So bernie?

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I will stop referring to her as occasional kotex when I stop seeing trump referenced as the orange one or "tRump".

Dont hate the player, hate the game.

I don't hate the player Blunt, I do hate the game and hope that you can understand that from my first reply.
As to the ''orange one'', honestly, I see more Trump supporters here who refer to him being called '' the orange one'' than I have seen others calling him that. And tRump was as cute, for one moment as was occasional kotex but both have lost their brief comedic luster and now serve only as low minded ridicule.

So be a star, be a trend setter and don't wait for others to take the small step of stepping out of the ''poke ya in the eye'' mindset and be the positive example to others that we would like our elected representatives to be.

a reply to: Bluntone22

I'll bend the rules a little, though it is still about his age, ultimately. I would not be in any way comfortable with a 79 year old president who has ZERO career/consistent work experience in his 79 years beyond being in politics. Bernie was unable to hold down a single job prior to being elected Mayor of Burlington at age 40. He spent the first half of his life couch surfing friends' pads and organizing protests for a living. Spending the first half of your life doing such nonsense is one thing when you're 50 and running for an office... everybody is dumber than hogcrap and looking for a workable con their first 20-25 years on this rock, but it still means the individual found responsibility in their mid 20s. Sanders? Not so much.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yeah, those are pretty much my feelings too.
Especially odd when you consider the last two Democrat presidents were very young.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Bluntone22

Anyone who supports Trump after he folded last time to Hannity and Coulter's pressure deserves what they get.

Problem is, if enough people in enough states fall for the same bamboozle, the rest of the nation could suffer the consequences as well.

Here, I fixed that post for you.

His age isn't ideal. However, I'm sure we all know of folks older than Bernie whose minds are still sharp as a tack. From what I've seen/heard from him, his age isn't really a detriment at this point.

I understand it being looked at as a negative as the mind can go relatively quickly, but if he's mentally and physically able to do the job (we've had presidents in the past who were more infirm than Bernie), then why shouldn't he get a fair shake at it?

Bottom line, I have no real issue with it, just the perceived possible issue of him deteriorating quickly once in office. But that may not happen, so why worry?

I have liked some of Bernie's ideas in the past, but I will never again vote for a Democrat for president because of uncivil actions and policies that do not back the best interests of the citizens of this country by the Democrats lately. This is our country, we have been given more rights than other countries give their citizens and have tried to initiate emissions standards and environmental policies over the years while other countries just blew them off. Then these other countries are trying to make us pay for their ignorance in the past and telling us we have to further tighten up as much as they are now finally doing. Our factories and power plants do need to do better, but they have been better than Europe for quite a while already. I see Europe trying to say we are evil for not bowing to them, they should have been tightening up emissions better as we were.

I won't vote for any Democratic candidate for president as long as I live, I don't care if they get God as their candidate.

originally posted by: rickymouse
I have liked some of Bernie's ideas in the past, but I will never again vote for a Democrat for president because of uncivil actions and policies that do not back the best interests of the citizens of this country by the Democrats lately. This is our country, we have been given more rights than other countries give their citizens and have tried to initiate emissions standards and environmental policies over the years while other countries just blew them off. Then these other countries are trying to make us pay for their ignorance in the past and telling us we have to further tighten up as much as they are now finally doing. Our factories and power plants do need to do better, but they have been better than Europe for quite a while already. I see Europe trying to say we are evil for not bowing to them, they should have been tightening up emissions better as we were.

I won't vote for any Democratic candidate for president as long as I live, I don't care if they get God as their candidate.

Not to derail the thread, but what you said is flat out wrong. The USA is the 2nd highest-polluting country in the world, by many different measures. Second only to China. So no, European factories are NOT worse than American factories in terms of pollution.

Even if you put the ENTIRE EU together as one "country", it still comes in 3rd in total pollution, less pollution than America.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.ucsusa.org...

It appears that you have been misled.

a reply to: narrator

Wrong. If you are going by total emissions, India is second to China, with the US a distant. 3rd.

If you go per capita, several countries are far worse.

You can't compare a nation of over 300 million to a country of 10 million. It's mot an apples to apples comparison.

Your links are for carbon dioxide only.

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: rickymouse
I have liked some of Bernie's ideas in the past, but I will never again vote for a Democrat for president because of uncivil actions and policies that do not back the best interests of the citizens of this country by the Democrats lately. This is our country, we have been given more rights than other countries give their citizens and have tried to initiate emissions standards and environmental policies over the years while other countries just blew them off. Then these other countries are trying to make us pay for their ignorance in the past and telling us we have to further tighten up as much as they are now finally doing. Our factories and power plants do need to do better, but they have been better than Europe for quite a while already. I see Europe trying to say we are evil for not bowing to them, they should have been tightening up emissions better as we were.

I won't vote for any Democratic candidate for president as long as I live, I don't care if they get God as their candidate.

