American Politics

[xi0]

In this interview today he says
"“What’s scary about Trump is that you have a lot of people out there who feel certain ways,” Sanders said. “Then you see somebody running for president saying these things and you go, ‘Oh, Trump said that. I can say that! I can beat up the Muslim in my community. I can be a racist on a college campus now because that’s the climate.’ So, you’re right. It is scary.”"

When racism existed on campus before Trump. His statement implies there isnt any on campus today.

I think you really misunderstood his point. He said the climate is more conducive to racism now, not that it didn't exist prior to that. But the same could be said about the environment period, not just the one on college campuses.

And I honestly think that's an empty complaint, as it's usually the case that campuses are more welcoming to leftist ideas rather than conservative ones. Obviously it depends on the school though, I guess.

I barely see sanders on tv news or even commenting on things ever. Meanwhile Cruz, Bush, Rubio, Trump are constantly and consistently on the news speaking at rallies or interviewing.

You're looking in the wrong place then honestly. I think the media has been a bit guilty of treating the Dem race as being already predetermined, but I guess it's hard for people when they just don't get the same kind of daily coverage that the Republican side does. Can't really blame them too hard when it comes to sensationalism, as it's all about what Trump and co said this time. It also doesn't help that their debates are much longer due to having to included all the candidates as well.

Bush had some fantastic military generals and intelligence people who kept America safe and running well. His foundation and investments enabled results to be generated for many years to come.

Regardless of whether that's actually the case or not...what does that have to do with the situation in Syria and Iraq? We had no people installed in Syria, and the army the Bush administration spent who knows how much money building and outfitting only ended up being completely unsuited for battle, deserters, or even worse, defectors.

Ok, that is one case, but what about the literaly tens of millions of people that would loose or get reduced access to health care? That seems like a much bigger issue than a co-op failing. And even then, one failing shouldn't signal the end of obamacare anyways, at least as far as I can tell.

No dude, you don't understand...it needs to be REPEALED. Who cares about what sort of good it's done so far? You're obviously not reading from the right sources....you know, the ones bought and paid for by the insurance industry!!11111!!!!!

 

[kkck]

No dude, you don't understand...it needs to be REPEALED. Who cares about what sort of good it's done so far? You're obviously not reading from the right sources....you know, the ones bought and paid for by the insurance industry!!11111!!!!!

Lol. That is too complicated though. It'd be easier to just buy guns and shoot poor people. That way you don't even need to repeal obamacare, it becomes irrelevant.

On a more serious note, whats the kayser foundation? I keep reading about it and it provides information about a number of things but I have no context on whether this is a good source or not. Even though its quoted quite often....

 

[M3J]

Good? I dont know about weed. Id rather it be illegal like meth and etc. Weed is still illegal in my state (virginia)

Also ACA is imploding and its yet to be seen if its truly good. Isbt sanders wanting to reform healthcare.

There is no good coming from keeping weed illegal, and all it does is put people in jail. What harm has been done from weed? Might as well ban alcohol again as if I recall, it's done more damage to lives than weed. Makin drugs illegal is one of the stupidest things the country could have done, and it obviously didn't learn its lesson when the alcohol prohibition was in effect. What did that do? People were still drinking, but it also gave rise to gangsters because they could make alcohol and sell it for higher price. Same argument for gun can apply here - all banning drugs does is put money in the hands of criminals.

Well, one problem with ACA is its opponents (democrats and republicans) doing whatever they can to fuck it up. None of them care what happens to American citizens, so long as they continue to make money and benefit somehow.

 

[SharkBait]

There is no good coming from keeping weed illegal, and all it does is put people in jail. What harm has been done from weed? Might as well ban alcohol again as if I recall, it's done more damage to lives than weed. Makin drugs illegal is one of the stupidest things the country could have done, and it obviously didn't learn its lesson when the alcohol prohibition was in effect. What did that do? People were still drinking, but it also gave rise to gangsters because they could make alcohol and sell it for higher price. Same argument for gun can apply here - all banning drugs does is put money in the hands of criminals. .

I hate walking behind people smoking it and smelling it, it is nasty and rude to me, so it needs to be illegal. I dont like it. Just like I dont like people drinking, and smoking. And all of these things are not good for the body.

