i meant reverse in terms of coming from Arkansas to NY. she def is a carpetbagger in every sense of the word.
Isn't Bernie the same? He joined the Democratic party to run for President...opportunism and exploitation.
To be fair, it is a two party system. For anyone to have a realistic chance to become president, they have to run as one or the other. Would you rather he ran as an independent?
He could have. That would have been more principled. He probably would not have had an $800k a month campaign manager in that position though. I'm sure Nader didn't pay that much for his manager. Seems hypocritical that he's using all these small donations to pay that much.
He certainly could have, and helped put a republican in the White House. Just like Nader.
In order to be viable, he has to play the game to an extent. Otherwise he's just an old guy yelling in the background.
I think he's principled when it's convenient for him. He's a politician like all the others. He scapegoats. He hires corporate shills to run his campaigns. He complains about unfair treatment and bias. He's no different. And don't anyone get high and mighty about contributions. If Hillary released super PAC negative ads on him, he would have to go to the well also. And if he wins the nomination, I can guarantee he will have super PACs supporting him.
You are probably right. It's really the only way to get elected anymore. Despite all that, he still says he wants to get the money out of politics. Maybe he feels the end justifies the means? I don't know.
I think the premise you're discussion is somewhat ridiculous. This is not the first time I have seen people try to discredit good people because they aren't Jesus fucking Christ. It's just criticizing him for running for President in the most principled way he possibly can under the existing system. Finding fault in that just seems so rigid and illogical to me. I personally don't admire people who defy simple reality and logic while they're trying to accomplish a goal, so "accusing" Bernie of NOT doing that actually ends up being a compliment, lol.
Is this directed at me? I wasn't criticising him or trying to discredit him. I think he is the most principled candidate. I don't blame him for having to run a campaign in a less than ideal way. That is way the game is rigged. I was agreeing with the last part about the super pac.
I'm not trying to discredit him. I think he is a fine man. But he's not a perfect man and more importantly, the slurs that are hurled at Hillary by Bernie Backers can be pointed right back at him. That's been my point every time someone posts something disparaging about Clinton. Like I've said 20x, let's talk policy.
i meant reverse in terms of coming from Arkansas to NY. she def is a carpetbagger in every sense of the word.
Isn't Bernie the same? He joined the Democratic party to run for President...opportunism and exploitation.
To be fair, it is a two party system. For anyone to have a realistic chance to become president, they have to run as one or the other. Would you rather he ran as an independent?
He could have. That would have been more principled. He probably would not have had an $800k a month campaign manager in that position though. I'm sure Nader didn't pay that much for his manager. Seems hypocritical that he's using all these small donations to pay that much.
He certainly could have, and helped put a republican in the White House. Just like Nader.
In order to be viable, he has to play the game to an extent. Otherwise he's just an old guy yelling in the background.
I think he's principled when it's convenient for him. He's a politician like all the others. He scapegoats. He hires corporate shills to run his campaigns. He complains about unfair treatment and bias. He's no different. And don't anyone get high and mighty about contributions. If Hillary released super PAC negative ads on him, he would have to go to the well also. And if he wins the nomination, I can guarantee he will have super PACs supporting him.
You are probably right. It's really the only way to get elected anymore. Despite all that, he still says he wants to get the money out of politics. Maybe he feels the end justifies the means? I don't know.
Hillary is against CU as well. Here is a quote from her in CNN "That starts with reversing Citizens United. And that's where my comprehensive plan to restore common sense to campaign finance begins. As president, I'll appoint Supreme Court justices who recognize that Citizens United is bad for America. And if necessary, I'll fight for a constitutional amendment that overturns it." http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/opinions/hillary-clinton-citizens-united-more-democracy/
Downright laughable.
And if you think any of us will sway because of Devine? Pfft. I will contribute more based on that.
We will not stop supporting Bernie. You can attack us, his campaign, anyone you want, scream about math, call us whatever you want.
Still supporting Bernie.
For supposed Hillary fan, you sure are afraid of voters.
I could give a shit about how much Ted Devine makes. I was simply pointing out the continued Hillary Derangement Syndrome and outright hypocrisy you practice.
I have nothing to discuss with a closet Hillary supporter who is immune to reality of the media, real voter suppression, and actual facts about Hillary.
I've been clear that I prefer Hillary. And your facts about Hillary include the murder of JFK jr. I'll be nice and continue to call it confirmation bias, rather than immaturity.
Education: Now this is an interesting one that I've tried to discuss several times. You say he wants to make education more affordable. AGREED! I'll have 3 kids in college over the next 10 years. However, his solution is to tax to make it free. WTF? Why aren't we addressing the causes of the ridiculous tuition rates? Why does Harvard charge 64k when it has a 37 billion dollar endowment? UVA has 7 billion and its a public school! Ohio State has 3 billion! Why should my tax rate jump up 15 points when the issues is the cost of tuition? Makes no friggin' sense. Cap the tuition on public school if you want. Make sure one of your answers isn't "Higher Taxes".
You keep asking this question and yet never a response. Let me try... he knows that his popularity is huge on campuses, including educators and administrators, and that increasing our taxes to pay for the outrageous costs doesn't kill the golden goose like attempting to actually reduce those costs would. What college administrator or professor wants to hear about caps or reduced funding? I'm pretty sure that answer is none.
Well I hope you are not correct, but you could be. More importantly, say that we do start using federal tax dollars to pay the cost of STATE universities (since there are no fed ones). What power will the federal government have to reign in those costs when they are administered by the states? Why won't the cost curve continue to spike up unabated, necessitating increasing taxes to support them?
For my Canadian friends like PJ Soul, maybe you have a solution. Are universities overseen by the provinces or federal gov't in Canada? What is the solution?
So let me get this straight... Bernie Sanders wants everything to be free socialist society. The "rich" people pay all the taxes and everyone gets to free load. Free college tuition so you can go to school and get degrees to further yourself, to get the better higher paying jobs, so you can get taxed at 90% after you start your great job???? Seriously?? The guy is just as nutty as Trump. He might not be labeled a biggot but he's still fucking nuts...
Is this a Trump quote?
It's not irrational. If you disagree, that's great. Say why. Hate to see another AMT thread go down the drain.
i meant reverse in terms of coming from Arkansas to NY. she def is a carpetbagger in every sense of the word.
Isn't Bernie the same? He joined the Democratic party to run for President...opportunism and exploitation.
To be fair, it is a two party system. For anyone to have a realistic chance to become president, they have to run as one or the other. Would you rather he ran as an independent?
He could have. That would have been more principled. He probably would not have had an $800k a month campaign manager in that position though. I'm sure Nader didn't pay that much for his manager. Seems hypocritical that he's using all these small donations to pay that much.
He certainly could have, and helped put a republican in the White House. Just like Nader.
In order to be viable, he has to play the game to an extent. Otherwise he's just an old guy yelling in the background.
