concept and more parties give more voice to the people.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Socialism is not freedom.

More government is not freedom.

The problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other peoples money-Margaret Thatcher

But why is there always money for War and the KGB..I mean NSA? That's where we're at now. There's always money for stuff that hurts us but, a social program that helps us? We don't have money for that. LOL

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: queenofswords
Too many millennials are just plain ignorant and ill-equipped psychologically to walk and chew gum at the same time. I do know some, however, that are free thinkers and are still capable (thanks to their parents and grandparents paying attention) of analyzation and evaluation. So, I remain optimistic for America's future.

Nice. Contradicted your premise there. Way to prove your whole argument to be illogical and based on stereotypes.

??? Contradiction? (As I said....walking and chewing gum at the same time...)

"Too many" does not mean "all". How in the h**l is that a contradiction?
Pointing out a reality does not mean one is stereotyping.

Your type of reasoning (and I use that term loosely) is sooooo what's wrong today.

a reply to: network dude

"Not if you print it."

--Donald Trump

a reply to: amazing

You have good points. But like Kali stated, we live in an authoritarian state now. The economy is capitalism, but it's authoritarian government.

Switching to a "democratic socialist" economy with an authoritarian government is just begging for an authoritarian socialist state.

This just in:

Why Can't Hillary Clinton Lock Up the Nomination?

Because Bernie supporters aren't going to be silenced. They keep voting for him.

Bernie Sanders may be on the verge of a winning streak. After defeating Hillary Clinton in the Indiana Democratic primary, the Vermont senator notched a win in West Virginia on Tuesday, and appears well-positioned for a victory in the upcoming Oregon primary.

That will allow Sanders to claim momentum. It’s also likely to help the campaign pull in a fresh flood of small-dollar donations from energized supporters. Still, none of that changes the fact that Hillary Clinton has effectively sealed off a pathway to the nomination for Sanders. To get technical, it is no longer mathematically possible for Sanders to win enough pledged delegates in the remaining primary contests to win the nomination. On top of that, Clinton holds a commanding lead in superdelegates, a pool of influential Democrats made up of elected officials and party leaders. So why hasn’t Clinton managed to dispatch her Democratic rival?

The senator’s [Sanders'] populist message of tackling income inequality and taking on Wall Street has inspired an ardent following. Voters are animated by a wide array of concerns, and the choice to stand with a particular candidate is a personal decision. But to understand why support for Sanders hasn’t dried up despite the long odds he faces, it may be helpful to describe a spectrum of voters. There are the realists, the casual fans, and the defiant die-hards.

The realists think Sanders probably can’t win, but plan to vote for him anyway. A CBS poll from April shows that 44 percent of Democratic primary voters want Sanders to win, but only 23 percent actually believe he will win. That suggests at least some people support the senator to indicate political preference, not because they necessarily believe their vote makes it more likely for him to win.

Okay - so, maybe I'll write him in after all.

a reply to: network dude

That is true in societies that the big corps and the rich evade paying their share of the taxes.

a reply to: AlaskanDad

Sounds clear and practical.

Thank You.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: amazing

You have good points. But like Kali stated, we live in an authoritarian state now. The economy is capitalism, but it's authoritarian government.

Switching to a "democratic socialist" economy with an authoritarian government is just begging for an authoritarian socialist state.

But the questions are....will implementing some good social programs that have worked in other countries lead us to an authoritarian socialist state? Probably not. And secondly, even if that happened could we, would we be any worse off than we are now? nope.

Okay - so, maybe I'll write him in after all.

The problem with this is.....when he fails to get the nomination, the vast majority of Bernie supporters will simply stay home. Because they don't want Hillary, and they don't want Trump, but they are also too unmotivated to do something they'd rather not do, so won't even go to the polls. They don't feel a write in is a viable option (unless social media can somehow tell them otherwise). And anyone trying that as any organized effort, is strongly advised to have a good life insurance policy and a will in place.

a reply to: amazing

Some have argued (more convincingly than I) that moving towards socialism would be in violation of the US Constitution.

Our system of economy, of government is far from perfect. But no ideal system can exist in a corrupt environment.

Just look at all the wonderful socialist countries that so many hold as examples, then look at all the people in the Panama Papers that have come from socialist countries.

Even the socialists from "successful" socialist countries are trying to hide their money!

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: network dude

That is true in societies that the big corps and the rich evade paying their share of the taxes.

.....and yet,

For 2010, the top 25% earned 67.6% of income, and paid 87.1% of federal income taxes.

I didn't find the stats for 2015, but they are probably the same or higher.

a reply to: queenofswords

And yet trillions of dollars are being offshore banked to evade taxes, IE the Panama Papers, and many large corps not only do not pay taxes but are given grants from our government!


Go figure!

a reply to: xuenchen

The everyone will have equal money despite the work they do fallacy.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Taking power from the leash holders of the Legislators seems pretty anti authoritarian to me.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: xuenchen

The everyone will have equal money despite the work they do fallacy.

And?

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: DBCowboy

Taking power from the leash holders of the Legislators seems pretty anti authoritarian to me.

But it might take stronger enforcement and authority to do that.

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: queenofswords

And yet trillions of dollars are being offshore banked to evade taxes, IE the Panama Papers, and many large corps not only do not pay taxes but are given grants from our government!


Go figure!

Is it illegal? If so, then they need to be dealt with. If not, can you blame them when the Big Fat Bloated Wasteful Government and their Politician's Slush Fund wants to take the remaining 13% if they could?!

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: queenofswords
Too many millennials are just plain ignorant and ill-equipped psychologically to walk and chew gum at the same time. I do know some, however, that are free thinkers and are still capable (thanks to their parents and grandparents paying attention) of analyzation and evaluation. So, I remain optimistic for America's future.

Nice. Contradicted your premise there. Way to prove your whole argument to be illogical and based on stereotypes.

??? Contradiction? (As I said....walking and chewing gum at the same time...)

"Too many" does not mean "all". How in the h**l is that a contradiction?
Pointing out a reality does not mean one is stereotyping.

Your type of reasoning (and I use that term loosely) is sooooo what's wrong today.

Ah yes the walk back after being caught and called out for having a lazy argument. I can prove you wrong with links and evidence but a lazy argument like yours doesn't deserve things like that only to be called out for such.

Plus the fact you can't see how this is the same rationale that racists use to defend racist ideology. "I'm not racist I know a few people who aren't like this." Literally same argument here except it is directed at young people. Again lazy and illogical.