-

Also sounds like the Democrats are cannobolizing themselves and Sanders campaign performing grave misdeeds. I knew no democrat could be trusted.

The company said that as soon as the bug was detected, they "immediately mobilized" its engineers to investigate the source of the problem. The vendor later determined that "only one campaign" took actions that could have led to the storage of confidential data it did not have permission to access.

An audit, conducted by NGP VAN and first obtained by Bloomberg Politics, revealed that four accounts connected to the Sanders team conducted searches on lists of supporters in 10 early voting states, including Iowa and New Hampshire. A DNC official confirmed the results of the audit to CBS News.

According to Bloomberg, though the Sanders campaign claimed it had not retained a record of the Clinton data, the audit shows that during the 40 minutes the database was vulnerable, Sanders' team created at least 24 lists and saved them to their personal folders.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/reports-bernie-sanders-campaign-accessed-hillary-clinton-voter-data/

 

[kkck]

I hate walking behind people smoking it and smelling it, it is nasty and rude to me, so it needs to be illegal. I dont like it. Just like I dont like people drinking, and smoking. And all of these things are not good for the body.

-

Also sounds like the Democrats are cannobolizing themselves and Sanders campaign performing grave misdeeds. I knew no democrat could be trusted.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/reports-bernie-sanders-campaign-accessed-hillary-clinton-voter-data/

So.. because you don't like it other people can't do it? Most places are already moving towards most of this stuff not being allowed in public places anyways which is a fairly good policy however there is literally no reason for people to not be allowed to do this in private or places where it is otherwise allowed. Making it illegal is merely imposing morals onto others which might or not share them. Overall, it's already more than proven that making these stuff illegal not only is ineffective, it makes it worst, it is the direct creator of the violence related to those things. How much violence did prohibition bring about? How many lives have been pointlessly lost on the war on drugs? It's literally cheaper to simply make everything legal and then give away free treatment for addiction than to wage the war. I am not quite sure if you are trolling considering the bold part though. With that logic absolutely everything in the world should be illegal because someone out there does not like it.

Also worth noting, why are you blaming the whole of democrats on that? Seriously?

 

[SharkBait]

So.. because you don't like it other people can't do it? Most places are already moving towards most of this stuff not being allowed in public places anyways which is a fairly good policy however there is literally no reason for people to not be allowed to do this in private or places where it is otherwise allowed. Making it illegal is merely imposing morals onto others which might or not share them. Overall, it's already more than proven that making these stuff illegal not only is ineffective, it makes it worst, it is the direct creator of the violence related to those things. How much violence did prohibition bring about? How many lives have been pointlessly lost on the war on drugs? It's literally cheaper to simply make everything legal and then give away free treatment for addiction than to wage the war. I am not quite sure if you are trolling considering the bold part though. With that logic absolutely everything in the world should be illegal because someone out there does not like it.

Also worth noting, why are you blaming the whole of democrats on that? Seriously?

I dont understand your statement, so we should make any illegal drug legal? We should make free reign access to highly addictive prescription drugs that people get some type of enjoyment over that are deadly, legal? Everything should be sold over the counter with no age restriction whatsoever? Should methamphetamine and others be legal even though their dangerous to create and very lethal? Your statement also implies we should make drinking under the influence of alcohol legal no blood alcohol content restrictions, since apparently having limits is making drunk driving worst than it is and the cause of much violence.

 

[xi0]

This is about legalizing marijuana, it has nothing to do with tobacco. I doubt people would be allowed to walk around smoking it, as people aren't allowed to carry alcohol around either.

 

[kkck]

I dont understand your statement, so we should make any illegal drug legal? We should make free reign access to highly addictive prescription drugs that people get some type of enjoyment over that are deadly, legal? Everything should be sold over the counter with no age restriction whatsoever? Should methamphetamine and others be legal even though their dangerous to create and very lethal? Your statement also implies we should make drinking under the influence of alcohol legal no blood alcohol content restrictions, since apparently having limits is making drunk driving worst than it is and the cause of much violence.