I think he's principled when it's convenient for him. He's a politician like all the others. He scapegoats. He hires corporate shills to run his campaigns. He complains about unfair treatment and bias. He's no different. And don't anyone get high and mighty about contributions. If Hillary released super PAC negative ads on him, he would have to go to the well also. And if he wins the nomination, I can guarantee he will have super PACs supporting him.
You are probably right. It's really the only way to get elected anymore. Despite all that, he still says he wants to get the money out of politics. Maybe he feels the end justifies the means? I don't know.
Hillary is against CU as well. Here is a quote from her in CNN "That starts with reversing Citizens United. And that's where my comprehensive plan to restore common sense to campaign finance begins. As president, I'll appoint Supreme Court justices who recognize that Citizens United is bad for America. And if necessary, I'll fight for a constitutional amendment that overturns it." http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/opinions/hillary-clinton-citizens-united-more-democracy/
Downright laughable.
And if you think any of us will sway because of Devine? Pfft. I will contribute more based on that.
We will not stop supporting Bernie. You can attack us, his campaign, anyone you want, scream about math, call us whatever you want.
Still supporting Bernie.
For supposed Hillary fan, you sure are afraid of voters.
Mrussel hasn't done anything to indicate that he is a Clinton fan. (Edit: I guess I missed it lol) All he is trying to do is bring facts and logic to the discussion and apparently you can't handle that. I am with you on the Bernie support, and I do think the deck is stacked against him, but your demeanor on this forum is more akin to that of an irrational Trump supporter than a rational liberal.
Mrussel, your patience is admirable and your contributions here add much value and truth to the discussions you join. You are a true moderate, and by that I mean that you hold the facts of an issue dearer than your own opinions and feelings. As a true liberal, I admire that, but I can't keep my heart out of the issues as much as I'd like to.
i meant reverse in terms of coming from Arkansas to NY. she def is a carpetbagger in every sense of the word.
Isn't Bernie the same? He joined the Democratic party to run for President...opportunism and exploitation.
To be fair, it is a two party system. For anyone to have a realistic chance to become president, they have to run as one or the other. Would you rather he ran as an independent?
He could have. That would have been more principled. He probably would not have had an $800k a month campaign manager in that position though. I'm sure Nader didn't pay that much for his manager. Seems hypocritical that he's using all these small donations to pay that much.
He certainly could have, and helped put a republican in the White House. Just like Nader.
In order to be viable, he has to play the game to an extent. Otherwise he's just an old guy yelling in the background.
I think he's principled when it's convenient for him. He's a politician like all the others. He scapegoats. He hires corporate shills to run his campaigns. He complains about unfair treatment and bias. He's no different. And don't anyone get high and mighty about contributions. If Hillary released super PAC negative ads on him, he would have to go to the well also. And if he wins the nomination, I can guarantee he will have super PACs supporting him.
You are probably right. It's really the only way to get elected anymore. Despite all that, he still says he wants to get the money out of politics. Maybe he feels the end justifies the means? I don't know.
I think the premise you're discussion is somewhat ridiculous. This is not the first time I have seen people try to discredit good people because they aren't Jesus fucking Christ. It's just criticizing him for running for President in the most principled way he possibly can under the existing system. Finding fault in that just seems so rigid and illogical to me. I personally don't admire people who defy simple reality and logic while they're trying to accomplish a goal, so "accusing" Bernie of NOT doing that actually ends up being a compliment, lol.
i meant reverse in terms of coming from Arkansas to NY. she def is a carpetbagger in every sense of the word.
Isn't Bernie the same? He joined the Democratic party to run for President...opportunism and exploitation.
To be fair, it is a two party system. For anyone to have a realistic chance to become president, they have to run as one or the other. Would you rather he ran as an independent?
He could have. That would have been more principled. He probably would not have had an $800k a month campaign manager in that position though. I'm sure Nader didn't pay that much for his manager. Seems hypocritical that he's using all these small donations to pay that much.
He certainly could have, and helped put a republican in the White House. Just like Nader.
In order to be viable, he has to play the game to an extent. Otherwise he's just an old guy yelling in the background.
I think he's principled when it's convenient for him. He's a politician like all the others. He scapegoats. He hires corporate shills to run his campaigns. He complains about unfair treatment and bias. He's no different. And don't anyone get high and mighty about contributions. If Hillary released super PAC negative ads on him, he would have to go to the well also. And if he wins the nomination, I can guarantee he will have super PACs supporting him.
You are probably right. It's really the only way to get elected anymore. Despite all that, he still says he wants to get the money out of politics. Maybe he feels the end justifies the means? I don't know.
I think the premise you're discussion is somewhat ridiculous. This is not the first time I have seen people try to discredit good people because they aren't Jesus fucking Christ. It's just criticizing him for running for President in the most principled way he possibly can under the existing system. Finding fault in that just seems so rigid and illogical to me. I personally don't admire people who defy simple reality and logic while they're trying to accomplish a goal, so "accusing" Bernie of NOT doing that actually ends up being a compliment, lol.
Is this directed at me? I wasn't criticising him or trying to discredit him. I think he is the most principled candidate. I don't blame him for having to run a campaign in a less than ideal way. That is way the game is rigged. I was agreeing with the last part about the super pac.
No no, not directed at you. I'm just talking about the premise of him being a hypocrite simply because he has to work within an existing system in order to even have a campaign. Some people who are worried about him actually winning are trying to use this as an argument against him. This isn't the first time I have seen this suggested, and it irritates me.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
i meant reverse in terms of coming from Arkansas to NY. she def is a carpetbagger in every sense of the word.
Isn't Bernie the same? He joined the Democratic party to run for President...opportunism and exploitation.
To be fair, it is a two party system. For anyone to have a realistic chance to become president, they have to run as one or the other. Would you rather he ran as an independent?
He could have. That would have been more principled. He probably would not have had an $800k a month campaign manager in that position though. I'm sure Nader didn't pay that much for his manager. Seems hypocritical that he's using all these small donations to pay that much.
He certainly could have, and helped put a republican in the White House. Just like Nader.
In order to be viable, he has to play the game to an extent. Otherwise he's just an old guy yelling in the background.
I think he's principled when it's convenient for him. He's a politician like all the others. He scapegoats. He hires corporate shills to run his campaigns. He complains about unfair treatment and bias. He's no different. And don't anyone get high and mighty about contributions. If Hillary released super PAC negative ads on him, he would have to go to the well also. And if he wins the nomination, I can guarantee he will have super PACs supporting him.
You are probably right. It's really the only way to get elected anymore. Despite all that, he still says he wants to get the money out of politics. Maybe he feels the end justifies the means? I don't know.
I think the premise you're discussion is somewhat ridiculous. This is not the first time I have seen people try to discredit good people because they aren't Jesus fucking Christ. It's just criticizing him for running for President in the most principled way he possibly can under the existing system. Finding fault in that just seems so rigid and illogical to me. I personally don't admire people who defy simple reality and logic while they're trying to accomplish a goal, so "accusing" Bernie of NOT doing that actually ends up being a compliment, lol.
I can only guess who you're talking about here...
Please do, because I have no idea who you have in mind!