Not to derail the thread, but what you said is flat out wrong. The USA is the 2nd highest-polluting country in the world, by many different measures. Second only to China. So no, European factories are NOT worse than American factories in terms of pollution.

Even if you put the ENTIRE EU together as one "country", it still comes in 3rd in total pollution, less pollution than America.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.ucsusa.org...

It appears that you have been misled.

Figure that utilizing amount per citizen. And go back fifteen years. Include the business interests in other countries attributed to the European country too, like their share of oil and gas or deforestation. Yes, Germany has made lots of improvements, but that all happened recently, the USA has been slowly improving all along.

Also, put the blame on unnecessary things like cruise ships in the United states, remember, European companies are involved in those corporations often here in America. Do we really need to act like sardines...no. Do Americans need to be flying oversees to see all the countries there, the CO2 liability for Americans traveling abroad goes to America yet Europe benefits from it. The people here are being conditioned to buy buy buy by the economic policies, they keep giving people credit as long as we keep buying something. Is that a fault of our citizens or a fault of our economic principles, what we buy is often coming from foreign countries so we get blamed for that polution under present standards used by Europe to share the blame. Yet, Europe does not absorb the environmental impact of our people being persuaded to go there and visit, that is all Americans faults.

I spent a while researching how these figures are derived a few years ago, I have time to do it since I can't work anymore so I do lots of research instead of watching TV and socializing. I spent the majority of my career as an extrovert talking and listening to others conversations. I am tired of that...but I learned a lot from the interactions too.

You can put lipstick on a pig and it will look better but it is still a pig.

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: rickymouse
I have liked some of Bernie's ideas in the past, but I will never again vote for a Democrat for president because of uncivil actions and policies that do not back the best interests of the citizens of this country by the Democrats lately. This is our country, we have been given more rights than other countries give their citizens and have tried to initiate emissions standards and environmental policies over the years while other countries just blew them off. Then these other countries are trying to make us pay for their ignorance in the past and telling us we have to further tighten up as much as they are now finally doing. Our factories and power plants do need to do better, but they have been better than Europe for quite a while already. I see Europe trying to say we are evil for not bowing to them, they should have been tightening up emissions better as we were.

I won't vote for any Democratic candidate for president as long as I live, I don't care if they get God as their candidate.

Not to derail the thread, but what you said is flat out wrong. The USA is the 2nd highest-polluting country in the world, by many different measures. Second only to China. So no, European factories are NOT worse than American factories in terms of pollution.

Even if you put the ENTIRE EU together as one "country", it still comes in 3rd in total pollution, less pollution than America.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.ucsusa.org...

It appears that you have been misled.

Figure that utilizing amount per citizen. And go back fifteen years. Include the business interests in other countries attributed to the European country too, like their share of oil and gas or deforestation. Yes, Germany has made lots of improvements, but that all happened recently, the USA has been slowly improving all along.

Also, put the blame on unnecessary things like cruise ships in the United states, remember, European companies are involved in those corporations often here in America. Do we really need to act like sardines...no. Do Americans need to be flying oversees to see all the countries there, the CO2 liability for Americans traveling abroad goes to America yet Europe benefits from it. The people here are being conditioned to buy buy buy by the economic policies, they keep giving people credit as long as we keep buying something. Is that a fault of our citizens or a fault of our economic principles, what we buy is often coming from foreign countries so we get blamed for that polution under present standards used by Europe to share the blame. Yet, Europe does not absorb the environmental impact of our people being persuaded to go there and visit, that is all Americans faults.

I spent a while researching how these figures are derived a few years ago, I have time to do it since I can't work anymore so I do lots of research instead of watching TV and socializing. I spent the majority of my career as an extrovert talking and listening to others conversations. I am tired of that...but I learned a lot from the interactions too.

You can put lipstick on a pig and it will look better but it is still a pig.

Does per citizen, or total, matter?

Serious question. I'm more concerned about total.

None of what you said refutes what I said.

originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: narrator

Wrong. If you are going by total emissions, India is second to China, with the US a distant. 3rd.

If you go per capita, several countries are far worse.

You can't compare a nation of over 300 million to a country of 10 million. It's mot an apples to apples comparison.

Your links are for carbon dioxide only.

Do you have links to that info you posted? I'd love to read up on it.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

That article is pretty hilarious.

Check out the date of the article. It was written weeks before she even started her first day in Congress.

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: narrator

Wrong. If you are going by total emissions, India is second to China, with the US a distant. 3rd.

If you go per capita, several countries are far worse.

You can't compare a nation of over 300 million to a country of 10 million. It's mot an apples to apples comparison.

Your links are for carbon dioxide only.

Do you have links to that info you posted? I'd love to read up on it.

Im at work now, and on a mobile, but if you check back later, I'll get it for you.

originally posted by: Edumakated
Bernie still has a lot of support, but I think his age is a huge problem.

The reality is that the Democrats really don't have a good bench of candidates who are likable. Maybe Tulsi Gabbard, but I don't think the DNC elites really support her and since she isn't independently wealthy, she has little chance of winning.