Maybe not all drugs but in general, yes, we should make them legal. Thought I obviously don't have a list of drugs which should and shouldn't be made legal (that would be a tad arbitrary. It's not even a moral issue, the simple fact is that what is being done now simply does not work. There is no amount of illegal you can make drugs, alcohol and whatever else to make people stop getting high. Making harsher laws does not scare people straight, it does not deter people from wanting this stuff. Even with prescription drugs, all you get from restricting them is a black market which is literally impossible to control. It'd be fantastic if the war on drugs could be won, if it had a positive effect. But there is no evidence that it does and if anything every single bit of evidence points to it being the direct cause of the drug problems around. Since the whole thing started, drugs have steadily gotten more profitable and its availability has increased. So if the war, making stuff illegal, is making drugs more profitable and has not made drugs less available... why do it? In turn there are several real world examples that making drugs legal and offering free rehabilitation for people who use them is cheaper and more effective and reduces violence. It's such an incredible scenario that countries where weed is legal don't even have people using it more than before. Basically the worst fear of it, that more and more people would just get high and result in greater use, is not a thing.

As for the bold part, that is asinine and I have in no form or context suggested such a thing. The war on drugs being ineffective and making things worst is not even my opinion, it's a fact. And by all means, don't believe me, see for yourself. Thanks to google you are literally clicks away from all the available information regarding this there is.

 

[M3J]

I hate walking behind people smoking it and smelling it, it is nasty and rude to me, so it needs to be illegal. I dont like it. Just like I dont like people drinking, and smoking. And all of these things are not good for the body.

-

Also sounds like the Democrats are cannobolizing themselves and Sanders campaign performing grave misdeeds. I knew no democrat could be trusted.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/reports-bernie-sanders-campaign-accessed-hillary-clinton-voter-data/

So do I, and I wouldn't bat an eye if smoking of any kind was banned. However, there's no point to banning mild drugs because all it does is put money into the hands of bad guys. If you're concerned about not good for the body (red wine apparently is though), then you should support banning soda, fast food, candy, and other shit.

I find that ironic given how much bullshit and wrong information the GOP has given out. They've lied and were deceitful about so many things, yet people are all up in arms about Sanders accessing Clinton's data? No outrage over the republicans allowing Center for Medical Process to edit videos and deceit people into thinking Planned Parenthood were trying to make profits? No calling bullshit over the republicans accusing US vettin process of performing badly or potentially performing badly despite the evidence that US is extremely stringent and thorough when vetting refugees? No pointing out the irony in saying the US needs to do something about Muslims/terrorists when more Americans have died from handguns than they have from terrorists?

I was gonna point out Jeb lying about how George Jr. protected America, especially when there are claims that he knew about 9/11 and let it happen anyway, but I remembered you somehow think George made the right calls. But yeah, let's focus on one thing Sanders has done or blame democratic candidates for infighting when republicans have done the same (Trump and Bush?)!

 

[kkck]

So do I, and I wouldn't bat an eye if smoking of any kind was banned. However, there's no point to banning mild drugs because all it does is put money into the hands of bad guys. If you're concerned about not good for the body (red wine apparently is though), then you should support banning soda, fast food, candy, and other shit.

I find that ironic given how much bullshit and wrong information the GOP has given out. They've lied and were deceitful about so many things, yet people are all up in arms about Sanders accessing Clinton's data? No outrage over the republicans allowing Center for Medical Process to edit videos and deceit people into thinking Planned Parenthood were trying to make profits? No calling bullshit over the republicans accusing US vettin process of performing badly or potentially performing badly despite the evidence that US is extremely stringent and thorough when vetting refugees? No pointing out the irony in saying the US needs to do something about Muslims/terrorists when more Americans have died from handguns than they have from terrorists?

I was gonna point out Jeb lying about how George Jr. protected America, especially when there are claims that he knew about 9/11 and let it happen anyway, but I remembered you somehow think George made the right calls. But yeah, let's focus on one thing Sanders has done or blame democratic candidates for infighting when republicans have done the same (Trump and Bush?)!

Well, banning tobacco would probably have the same effect as banning alcohol or drugs. Within months (that's too optimistic, it'd be from the second supply becomes limited) you'd have an insanely profitable and increasingly violent black market. I like what australia tried to do a while back regarding tobaco though. They basically made marketing for those products illegal. As in, no commercials, no billboards, no big brand names. However they were still every bit as available as before. Except that the boxes were basically white. I don't remember if they were allowed only to have their names in bland letters or not even that. Unfortunately the tobacco industry sued and ended that new regulation ended up being removed. It's a shame, we won't know how this idea would work until someone else tests it. If it works it could even work as a benchmark to what should be done with alcohol and other drugs. Basically, widely available but by no means widely marketed.