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
i meant reverse in terms of coming from Arkansas to NY. she def is a carpetbagger in every sense of the word.
Isn't Bernie the same? He joined the Democratic party to run for President...opportunism and exploitation.
To be fair, it is a two party system. For anyone to have a realistic chance to become president, they have to run as one or the other. Would you rather he ran as an independent?
He could have. That would have been more principled. He probably would not have had an $800k a month campaign manager in that position though. I'm sure Nader didn't pay that much for his manager. Seems hypocritical that he's using all these small donations to pay that much.
He certainly could have, and helped put a republican in the White House. Just like Nader.
In order to be viable, he has to play the game to an extent. Otherwise he's just an old guy yelling in the background.
I think he's principled when it's convenient for him. He's a politician like all the others. He scapegoats. He hires corporate shills to run his campaigns. He complains about unfair treatment and bias. He's no different. And don't anyone get high and mighty about contributions. If Hillary released super PAC negative ads on him, he would have to go to the well also. And if he wins the nomination, I can guarantee he will have super PACs supporting him.
You are probably right. It's really the only way to get elected anymore. Despite all that, he still says he wants to get the money out of politics. Maybe he feels the end justifies the means? I don't know.
Hillary is against CU as well. Here is a quote from her in CNN "That starts with reversing Citizens United. And that's where my comprehensive plan to restore common sense to campaign finance begins. As president, I'll appoint Supreme Court justices who recognize that Citizens United is bad for America. And if necessary, I'll fight for a constitutional amendment that overturns it." http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/opinions/hillary-clinton-citizens-united-more-democracy/
Downright laughable.
And if you think any of us will sway because of Devine? Pfft. I will contribute more based on that.
We will not stop supporting Bernie. You can attack us, his campaign, anyone you want, scream about math, call us whatever you want.
Still supporting Bernie.
For supposed Hillary fan, you sure are afraid of voters.
I could give a shit about how much Ted Devine makes. I was simply pointing out the continued Hillary Derangement Syndrome and outright hypocrisy you practice.
I have nothing to discuss with a closet Hillary supporter who is immune to reality of the media, real voter suppression, and actual facts about Hillary.
I've been clear that I prefer Hillary. And your facts about Hillary include the murder of JFK jr. I'll be nice and continue to call it confirmation bias, rather than immaturity.
I never said such a thing. I'd like to see Where you're getting this baloney.
Education: Now this is an interesting one that I've tried to discuss several times. You say he wants to make education more affordable. AGREED! I'll have 3 kids in college over the next 10 years. However, his solution is to tax to make it free. WTF? Why aren't we addressing the causes of the ridiculous tuition rates? Why does Harvard charge 64k when it has a 37 billion dollar endowment? UVA has 7 billion and its a public school! Ohio State has 3 billion! Why should my tax rate jump up 15 points when the issues is the cost of tuition? Makes no friggin' sense. Cap the tuition on public school if you want. Make sure one of your answers isn't "Higher Taxes".
You keep asking this question and yet never a response. Let me try... he knows that his popularity is huge on campuses, including educators and administrators, and that increasing our taxes to pay for the outrageous costs doesn't kill the golden goose like attempting to actually reduce those costs would. What college administrator or professor wants to hear about caps or reduced funding? I'm pretty sure that answer is none.
Well I hope you are not correct, but you could be. More importantly, say that we do start using federal tax dollars to pay the cost of STATE universities (since there are no fed ones). What power will the federal government have to reign in those costs when they are administered by the states? Why won't the cost curve continue to spike up unabated, necessitating increasing taxes to support them?
For my Canadian friends like PJ Soul, maybe you have a solution. Are universities overseen by the provinces or federal gov't in Canada? What is the solution?
I have heard Clinton say a few times that she claims she's going to make college more affordable. So let's see it: show us her policy.
European countries offer free University. It can be done.
So let me get this straight... Bernie Sanders wants everything to be free socialist society. The "rich" people pay all the taxes and everyone gets to free load. Free college tuition so you can go to school and get degrees to further yourself, to get the better higher paying jobs, so you can get taxed at 90% after you start your great job???? Seriously?? The guy is just as nutty as Trump. He might not be labeled a biggot but he's still fucking nuts...
Is this a Trump quote?
It's not irrational. If you disagree, that's great. Say why. Hate to see another AMT thread go down the drain.
i meant reverse in terms of coming from Arkansas to NY. she def is a carpetbagger in every sense of the word.
Isn't Bernie the same? He joined the Democratic party to run for President...opportunism and exploitation.
To be fair, it is a two party system. For anyone to have a realistic chance to become president, they have to run as one or the other. Would you rather he ran as an independent?
He could have. That would have been more principled. He probably would not have had an $800k a month campaign manager in that position though. I'm sure Nader didn't pay that much for his manager. Seems hypocritical that he's using all these small donations to pay that much.
He certainly could have, and helped put a republican in the White House. Just like Nader.
In order to be viable, he has to play the game to an extent. Otherwise he's just an old guy yelling in the background.
I think he's principled when it's convenient for him. He's a politician like all the others. He scapegoats. He hires corporate shills to run his campaigns. He complains about unfair treatment and bias. He's no different. And don't anyone get high and mighty about contributions. If Hillary released super PAC negative ads on him, he would have to go to the well also. And if he wins the nomination, I can guarantee he will have super PACs supporting him.
You are probably right. It's really the only way to get elected anymore. Despite all that, he still says he wants to get the money out of politics. Maybe he feels the end justifies the means? I don't know.
Hillary is against CU as well. Here is a quote from her in CNN "That starts with reversing Citizens United. And that's where my comprehensive plan to restore common sense to campaign finance begins. As president, I'll appoint Supreme Court justices who recognize that Citizens United is bad for America. And if necessary, I'll fight for a constitutional amendment that overturns it." http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/opinions/hillary-clinton-citizens-united-more-democracy/
Downright laughable.
And if you think any of us will sway because of Devine? Pfft. I will contribute more based on that.
We will not stop supporting Bernie. You can attack us, his campaign, anyone you want, scream about math, call us whatever you want.
Still supporting Bernie.
For supposed Hillary fan, you sure are afraid of voters.
Mrussel hasn't done anything to indicate that he is a Clinton fan. (Edit: I guess I missed it lol) All he is trying to do is bring facts and logic to the discussion and apparently you can't handle that. I am with you on the Bernie support, and I do think the deck is stacked against him, but your demeanor on this forum is more akin to that of an irrational Trump supporter than a rational liberal.
Mrussel, your patience is admirable and your contributions here add much value and truth to the discussions you join. You are a true moderate, and by that I mean that you hold the facts of an issue dearer than your own opinions and feelings. As a true liberal, I admire that, but I can't keep my heart out of the issues as much as I'd like to.
Apparently you missed the threads of him denying reality about the media, insisting polls and math are accurate, and downgrading voter suppression in Arizona and saying it never happened. OK
... And this quote from you yesterday? Yeah you're a Bernie fan.