Biggest problem for Democrats? pushing the anti white bigotry. And further expanding progressive agenda.

originally posted by: AtlasHawk

originally posted by: Edumakated
Bernie still has a lot of support, but I think his age is a huge problem.

The reality is that the Democrats really don't have a good bench of candidates who are likable. Maybe Tulsi Gabbard, but I don't think the DNC elites really support her and since she isn't independently wealthy, she has little chance of winning.

Biggest problem for Democrats? pushing the anti white bigotry. And further expanding progressive agenda.

Bernie is an old, white Jew. If he wins the primary I think it's safe to say there is no anti white bigotry going on. At least not on the scale being reported.

And the expanding progressive agenda won't stop. I don't like it but it is a direct response to the expanding far right ideology we're seeing currently. The death of true conservatism, replaced by these new fake Republicans is what is pushing some lefties more and more left. The divide is greater than ever.

I'm sure it's all an accident.

a reply to: narrator

www.weforum.org...


I chose this one because it isn't one sided in the least, and it explains how it is not as simple as many may think.

If you do a search of "pollution statistics by country", you will find that the US is not the pollution king you have been lead to believe.

Happy research

a reply to: Mach2

It's definitely not as simple as many think it is, and that link shows that the US is better off than every other link I've read, which is interesting, but I have no reason to think your link isn't factual. Having read the link, a few of my takeaways:

1. America is on the top 10 list of worst CO2 polluters. That isn't good. Only one of the EU countries is in the top 10. So, no worse than the US.

2. 5 EU countries are on the list of "nations with the least deaths from air pollution", along with the US. Not too shabby.

3. 5 EU countries are on the list of "nations with the least air pollution", along with the US. Also, not too shabby.

In the link you provided, I don't see any evidence that the EU is worse with pollution that the US is, so this still doesn't refute what I said to rickymouse.

I got the impression that he was just feels that America is better than Europe and wants to say as much any chance he gets, without evidence to back up that claim. This evidence still doesn't support his argument. Is it a close race for who is doing better? Sure, I'll agree with that. Is the EU worse, as he claimed? No.

Furthermore, CO2 has to be taken into consideration, from a scientific standpoint. America is in the top 10 worst in the world. That isn't great, and we need to do a better job.

Comparing countries with lower populations to higher populations isn't fair, you're right. So, following that argument, it isn't fair to put China and India high on the list, because they have SO many more people, right?
Also, notice that in CO2, neither China nor India is in the top 10 worst, but the US is. That isn't a good look.

I really wish that your link compared the EU as a whole, as well as separate countries, like my links did with CO2. I truly wonder what it would look like, and I would put my money on the EU having a slight edge in the "we have less pollution" department than the US, despite having about 200 million more people.

Does anyone know of a report that does that?

a reply to: Bluntone22

I will honor your attempt at debate sanders running for president on facts other than his policies/platform.
IMO refreshing if done that way.

Lets first start with some here claiming sanders would have totally beaten trump.
to those claiming that there is NO FACTUAL DATA to support that.
it sounds like the "hillory will win by 10 percent or more" polls .
I think it would have been a true contest and some very good debates.
but to claim a win is just politics and bad one at that.

His age IMO is not a real factor but his health (mental and physical)
I have seen people (like my grandfather) who was slowing down physically but his mind was sharp as a tack.
even seen some older people both physically and mentally sound.
I have seen young people mentally unstable (wont derail this with examples unless wanted to) at young age and would not be fit to run a lemonade stand much less president.
you have to judge it on a case by case basis
In sanders case (again leaving politics out of it) I am undecided.

now the REAL ISSUE that is not based on his agenda is what happened in the last primary and how he handled it.

Now here I must note I am NOT a sanders supporter to be honest with this.

He got legitimately SCREWED and ROBBED of a FAIR primary process by the democrats.
Hillory won pure and simple because she was the "chosen one" and sealed by the "super delegate" system.

Sanders was never given a fair shot and stood a chance (not guaranteed to be intellectually honest) of being the nominee.
If they had the same system as the republicans given that trump despite all the hatred from the establishment and press WON though the VOTES OF THE PEOPLE sanders stood a good chance of winning.

where the true issue that will come back to bite him by showing blatant hypocrisy is after he was clearly robbed he threw his whole support and praise to the one that screwed him... hillory and the establishment democrats.

He didnt stand by his claimed principles and do a respectfull thing like ron paul did.
he didnt want trump to get nominated but when questioned if he would support him in a VERY RESPECTFUL WAY said he could not support him.

he was respectful AND stood by his principles.

Sanders did not of that and his supporters (by majority) would not support hillory.


If he runs again this fact will haunt him if not in the primaries but definitely if he gets the nomination.

IMO this alone should convince him not to run.

baggage like this (despite the main stream media spin) is crippling because ITS FACT.

Scrounger

a reply to: Bluntone22

The direction should be to the left and NOT Republican-Lite.