now you figure out how many us soldiers set foot on the ground in the bosnia war and how many people died in iraq

most of those objections are pretty good and are positive to me besides discrimination laws

the iraq war was justified at da time

Edited 5/14/2016 23:54:43

However, when it boils in relativity, Bernie Sanders is probably the best. He does everything horrible that the other two do, but he's for bulk legalisation of almost all drugs, for toning down border patrol, for stopping the war on Mashriq, things that no other mainstream candidate (thus far) supports. The things that he does uniquely support that are bad, they don't really matter. Like (actively) taking out references to God. Waste of money. Or for nationalising more land into wasteful national parks.

@pulsey

Strange world you live in.
The risk takers are the poorest and the middle class not the super rich. The poorest risk their health by working themselves to exhaustion covering 3 jobs to feed a family, still unable to pay for health insurance.
The middle class goes to university unsure if they can pay off their exorbitant students loans.
While the upper class owns all the assets and generates revenue and profits by doing nothing and dodging taxes. Having a parking lot in manhatten is really risky business, people should be reward for it.

The only reason they dont agree, is simply because they dont understand it. They are misinformed by a multibillion dollar media industry that has only one goal, to conceal the injustice of the current system and justify the redistribution of wealth from the hard working (population) to the super rich.

Edited 5/15/2016 00:02:52

-not drafted = Sanders is anti militaristic, voted against Iraq

Sanders is not anti-militarist. He voted for bombing Beograd in the nineties, supported intervention in Somalia, supported the occupation of Afghanistan, supported more funds for the war in Iraq, and hasn't said he'd get rid of the draft.

-not bombed = less injust wars for corporate interests in foreign countries, means less funding for terror groups by the CIA, as well as less retaliation attempts, exactly Sanders policy

There is a chance that any glitch in nuclear systems could start a nuclear war, and Sanders isn't for less war, but even at that, the Federal Government has bombed American places before.

-not shot by police = Enhancing Civic rights, providing more social justice would lower the root cause for police violence

Police are folk with guns and Carte Blanche to do as they please, the Supreme Court essentially defined this a while back.

-goaled for a plant i dont understand, unless you mean getting criminalized for marihuana consumption = decriminalizing minor offenses is something Sanders stands for

Gaoled is a word Xpapy has wielded in place of jailed, as he sees jailed as a traitor word to the English tongue. Sanders is in support of tobacco criminalization.

-Have my house searched for no reason = enforcement of civic rights and liberties = Sanders

I doubt Sanders can work against decades of fascistic abuse of rights worked on by the government, and if he does, who's to say the next bloke won't be just as bad.

-not have my income taken by a third to a half over my entire lifetime = unless you belong to the very rich, Sanders again

Taxes, fines and other things amount to about a third of the income of most folk.

Edited 5/15/2016 00:07:59

The poorest risk their health by working themselves to exhaustion

Not at all forced to, and in truth illegal for everyone, thanks to "worker's rights" (which impede the rights of both workers and businessowners).

covering 3 jobs to feed a family

Maybe they shouldn't have a family? Obviously not a choice for some, but it's a pick for the great majority.

still unable to pay for health insurance.

No, there are special programmes in America specifically for giving health insurance for free for poorer folk.

The middle class goes to university unsure if they can pay off their exorbitant students loans.

Maybe they shouldn't be so mindnumbingly dumb to pay for something they don't need with money they don't have?

the upper class owns all the assets and generates revenue and profits by doing nothing and dodging taxes.

Right, everything is owned by small businesses, never wielded Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Nestlé, so on. Who are those businesses?

They are misinformed

That's all you need to say about 90% voters, especially D. Trump supporters.

the upper class are wise enough to save their money earned from their jobs and risk their money to invest in assets that give off income

the poor are reckless spenders who never save their money. ironic enough that only 1% of the poor own assets

its not dodging taxes if its within the tax code

lot of loopholes to play with

businesses provide products/services that people want and get money for it

Edited 5/15/2016 00:22:10

@smedley

You are a perfect example for such a misinformed person. You are a mere toy in the hands of neoliberal think tanks. The perfect victim. They use your fear to take away one liberty of you after the other and you still believe you gain more freedom by more fearmongering.

Being Anti militaristic is not the same as being a pacifist. I advise you to look up the difference.

In case you didnt notice, enhancing civic rights factually means to restrict the power of the executive.

Regarding the tobacco, where do read all that crap? He is not criminalizing anyone who smokes cigarettes, but he is trying to battle the corporations that earn billions by knowingly raising the risk of cardiovascular diseases and cancer of the general population, with a totally senseless product called cigarettes. They achieve their goals by creating a demand which wouldnt be there, just through exposition to seductive advertisments. And I am a smoker myself.

If you argue against taxes in general, you are basically an anarchist. Nothing bad with that, but in reality anarchy ends up in feudalism. Your stronger neighbor will eventually deprive you of your freedom, since he has the better guns. The only protection you have as a little man, or impotent member of society is through banding with others in a equal situation and enforcing laws that protect you from your aggresive and abusive neighbor. That costs money, so you pay a certain amount to guarantee your freedom. This is called state and taxes.

You are a perfect example for such a misinformed person. You are a mere toy in the hands of neoliberal think tanks. The perfect victim. They use your fear to take away one liberty of you after the other and you still believe you gain more freedom by more fearmongering.

Really? A full paragraph of insults with no factual basis? I'm sorry, but really? Next time you write a response , don't include a paragraph of Angry Koala level pettiness.