So you are voting for Trump then, right? Sad as it is, that's the reality. You cast a vote for the Democratic nominee or the Republican nominee one way or the other, any other narrative is just a pipe dream
i meant reverse in terms of coming from Arkansas to NY. she def is a carpetbagger in every sense of the word.
Isn't Bernie the same? He joined the Democratic party to run for President...opportunism and exploitation.
To be fair, it is a two party system. For anyone to have a realistic chance to become president, they have to run as one or the other. Would you rather he ran as an independent?
He could have. That would have been more principled. He probably would not have had an $800k a month campaign manager in that position though. I'm sure Nader didn't pay that much for his manager. Seems hypocritical that he's using all these small donations to pay that much.
He certainly could have, and helped put a republican in the White House. Just like Nader.
In order to be viable, he has to play the game to an extent. Otherwise he's just an old guy yelling in the background.
I think he's principled when it's convenient for him. He's a politician like all the others. He scapegoats. He hires corporate shills to run his campaigns. He complains about unfair treatment and bias. He's no different. And don't anyone get high and mighty about contributions. If Hillary released super PAC negative ads on him, he would have to go to the well also. And if he wins the nomination, I can guarantee he will have super PACs supporting him.
You are probably right. It's really the only way to get elected anymore. Despite all that, he still says he wants to get the money out of politics. Maybe he feels the end justifies the means? I don't know.
Hillary is against CU as well. Here is a quote from her in CNN "That starts with reversing Citizens United. And that's where my comprehensive plan to restore common sense to campaign finance begins. As president, I'll appoint Supreme Court justices who recognize that Citizens United is bad for America. And if necessary, I'll fight for a constitutional amendment that overturns it." http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/opinions/hillary-clinton-citizens-united-more-democracy/
Downright laughable.
And if you think any of us will sway because of Devine? Pfft. I will contribute more based on that.
We will not stop supporting Bernie. You can attack us, his campaign, anyone you want, scream about math, call us whatever you want.
Still supporting Bernie.
For supposed Hillary fan, you sure are afraid of voters.
I could give a shit about how much Ted Devine makes. I was simply pointing out the continued Hillary Derangement Syndrome and outright hypocrisy you practice.
I have nothing to discuss with a closet Hillary supporter who is immune to reality of the media, real voter suppression, and actual facts about Hillary.
I've been clear that I prefer Hillary. And your facts about Hillary include the murder of JFK jr. I'll be nice and continue to call it confirmation bias, rather than immaturity.
I never said such a thing. I'd like to see Where you're getting this baloney.
So let me get this straight... Bernie Sanders wants everything to be free socialist society. The "rich" people pay all the taxes and everyone gets to free load. Free college tuition so you can go to school and get degrees to further yourself, to get the better higher paying jobs, so you can get taxed at 90% after you start your great job???? Seriously?? The guy is just as nutty as Trump. He might not be labeled a biggot but he's still fucking nuts...
Is this a Trump quote?
It's not irrational. If you disagree, that's great. Say why. Hate to see another AMT thread go down the drain.
i meant reverse in terms of coming from Arkansas to NY. she def is a carpetbagger in every sense of the word.
Isn't Bernie the same? He joined the Democratic party to run for President...opportunism and exploitation.
To be fair, it is a two party system. For anyone to have a realistic chance to become president, they have to run as one or the other. Would you rather he ran as an independent?
He could have. That would have been more principled. He probably would not have had an $800k a month campaign manager in that position though. I'm sure Nader didn't pay that much for his manager. Seems hypocritical that he's using all these small donations to pay that much.
He certainly could have, and helped put a republican in the White House. Just like Nader.
In order to be viable, he has to play the game to an extent. Otherwise he's just an old guy yelling in the background.
I think he's principled when it's convenient for him. He's a politician like all the others. He scapegoats. He hires corporate shills to run his campaigns. He complains about unfair treatment and bias. He's no different. And don't anyone get high and mighty about contributions. If Hillary released super PAC negative ads on him, he would have to go to the well also. And if he wins the nomination, I can guarantee he will have super PACs supporting him.
You are probably right. It's really the only way to get elected anymore. Despite all that, he still says he wants to get the money out of politics. Maybe he feels the end justifies the means? I don't know.
Hillary is against CU as well. Here is a quote from her in CNN "That starts with reversing Citizens United. And that's where my comprehensive plan to restore common sense to campaign finance begins. As president, I'll appoint Supreme Court justices who recognize that Citizens United is bad for America. And if necessary, I'll fight for a constitutional amendment that overturns it." http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/opinions/hillary-clinton-citizens-united-more-democracy/
Downright laughable.
And if you think any of us will sway because of Devine? Pfft. I will contribute more based on that.
We will not stop supporting Bernie. You can attack us, his campaign, anyone you want, scream about math, call us whatever you want.
Still supporting Bernie.
For supposed Hillary fan, you sure are afraid of voters.
Mrussel hasn't done anything to indicate that he is a Clinton fan. (Edit: I guess I missed it lol) All he is trying to do is bring facts and logic to the discussion and apparently you can't handle that. I am with you on the Bernie support, and I do think the deck is stacked against him, but your demeanor on this forum is more akin to that of an irrational Trump supporter than a rational liberal.
Mrussel, your patience is admirable and your contributions here add much value and truth to the discussions you join. You are a true moderate, and by that I mean that you hold the facts of an issue dearer than your own opinions and feelings. As a true liberal, I admire that, but I can't keep my heart out of the issues as much as I'd like to.
Apparently you missed the threads of him denying reality about the media, insisting polls and math are accurate, and downgrading voter suppression in Arizona and saying it never happened. OK
... And this quote from you yesterday? Yeah you're a Bernie fan.
So you are voting for Trump then, right? Sad as it is, that's the reality. You cast a vote for the Democratic nominee or the Republican nominee one way or the other, any other narrative is just a pipe dream
The polls have been as accurate as polls traditionally are. The only one they got wrong, materially, was Michigan. And yes, math is always accurate. I've never said Bernie has zero chance, I've challenged the talking points that have been thrown out there. And as I've said 100x, incompetence and suppression are different. You have a bad habit of using the wrong words to articulate your positions.
Education: Now this is an interesting one that I've tried to discuss several times. You say he wants to make education more affordable. AGREED! I'll have 3 kids in college over the next 10 years. However, his solution is to tax to make it free. WTF? Why aren't we addressing the causes of the ridiculous tuition rates? Why does Harvard charge 64k when it has a 37 billion dollar endowment? UVA has 7 billion and its a public school! Ohio State has 3 billion! Why should my tax rate jump up 15 points when the issues is the cost of tuition? Makes no friggin' sense. Cap the tuition on public school if you want. Make sure one of your answers isn't "Higher Taxes".
You keep asking this question and yet never a response. Let me try... he knows that his popularity is huge on campuses, including educators and administrators, and that increasing our taxes to pay for the outrageous costs doesn't kill the golden goose like attempting to actually reduce those costs would. What college administrator or professor wants to hear about caps or reduced funding? I'm pretty sure that answer is none.