 

[kannazuki]

Every network is supposedly bad to someone in the Republican field since there is always complaints about every network that holds one of these debates.

I'd be really nervous about these guys not getting called out for this btw you know. No question most of the media has been getting lazy and sloppy, but it's still important that they ask questions politicians don't want to hear. Sometimes they actually do hold powerful people's feet to the fire like they're supposed to (instead of beating dead horses as usual). You don't want an opaque gov't like the Conservative one we finally just booted out in Canada, that blocks and ignores the media, guts the census so it becomes statistically pointless (meaning gov't, educational/scientific research, and private institutions end up with inaccurate public data to go on), puts gag orders on diplomats and gov't scientists, closes libraries housing important historical records and throws their contents into landfills without even backing it up, fights court battles to screw over veterans, indigenous peoples, , delays or blocks access to information, etc., etc. Our Conservative party has become a lot like your Republican party since the early 2000s, so consider it a cautionary tale. They massively messed things up here and the new gov't (which itself is far from perfect by any means but still far better) is going to have to sift through a lot of damage t fix.

Anyway if your politicians keep complaining about the media consistently like this, it's a very very bad sign. That's exactly how our last gov't and the prime minister that micromanaged it were behaving at the start of their tenure. If the media weren't sycophantic to them at all times, the Conservatives acted like total victims and campaigned on the media being massively biased against them, while conveniently using that excuse to avoid answering questions on even the most trivial of issues for years. When media tried to get access to information they were routinely blocked from getting it. Even the government's own cabinet ministers (i.e. the PM's inner circle) weren't allowed to talk, and the PM himself generally refused to answer to anybody like a total dictator. :/

Lol. That is too complicated though. It'd be easier to just buy guns and shoot poor people. That way you don't even need to repeal obamacare, it becomes irrelevant.

That would almost be too merciful for them. The Republican authoritarian MO seems to be that you have not a right to (a dignified) life, but a duty to stay alive, no matter how difficult or unbearable it is to do so. like batteries in the Matrix (except instead of energy it's economic activity they're squeezing out of everyone - including the ill and the poor).

I vaguely remember hearing of a bright future for transgenic (i.e. genetically modified) tobacco in medical research for producing things like collagen and hormones. Maybe cigarette manufacturers can go (are going?) down that road instead, since demand has steadily been dropping for their products (at least in North America).

 

[xi0]

Anyway if your politicians keep complaining about the media consistently like this, it's a very very bad sign. That's exactly how our last gov't and the prime minister that micromanaged it were behaving at the start of their tenure. If the media weren't sycophantic to them at all times, the Conservatives acted like total victims and campaigned on the media being massively biased against them, while conveniently using that excuse to avoid answering questions on even the most trivial of issues for years. When media tried to get access to information they were routinely blocked from getting it. Even the government's own cabinet ministers (i.e. the PM's inner circle) weren't allowed to talk, and the PM himself generally refused to answer to anybody like a total dictator. :/

Nah, it's nothing new honestly. It's always people on the right complaining about the "liberal" media. But it plays right into the masses since it's something they've been parroting for a long time now, and it's why Fox News is popular.

 

[kannazuki]

Right, it's not new for conservatives in general to complain about media (including in Canada obviously), but the lengths our last government took it to were indeed new, and your candidates are sounding exactly the same. They even use exactly the same phrases during the debates. Prime Minister Harper's favourite phrase during election debates (or on the exceedingly rare occasion he actually deigned to take a media question ) was some variation on "I reject the premise of the question." I keep hearing those exact same words out of Republicans' mouths and it gives me the creeps. It's like Ted Cruz, Stephen Harper, and others must have studied debate together or something.

 

[SharkBait]

So do I, and I wouldn't bat an eye if smoking of any kind was banned. However, there's no point to banning mild drugs because all it does is put money into the hands of bad guys. If you're concerned about not good for the body (red wine apparently is though), then you should support banning soda, fast food, candy, and other shit.