Being Anti militaristic is not the same as being a pacifist. I advise you to look up the difference.

I suggest you realize he is neither anti-militaristic nor pacifist. He is not for acting defensively, nor acting in no way violently.

but he is trying to battle the corporations that earn billions by knowingly raising the risk of cardiovascular diseases and cancer of the general population

The smokers are well aware of the risk and choose to continue, despite the few dozen ways not to smoke and kick addiction. If you're pro-crack selling without government attacks, how can you be anti-tobacco?

If you argue against taxes in general, you are basically an anarchist

Anarcho-Capitalism

Your stronger neighbor will eventually deprive you of your freedom, since he has the better guns

A single man cannot effectively subjugate his neighbors , and subjugating one would result in social and economic ostrazation. Not to mention a small militia rising to kill the man, and private security companies gunning to kill or aprehend the bloke.

That costs money, so you pay a certain amount to guarantee your freedom. This is called state and taxes.

First, the paying of money is voluntary. Not someone going house to house extorting money through force, not paying to go on expeditions thousands of miles away to blow up folk.

Secondly, your biggest trouble with anarchism is governments coming back? Ah good, you're on the road to logical and moral organization of society.

Anarchism is basically the idea of an eye for an eye, which leads to the world going blind. I'm sorry, but you know what? I actually like not getting shot every time I step out of the House.

The risk takers are the poorest and the middle class not the super rich. The poorest risk their health by working themselves to exhaustion covering 3 jobs to feed a family, still unable to pay for health insurance.

I'm glad you made the point, lets turn the table around - The person who covers 3 jobs to feed his family will obviously make more money than the person who only does 1 job.

And that was exactly my point. Why then, should the person who risks his health to work more hours and 3 jobs have to also pay for the welfare of the guy that only chooses to work 1?

Its not just a simple upper class vs middle class vs lower class. There are millions of people across the spectrum. The 'incentives' argument is also about rewarding normal people like these to go the extra mile to feed their families, not just your villanous Koch Brothers.

The middle class goes to university unsure if they can pay off their exorbitant students loans.

There needs to be an awareness about the opportunity to doing apprenticeships at trade schools rather than just getting random degrees on a whim at a university. If you are unable to pay off your student debt, its obvious your degree is not, from a practical point of view, beneficial to society. If thats the case, why should society pay for the degree?

While the upper class owns all the assets and generates revenue and profits by doing nothing and dodging taxes. Having a parking lot in manhatten is really risky business, people should be reward for it.

Yes, and it is these 'assets' that also provide millions of jobs and opportunities to pick up new skills, and the tax from these 'profits' that drive the economy! That being said, tax loopholes should, of course, be closed.

Edited 5/15/2016 00:50:37

So an eye for a eye how? You kill someone? You'll be run out of the town and die or survive in the woods. You don't deserve anything more, you killed someone, you're on your own, no buying anything. You wronged someone in a deal? You give back their stuff and have a penalty of folk knowing you're not trustworthy. Sounds fair enough. You smoked marijuana? Nothing happens to you.

I'm sorry, but you know what? I don't want to be apart of millions killed by governments across history.

Anarchism is the most pointless of all political philosophies. Even if you succeed in removing governments people will eventually band together into groups for mutual benefits and establish....guess what? Hierarchies, which turn into governments.

A stateless world really isn't possible. Government, or something resembling government, will always exist. It's human nature.

No. It's the only moral and logical ideology, since it advocates freedom for folk who don't hurt each other, let's folk get together if they're collectivist and do what they want as long as they don't hurt others , and the only ideology that can stop the countless innocent deaths from war.

You can't honestly believe that. Removing government won't stop war. People will still get violent. They'll still form groups to fight with other groups over resources or some other excuse. Anarchy is just survival of the fittest where the strong will supress the weak and there's no higher power to intervene. You know why government is so flawed and evil? Because people are flawed and evil. At-least government gives us a system of checks and balances.

I'll stick with the government that at-least provides some structure over lawless anarchy where my only chance of survival is hiding with a local militia group fighting off gang raids.

Edited 5/15/2016 01:05:12

MSGB, you do realize your view of the world perfectly aligns with a post-successful Marx world right? Let me tell you something, Marx's world view is A. outdated, B. based on the presumption that people are not going to grab at all power available to them, which is generally false, and C. That somehow this society won't devolve into pure survival of the fittest.

you view capitalist Anarchism as the way to achieve this world. How exactly do you plan on getting to this world?

smedley no one wants ur world get over it

They'll still form groups to fight with other groups over resources or some other excuse

Which will falter and prove to be a bad way to gain wealth, this happened in Somalia and it was recognized that the peaceful business folk had way more power than the few warlords left before 2006 (when the AU and Al-Qaeda invaded).

Anarchy is just survival of the fittest where the strong will supress the weak and there's no higher power to intervene

There is no evidence for this.

Because people are flawed and evil

Stop being a self-hating human. Guess why you're alive, have all your things, and have great living standards. Voluntary cooperation by humans, no thanks to the government you love, or your fictional god.

we all cooperate to have a government

minorities like u want go back to the dark ages and have warlords fighting each other

Most beasts live in some kind of anarchy. I'm sure they'd rather some kind of, if hypocritic, still order, then to have their life always in hazard.

Voluntary cooperation by humans, no thanks to the government you love, or your fictional god.

You are practically preaching Marxism. Anarchic communism is alright enough, but "one bad apple spoils the rest.", especially in capitalist-driven Darwinist socities that almost everyone lives in.

Edited 5/15/2016 01:23:23