Well I hope you are not correct, but you could be. More importantly, say that we do start using federal tax dollars to pay the cost of STATE universities (since there are no fed ones). What power will the federal government have to reign in those costs when they are administered by the states? Why won't the cost curve continue to spike up unabated, necessitating increasing taxes to support them?
For my Canadian friends like PJ Soul, maybe you have a solution. Are universities overseen by the provinces or federal gov't in Canada? What is the solution?
I have heard Clinton say a few times that she claims she's going to make college more affordable. So let's see it: show us her policy.
European countries offer free University. It can be done.
I haven't seen it. And it's a gap in her arguments, no doubt. But this is a major platform for Sanders. And there is a big difference between US and Europe and it starts with the 10th amendment. All powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the states.
Education: Now this is an interesting one that I've tried to discuss several times. You say he wants to make education more affordable. AGREED! I'll have 3 kids in college over the next 10 years. However, his solution is to tax to make it free. WTF? Why aren't we addressing the causes of the ridiculous tuition rates? Why does Harvard charge 64k when it has a 37 billion dollar endowment? UVA has 7 billion and its a public school! Ohio State has 3 billion! Why should my tax rate jump up 15 points when the issues is the cost of tuition? Makes no friggin' sense. Cap the tuition on public school if you want. Make sure one of your answers isn't "Higher Taxes".
You keep asking this question and yet never a response. Let me try... he knows that his popularity is huge on campuses, including educators and administrators, and that increasing our taxes to pay for the outrageous costs doesn't kill the golden goose like attempting to actually reduce those costs would. What college administrator or professor wants to hear about caps or reduced funding? I'm pretty sure that answer is none.
Well I hope you are not correct, but you could be. More importantly, say that we do start using federal tax dollars to pay the cost of STATE universities (since there are no fed ones). What power will the federal government have to reign in those costs when they are administered by the states? Why won't the cost curve continue to spike up unabated, necessitating increasing taxes to support them?
For my Canadian friends like PJ Soul, maybe you have a solution. Are universities overseen by the provinces or federal gov't in Canada? What is the solution?
I have heard Clinton say a few times that she claims she's going to make college more affordable. So let's see it: show us her policy.
European countries offer free University. It can be done.
Yes, European countries do it quite successfully, at least as far as the quality of post-secondary education goes. In Canada students pay too much tuition IMO, but it is still subsidized by the government, though it is largely provincial governments that fund universities and that determine tuition rates through both funding and government mandated tuition freezes. I.e. BC students enjoyed several years of tuition freezes thanks to the NDP provincial government in the 90s. So back then (thankfully when I was a university student), it cost about $1100 per term for a full time course load (plus books). That's very manageable, and did not restrict access to university for poorer people, and kept student debt low. Other provinces currently have tuition freezes, others have had them and lifted them like in BC, others will enact them in the future I'm sure. Obviously tuition freezes are accompanied by funding promises. Anyway, the BC Liberals lifted that tuition freeze several years ago, and now tuition has more than tripled since then. A term costs like $4000+ now (so $8000 - $12,000 a year, depending on how many terms you attend). And that is pretty unaffordable for normal people in a place where the cost of living is high and salaries aren't. Of course, it's not so unaffordable that regular people can't go to university, or that it's really building a bigger bridge between rich and poor. It just means that more and more students are graduating with way bigger student debt loads. So that sucks, but it's nothing at all like in the US, where students are priced out of the best schools. (btw, colleges are cheaper, but I don't know what the tuition rates are. In Canada, colleges are on a lower level than universities. They often serve as a bridge for those who couldn't get into university directly out of high school.... Not to discount the usefulness of some college programs though. Some of them are insanely useful).
But anyhow, either way, the government pays for some of it, and students pay for some of it. Apparently there are a small number of private universities in Canada, but I don't even know what they are, as most of them are simply religious schools. They aren't the competitive, with the best reputations, as is the case in the US with the likes of Harvard, Yale, etc etc. They seem to be a total non-factor in Canada. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that these weird private institutions are forced to be relatively competitive with public universities, since hardly anyone even wants to go to them in the first place, lol.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
So let me get this straight... Bernie Sanders wants everything to be free socialist society. The "rich" people pay all the taxes and everyone gets to free load. Free college tuition so you can go to school and get degrees to further yourself, to get the better higher paying jobs, so you can get taxed at 90% after you start your great job???? Seriously?? The guy is just as nutty as Trump. He might not be labeled a biggot but he's still fucking nuts...
Is this a Trump quote?
It's not irrational. If you disagree, that's great. Say why. Hate to see another AMT thread go down the drain.
i meant reverse in terms of coming from Arkansas to NY. she def is a carpetbagger in every sense of the word.
Isn't Bernie the same? He joined the Democratic party to run for President...opportunism and exploitation.
To be fair, it is a two party system. For anyone to have a realistic chance to become president, they have to run as one or the other. Would you rather he ran as an independent?
He could have. That would have been more principled. He probably would not have had an $800k a month campaign manager in that position though. I'm sure Nader didn't pay that much for his manager. Seems hypocritical that he's using all these small donations to pay that much.
He certainly could have, and helped put a republican in the White House. Just like Nader.
In order to be viable, he has to play the game to an extent. Otherwise he's just an old guy yelling in the background.
I think he's principled when it's convenient for him. He's a politician like all the others. He scapegoats. He hires corporate shills to run his campaigns. He complains about unfair treatment and bias. He's no different. And don't anyone get high and mighty about contributions. If Hillary released super PAC negative ads on him, he would have to go to the well also. And if he wins the nomination, I can guarantee he will have super PACs supporting him.
You are probably right. It's really the only way to get elected anymore. Despite all that, he still says he wants to get the money out of politics. Maybe he feels the end justifies the means? I don't know.
Hillary is against CU as well. Here is a quote from her in CNN "That starts with reversing Citizens United. And that's where my comprehensive plan to restore common sense to campaign finance begins. As president, I'll appoint Supreme Court justices who recognize that Citizens United is bad for America. And if necessary, I'll fight for a constitutional amendment that overturns it." http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/opinions/hillary-clinton-citizens-united-more-democracy/
Downright laughable.
And if you think any of us will sway because of Devine? Pfft. I will contribute more based on that.
We will not stop supporting Bernie. You can attack us, his campaign, anyone you want, scream about math, call us whatever you want.
Still supporting Bernie.
For supposed Hillary fan, you sure are afraid of voters.
Mrussel hasn't done anything to indicate that he is a Clinton fan. (Edit: I guess I missed it lol) All he is trying to do is bring facts and logic to the discussion and apparently you can't handle that. I am with you on the Bernie support, and I do think the deck is stacked against him, but your demeanor on this forum is more akin to that of an irrational Trump supporter than a rational liberal.
Mrussel, your patience is admirable and your contributions here add much value and truth to the discussions you join. You are a true moderate, and by that I mean that you hold the facts of an issue dearer than your own opinions and feelings. As a true liberal, I admire that, but I can't keep my heart out of the issues as much as I'd like to.