I find that ironic given how much bullshit and wrong information the GOP has given out. They've lied and were deceitful about so many things, yet people are all up in arms about Sanders accessing Clinton's data? No outrage over the republicans allowing Center for Medical Process to edit videos and deceit people into thinking Planned Parenthood were trying to make profits? No calling bullshit over the republicans accusing US vettin process of performing badly or potentially performing badly despite the evidence that US is extremely stringent and thorough when vetting refugees? No pointing out the irony in saying the US needs to do something about Muslims/terrorists when more Americans have died from handguns than they have from terrorists?

I was gonna point out Jeb lying about how George Jr. protected America, especially when there are claims that he knew about 9/11 and let it happen anyway, but I remembered you somehow think George made the right calls. But yeah, let's focus on one thing Sanders has done or blame democratic candidates for infighting when republicans have done the same (Trump and Bush?)!

But they acknowledged they were doing wrong why else did the planned parenthood issue numerous apologies. All truths are brought to light as justice prevails. And its not like democrats are heartless and felt nothing from those videos or failed to demand an apology.

Also MR. Obama has gotten on tv (daytime tv on the major networks) like twice to reassure America about terrorists and he will do all he can to looking into the process of accepting immigrants and better the vetting process, so Im confused at your last statement, its not like its only one political party that is fretting over American security.

And Sanders is different he deliberately cannobolized Hilary Clinton, cheating even. Apparently his socialist views trump those of common courtesy, fairness, and privacy rights of even his own party. Future communist in the making? Ive not seen Trump and Bush do anything physical to each others voter database.

 

[kkck]

I'd be really nervous about these guys not getting called out for this btw you know. No question most of the media has been getting lazy and sloppy, but it's still important that they ask questions politicians don't want to hear. Sometimes they actually do hold powerful people's feet to the fire like they're supposed to (instead of beating dead horses as usual). You don't want an opaque gov't like the Conservative one we finally just booted out in Canada, that blocks and ignores the media, guts the census so it becomes statistically pointless (meaning gov't, educational/scientific research, and private institutions end up with inaccurate public data to go on), puts gag orders on diplomats and gov't scientists, closes libraries housing important historical records and throws their contents into landfills without even backing it up, fights court battles to screw over veterans, indigenous peoples, , delays or blocks access to information, etc., etc. Our Conservative party has become a lot like your Republican party since the early 2000s, so consider it a cautionary tale. They massively messed things up here and the new gov't (which itself is far from perfect by any means but still far better) is going to have to sift through a lot of damage t fix.

Anyway if your politicians keep complaining about the media consistently like this, it's a very very bad sign. That's exactly how our last gov't and the prime minister that micromanaged it were behaving at the start of their tenure. If the media weren't sycophantic to them at all times, the Conservatives acted like total victims and campaigned on the media being massively biased against them, while conveniently using that excuse to avoid answering questions on even the most trivial of issues for years. When media tried to get access to information they were routinely blocked from getting it. Even the government's own cabinet ministers (i.e. the PM's inner circle) weren't allowed to talk, and the PM himself generally refused to answer to anybody like a total dictator. :/


That would almost be too merciful for them. The Republican authoritarian MO seems to be that you have not a right to (a dignified) life, but a duty to stay alive, no matter how difficult or unbearable it is to do so. like batteries in the Matrix (except instead of energy it's economic activity they're squeezing out of everyone - including the ill and the poor).

I vaguely remember hearing of a bright future for transgenic (i.e. genetically modified) tobacco in medical research for producing things like collagen and hormones. Maybe cigarette manufacturers can go (are going?) down that road instead, since demand has steadily been dropping for their products (at least in North America).

Every politician will eventually complain about the media being against then. Everyone agrees with the whole "public figures are subjected to higher scrutiny" until it happens to them. Even trump complained about that even though he is benefiting from the media attention immensely.

Ahh, I thought about taking the joke that far... but suggesting that a mass shootout/genocide would be seen as too humane by republicans seemed like a tad much. My point wasn't so much about republican forcing people to live through stuff, if anything my point was the opposite. As in, a mass shootout against poor people being comparable to taking away to taking away the health care which a lot of people got thanks to obamacare.