I am a moderate and thanks for the kind words. I have no issue with people voting their hearts. But I prefer it's hearts informed by the brain. They are compatible. I've been called a liberal all my life by all my work colleagues. It's rather refreshing to be thought of in this light!
i meant reverse in terms of coming from Arkansas to NY. she def is a carpetbagger in every sense of the word.
Isn't Bernie the same? He joined the Democratic party to run for President...opportunism and exploitation.
To be fair, it is a two party system. For anyone to have a realistic chance to become president, they have to run as one or the other. Would you rather he ran as an independent?
He could have. That would have been more principled. He probably would not have had an $800k a month campaign manager in that position though. I'm sure Nader didn't pay that much for his manager. Seems hypocritical that he's using all these small donations to pay that much.
He certainly could have, and helped put a republican in the White House. Just like Nader.
In order to be viable, he has to play the game to an extent. Otherwise he's just an old guy yelling in the background.
I think he's principled when it's convenient for him. He's a politician like all the others. He scapegoats. He hires corporate shills to run his campaigns. He complains about unfair treatment and bias. He's no different. And don't anyone get high and mighty about contributions. If Hillary released super PAC negative ads on him, he would have to go to the well also. And if he wins the nomination, I can guarantee he will have super PACs supporting him.
You are probably right. It's really the only way to get elected anymore. Despite all that, he still says he wants to get the money out of politics. Maybe he feels the end justifies the means? I don't know.
Hillary is against CU as well. Here is a quote from her in CNN "That starts with reversing Citizens United. And that's where my comprehensive plan to restore common sense to campaign finance begins. As president, I'll appoint Supreme Court justices who recognize that Citizens United is bad for America. And if necessary, I'll fight for a constitutional amendment that overturns it." http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/opinions/hillary-clinton-citizens-united-more-democracy/
Downright laughable.
And if you think any of us will sway because of Devine? Pfft. I will contribute more based on that.
We will not stop supporting Bernie. You can attack us, his campaign, anyone you want, scream about math, call us whatever you want.
Still supporting Bernie.
For supposed Hillary fan, you sure are afraid of voters.
I could give a shit about how much Ted Devine makes. I was simply pointing out the continued Hillary Derangement Syndrome and outright hypocrisy you practice.
I have nothing to discuss with a closet Hillary supporter who is immune to reality of the media, real voter suppression, and actual facts about Hillary.
I've been clear that I prefer Hillary. And your facts about Hillary include the murder of JFK jr. I'll be nice and continue to call it confirmation bias, rather than immaturity.
I never said such a thing. I'd like to see Where you're getting this baloney.
Ok. Bullshit all you want.
Actually I'm serious. You've been talking about that bullshit for a week now. I have no clue what you're talking about so please, find where I said that.
I may not like Hillary, but I rely on info from credible sources. I'm not into alarmist tabloid news.
So let me get this straight... Bernie Sanders wants everything to be free socialist society. The "rich" people pay all the taxes and everyone gets to free load. Free college tuition so you can go to school and get degrees to further yourself, to get the better higher paying jobs, so you can get taxed at 90% after you start your great job???? Seriously?? The guy is just as nutty as Trump. He might not be labeled a biggot but he's still fucking nuts...
Is this a Trump quote?
It's not irrational. If you disagree, that's great. Say why. Hate to see another AMT thread go down the drain.
i meant reverse in terms of coming from Arkansas to NY. she def is a carpetbagger in every sense of the word.
Isn't Bernie the same? He joined the Democratic party to run for President...opportunism and exploitation.
To be fair, it is a two party system. For anyone to have a realistic chance to become president, they have to run as one or the other. Would you rather he ran as an independent?
He could have. That would have been more principled. He probably would not have had an $800k a month campaign manager in that position though. I'm sure Nader didn't pay that much for his manager. Seems hypocritical that he's using all these small donations to pay that much.
He certainly could have, and helped put a republican in the White House. Just like Nader.
In order to be viable, he has to play the game to an extent. Otherwise he's just an old guy yelling in the background.
I think he's principled when it's convenient for him. He's a politician like all the others. He scapegoats. He hires corporate shills to run his campaigns. He complains about unfair treatment and bias. He's no different. And don't anyone get high and mighty about contributions. If Hillary released super PAC negative ads on him, he would have to go to the well also. And if he wins the nomination, I can guarantee he will have super PACs supporting him.
You are probably right. It's really the only way to get elected anymore. Despite all that, he still says he wants to get the money out of politics. Maybe he feels the end justifies the means? I don't know.
Hillary is against CU as well. Here is a quote from her in CNN "That starts with reversing Citizens United. And that's where my comprehensive plan to restore common sense to campaign finance begins. As president, I'll appoint Supreme Court justices who recognize that Citizens United is bad for America. And if necessary, I'll fight for a constitutional amendment that overturns it." http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/opinions/hillary-clinton-citizens-united-more-democracy/
Downright laughable.
And if you think any of us will sway because of Devine? Pfft. I will contribute more based on that.
We will not stop supporting Bernie. You can attack us, his campaign, anyone you want, scream about math, call us whatever you want.
Still supporting Bernie.
For supposed Hillary fan, you sure are afraid of voters.
Mrussel hasn't done anything to indicate that he is a Clinton fan. (Edit: I guess I missed it lol) All he is trying to do is bring facts and logic to the discussion and apparently you can't handle that. I am with you on the Bernie support, and I do think the deck is stacked against him, but your demeanor on this forum is more akin to that of an irrational Trump supporter than a rational liberal.
Mrussel, your patience is admirable and your contributions here add much value and truth to the discussions you join. You are a true moderate, and by that I mean that you hold the facts of an issue dearer than your own opinions and feelings. As a true liberal, I admire that, but I can't keep my heart out of the issues as much as I'd like to.
Apparently you missed the threads of him denying reality about the media, insisting polls and math are accurate, and downgrading voter suppression in Arizona and saying it never happened. OK
... And this quote from you yesterday? Yeah you're a Bernie fan.
So you are voting for Trump then, right? Sad as it is, that's the reality. You cast a vote for the Democratic nominee or the Republican nominee one way or the other, any other narrative is just a pipe dream
The polls have been as accurate as polls traditionally are. The only one they got wrong, materially, was Michigan. And yes, math is always accurate. I've never said Bernie has zero chance, I've challenged the talking points that have been thrown out there. And as I've said 100x, incompetence and suppression are different. You have a bad habit of using the wrong words to articulate your positions.
Still in denial, huh? Deliberate voter suppression in AZ. And you wonder why I won't discuss anything with you anymore
So let me get this straight... Bernie Sanders wants everything to be free socialist society. The "rich" people pay all the taxes and everyone gets to free load. Free college tuition so you can go to school and get degrees to further yourself, to get the better higher paying jobs, so you can get taxed at 90% after you start your great job???? Seriously?? The guy is just as nutty as Trump. He might not be labeled a biggot but he's still fucking nuts...
Is this a Trump quote?
It's not irrational. If you disagree, that's great. Say why. Hate to see another AMT thread go down the drain.
i meant reverse in terms of coming from Arkansas to NY. she def is a carpetbagger in every sense of the word.
Isn't Bernie the same? He joined the Democratic party to run for President...opportunism and exploitation.
To be fair, it is a two party system. For anyone to have a realistic chance to become president, they have to run as one or the other. Would you rather he ran as an independent?
He could have. That would have been more principled. He probably would not have had an $800k a month campaign manager in that position though. I'm sure Nader didn't pay that much for his manager. Seems hypocritical that he's using all these small donations to pay that much.
He certainly could have, and helped put a republican in the White House. Just like Nader.
In order to be viable, he has to play the game to an extent. Otherwise he's just an old guy yelling in the background.
I think he's principled when it's convenient for him. He's a politician like all the others. He scapegoats. He hires corporate shills to run his campaigns. He complains about unfair treatment and bias. He's no different. And don't anyone get high and mighty about contributions. If Hillary released super PAC negative ads on him, he would have to go to the well also. And if he wins the nomination, I can guarantee he will have super PACs supporting him.
You are probably right. It's really the only way to get elected anymore. Despite all that, he still says he wants to get the money out of politics. Maybe he feels the end justifies the means? I don't know.
Hillary is against CU as well. Here is a quote from her in CNN "That starts with reversing Citizens United. And that's where my comprehensive plan to restore common sense to campaign finance begins. As president, I'll appoint Supreme Court justices who recognize that Citizens United is bad for America. And if necessary, I'll fight for a constitutional amendment that overturns it." http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/opinions/hillary-clinton-citizens-united-more-democracy/
Downright laughable.
And if you think any of us will sway because of Devine? Pfft. I will contribute more based on that.
We will not stop supporting Bernie. You can attack us, his campaign, anyone you want, scream about math, call us whatever you want.
Still supporting Bernie.
For supposed Hillary fan, you sure are afraid of voters.
Mrussel hasn't done anything to indicate that he is a Clinton fan. (Edit: I guess I missed it lol) All he is trying to do is bring facts and logic to the discussion and apparently you can't handle that. I am with you on the Bernie support, and I do think the deck is stacked against him, but your demeanor on this forum is more akin to that of an irrational Trump supporter than a rational liberal.
Mrussel, your patience is admirable and your contributions here add much value and truth to the discussions you join. You are a true moderate, and by that I mean that you hold the facts of an issue dearer than your own opinions and feelings. As a true liberal, I admire that, but I can't keep my heart out of the issues as much as I'd like to.
Apparently you missed the threads of him denying reality about the media, insisting polls and math are accurate, and downgrading voter suppression in Arizona and saying it never happened. OK
... And this quote from you yesterday? Yeah you're a Bernie fan.
So you are voting for Trump then, right? Sad as it is, that's the reality. You cast a vote for the Democratic nominee or the Republican nominee one way or the other, any other narrative is just a pipe dream
Your blathering about polls and math being meaningless is ridiculous. So what if the polls are right most of the time right? Doesn't matter I guess.
Yeah, I am a big Bernie guy. You can take that to the fucking bank. I do, however, live in the real world, where facts and math and reality matter. The plain truth of reality is that Bernie as a write-in almost guarantees a Republican president. How is that good for progress? Now, you deny historical fact and plain truth and go about your day, but if that scenario plays out will you still deny reality and math and the polls which told you it was a certainty?
So let me get this straight... Bernie Sanders wants everything to be free socialist society. The "rich" people pay all the taxes and everyone gets to free load. Free college tuition so you can go to school and get degrees to further yourself, to get the better higher paying jobs, so you can get taxed at 90% after you start your great job???? Seriously?? The guy is just as nutty as Trump. He might not be labeled a biggot but he's still fucking nuts...
Is this a Trump quote?
It's not irrational. If you disagree, that's great. Say why. Hate to see another AMT thread go down the drain.
i meant reverse in terms of coming from Arkansas to NY. she def is a carpetbagger in every sense of the word.
Isn't Bernie the same? He joined the Democratic party to run for President...opportunism and exploitation.
To be fair, it is a two party system. For anyone to have a realistic chance to become president, they have to run as one or the other. Would you rather he ran as an independent?
He could have. That would have been more principled. He probably would not have had an $800k a month campaign manager in that position though. I'm sure Nader didn't pay that much for his manager. Seems hypocritical that he's using all these small donations to pay that much.
He certainly could have, and helped put a republican in the White House. Just like Nader.
In order to be viable, he has to play the game to an extent. Otherwise he's just an old guy yelling in the background.
I think he's principled when it's convenient for him. He's a politician like all the others. He scapegoats. He hires corporate shills to run his campaigns. He complains about unfair treatment and bias. He's no different. And don't anyone get high and mighty about contributions. If Hillary released super PAC negative ads on him, he would have to go to the well also. And if he wins the nomination, I can guarantee he will have super PACs supporting him.
You are probably right. It's really the only way to get elected anymore. Despite all that, he still says he wants to get the money out of politics. Maybe he feels the end justifies the means? I don't know.
Hillary is against CU as well. Here is a quote from her in CNN "That starts with reversing Citizens United. And that's where my comprehensive plan to restore common sense to campaign finance begins. As president, I'll appoint Supreme Court justices who recognize that Citizens United is bad for America. And if necessary, I'll fight for a constitutional amendment that overturns it." http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/opinions/hillary-clinton-citizens-united-more-democracy/
Downright laughable.
And if you think any of us will sway because of Devine? Pfft. I will contribute more based on that.
We will not stop supporting Bernie. You can attack us, his campaign, anyone you want, scream about math, call us whatever you want.
Still supporting Bernie.
For supposed Hillary fan, you sure are afraid of voters.
Mrussel hasn't done anything to indicate that he is a Clinton fan. (Edit: I guess I missed it lol) All he is trying to do is bring facts and logic to the discussion and apparently you can't handle that. I am with you on the Bernie support, and I do think the deck is stacked against him, but your demeanor on this forum is more akin to that of an irrational Trump supporter than a rational liberal.
Mrussel, your patience is admirable and your contributions here add much value and truth to the discussions you join. You are a true moderate, and by that I mean that you hold the facts of an issue dearer than your own opinions and feelings. As a true liberal, I admire that, but I can't keep my heart out of the issues as much as I'd like to.
Apparently you missed the threads of him denying reality about the media, insisting polls and math are accurate, and downgrading voter suppression in Arizona and saying it never happened. OK
... And this quote from you yesterday? Yeah you're a Bernie fan.