 

[M3J]

Well, banning tobacco would probably have the same effect as banning alcohol or drugs. Within months (that's too optimistic, it'd be from the second supply becomes limited) you'd have an insanely profitable and increasingly violent black market. I like what australia tried to do a while back regarding tobaco though. They basically made marketing for those products illegal. As in, no commercials, no billboards, no big brand names. However they were still every bit as available as before. Except that the boxes were basically white. I don't remember if they were allowed only to have their names in bland letters or not even that. Unfortunately the tobacco industry sued and ended that new regulation ended up being removed. It's a shame, we won't know how this idea would work until someone else tests it. If it works it could even work as a benchmark to what should be done with alcohol and other drugs. Basically, widely available but by no means widely marketed.

Not marketing won't help if it's still visible in stores. At Wawa cigarettes are right behind one area of a cash wrap (area inside the register counter) and highly visible. Most convenience stores have visible cigarettes, so if the government was to adopt that idea, they'd have to be thorough. No visibility at all as that's a form of marketing. It might reduce underage teens from smoking, but given the amount of adults who smoke, I doubt it.

But they acknowledged they were doing wrong why else did the planned parenthood issue numerous apologies. All truths are brought to light as justice prevails. And its not like democrats are heartless and felt nothing from those videos or failed to demand an apology.

If they were doin wrong, then why did Planned Parenthood have to issue apologies? It was the republicans and and Center for Medical Progress editing videos and lying, they're the ones who need to apologize. I also haven't seen republicans issue apology, just the person involved with doctoring the videos. But that honestly sums up the current republican candidates in a nutshell - deceitful liars.

If justice prevailed, then there wouldn't be defunding debate up for Planned Parenthood, and people wouldn't be attacking the places in the name of fetuses. I bet a lot of these "righteous warriors" are happy to abandon these fetuses once they're born and let them starve to death.

Also MR. Obama has gotten on tv (daytime tv on the major networks) like twice to reassure America about terrorists and he will do all he can to looking into the process of accepting immigrants and better the vetting process, so Im confused at your last statement, its not like its only one political party that is fretting over American security.

And Sanders is different he deliberately cannobolized Hilary Clinton, cheating even. Apparently his socialist views trump those of common courtesy, fairness, and privacy rights of even his own party. Future communist in the making? Ive not seen Trump and Bush do anything physical to each others voter database.

lol fox news. All republicans do is attack and criticize everything Obama does, and we even had few republicans be against Net Neutrality and claim it's the Obamacare of the internet. That's great and all, but it doesn't prove your point, if you have any. Has Obama said that the government isn't doing a good job of betting refugees? Did he say the government will get lax and let terrorists through? If he has, then boo on him. But as far as I know, he hasn't, it was the republicans who lied about that and misled people.

Republican candidates do that all the time to each other. At least Bernie apologized and if I recall, said he didn't know about that (not that I completely believe him) and said he'd fire anyone who had a hand in that.

Trump and Bush don't need to get physical, verbal matters as well. And the ridiculous things Trump says about Hillary, as much as I dislike her.


From what I gather, you're completely okay with republicans lying, misleading people, and attacking each other, but if the democrats do it they're horrible.

 

[SharkBait]

Im not okay with candidates doing that. Ive yet to find Rubio have issues thatd make me not trust him, meanwhile trump, cruz, and those in the bottom, bleagh.

 

[xi0]

Im not okay with candidates doing that. Ive yet to find Rubio have issues thatd make me not trust him, meanwhile trump, cruz, and those in the bottom, bleagh.

Well, not sure if you ever addressed it....but what do you have to say about Rubio's financial troubles? How can someone like that preach on balancing the budget when he is woefully irresponsible with his own.

 

[kkck]

I never heard of his financial problems until I read your post. According to the internet rubio has "buy lottery tickets" levels of financial savvy lol. Well, considering some of the stuff he seems to have done that would actually be an improvement. Of course, with his financial situation being as poor as suggested he could make the point that he understands the struggles of the lower class in a way his financially savvy democrat opponents never could...

 

[SharkBait]

Well, not sure if you ever addressed it....but what do you have to say about Rubio's financial troubles? How can someone like that preach on balancing the budget when he is woefully irresponsible with his own.

I think it makes him stronger than other candidates who may have never experienced financial troubes. I imagine most American's have and thats why its so easily overlooked and accepted by we supporters. Can anyone really say they can have the same sort of financial experiences as Hilary Clinton or Trump?