So you are voting for Trump then, right? Sad as it is, that's the reality. You cast a vote for the Democratic nominee or the Republican nominee one way or the other, any other narrative is just a pipe dream
I'm not mrussel (and he clearly doesn't need people coming to his defense), but I have watched you misconstrue his posts. I'm not sure if you are intentionally obfuscating, or just don't understand his points. Since I'm pro-poll and pro-math, I'll say that Michigan was the only state that the polls called incorrectly as I recall. Bernie also did well with greater margins in a few states than the polls predicted. But the bottom line is that polls are a pretty good indicator, and have historically been so. Were that not the case they wouldn't be relied on by ALL campaigns in formulation of strategy. And you accuse him of insisting that math is accurate??? Uh, it is. I'm not sure what your alternative to math is, but I'm pretty sure Tarot cards and tea leaf readings have been historically less accurate than math. Your last point was puzzling. Mrussell never said that voter suppression wasn't a problem, or wasn't happening. What he said was that it affects all candidates. Your complaint was that the voting issues in AZ hurt Bernie specifically and that's why he didn't win the state. His response was that all candidates were affected, and that this wasn't some sort of anti-Bernie conspiracy.
And now you claim Gambs isn't a Bernie supporter? OK. You seem to have all of the answers, and are an awesome consensus builder.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Polls mean nothing. Keep believing them math heads. Over analyzing statistics does not prove anything. This entire election is brought to you by the system at large. That math they tell you about? It's to keep the mathematicians busy. The media influences voters behavior. It's a complete manipulation game, not a math game. It's also a rigged game. And gambs, you tell me that I'm not realistic? That's pretty fucking funny.
I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.
P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.
Polls mean nothing. Keep believing them math heads. Over analyzing statistics does not prove anything. This entire election is brought to you by the system at large. That math they tell you about? It's to keep the mathematicians busy. The media influences voters behavior. It's a complete manipulation game, not a math game. It's also a rigged game. And gambs, you tell me that I'm not realistic? That's pretty fucking funny.
Don't you have prom coming up or something.. followed by graduation? I'm sure you have a big summer ahead. You should probably worry about that for a while.
i meant reverse in terms of coming from Arkansas to NY. she def is a carpetbagger in every sense of the word.
Isn't Bernie the same? He joined the Democratic party to run for President...opportunism and exploitation.
To be fair, it is a two party system. For anyone to have a realistic chance to become president, they have to run as one or the other. Would you rather he ran as an independent?
He could have. That would have been more principled. He probably would not have had an $800k a month campaign manager in that position though. I'm sure Nader didn't pay that much for his manager. Seems hypocritical that he's using all these small donations to pay that much.
He certainly could have, and helped put a republican in the White House. Just like Nader.
In order to be viable, he has to play the game to an extent. Otherwise he's just an old guy yelling in the background.
I think he's principled when it's convenient for him. He's a politician like all the others. He scapegoats. He hires corporate shills to run his campaigns. He complains about unfair treatment and bias. He's no different. And don't anyone get high and mighty about contributions. If Hillary released super PAC negative ads on him, he would have to go to the well also. And if he wins the nomination, I can guarantee he will have super PACs supporting him.
You are probably right. It's really the only way to get elected anymore. Despite all that, he still says he wants to get the money out of politics. Maybe he feels the end justifies the means? I don't know.
Hillary is against CU as well. Here is a quote from her in CNN "That starts with reversing Citizens United. And that's where my comprehensive plan to restore common sense to campaign finance begins. As president, I'll appoint Supreme Court justices who recognize that Citizens United is bad for America. And if necessary, I'll fight for a constitutional amendment that overturns it." http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/opinions/hillary-clinton-citizens-united-more-democracy/
Downright laughable.
And if you think any of us will sway because of Devine? Pfft. I will contribute more based on that.
We will not stop supporting Bernie. You can attack us, his campaign, anyone you want, scream about math, call us whatever you want.
Still supporting Bernie.
For supposed Hillary fan, you sure are afraid of voters.
I could give a shit about how much Ted Devine makes. I was simply pointing out the continued Hillary Derangement Syndrome and outright hypocrisy you practice.
I have nothing to discuss with a closet Hillary supporter who is immune to reality of the media, real voter suppression, and actual facts about Hillary.
I've been clear that I prefer Hillary. And your facts about Hillary include the murder of JFK jr. I'll be nice and continue to call it confirmation bias, rather than immaturity.
I never said such a thing. I'd like to see Where you're getting this baloney.
Ok. Bullshit all you want.
Actually I'm serious. You've been talking about that bullshit for a week now. I have no clue what you're talking about so please, find where I said that.
I may not like Hillary, but I rely on info from credible sources. I'm not into alarmist tabloid news.
..as if the edit button doesn't exist on these posts. I could care less at this point. It was the precise point I stopped taking you even marginally seriously.
Polls mean nothing. Keep believing them math heads. Over analyzing statistics does not prove anything. This entire election is brought to you by the system at large. That math they tell you about? It's to keep the mathematicians busy. The media influences voters behavior. It's a complete manipulation game, not a math game. It's also a rigged game. And gambs, you tell me that I'm not realistic? That's pretty fucking funny.
i meant reverse in terms of coming from Arkansas to NY. she def is a carpetbagger in every sense of the word.
Isn't Bernie the same? He joined the Democratic party to run for President...opportunism and exploitation.
To be fair, it is a two party system. For anyone to have a realistic chance to become president, they have to run as one or the other. Would you rather he ran as an independent?
He could have. That would have been more principled. He probably would not have had an $800k a month campaign manager in that position though. I'm sure Nader didn't pay that much for his manager. Seems hypocritical that he's using all these small donations to pay that much.
He certainly could have, and helped put a republican in the White House. Just like Nader.
In order to be viable, he has to play the game to an extent. Otherwise he's just an old guy yelling in the background.
I think he's principled when it's convenient for him. He's a politician like all the others. He scapegoats. He hires corporate shills to run his campaigns. He complains about unfair treatment and bias. He's no different. And don't anyone get high and mighty about contributions. If Hillary released super PAC negative ads on him, he would have to go to the well also. And if he wins the nomination, I can guarantee he will have super PACs supporting him.
You are probably right. It's really the only way to get elected anymore. Despite all that, he still says he wants to get the money out of politics. Maybe he feels the end justifies the means? I don't know.
Hillary is against CU as well. Here is a quote from her in CNN "That starts with reversing Citizens United. And that's where my comprehensive plan to restore common sense to campaign finance begins. As president, I'll appoint Supreme Court justices who recognize that Citizens United is bad for America. And if necessary, I'll fight for a constitutional amendment that overturns it." http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/opinions/hillary-clinton-citizens-united-more-democracy/
Downright laughable.
And if you think any of us will sway because of Devine? Pfft. I will contribute more based on that.
We will not stop supporting Bernie. You can attack us, his campaign, anyone you want, scream about math, call us whatever you want.
Still supporting Bernie.
For supposed Hillary fan, you sure are afraid of voters.
I could give a shit about how much Ted Devine makes. I was simply pointing out the continued Hillary Derangement Syndrome and outright hypocrisy you practice.
I have nothing to discuss with a closet Hillary supporter who is immune to reality of the media, real voter suppression, and actual facts about Hillary.
I've been clear that I prefer Hillary. And your facts about Hillary include the murder of JFK jr. I'll be nice and continue to call it confirmation bias, rather than immaturity.
I never said such a thing. I'd like to see Where you're getting this baloney.
Ok. Bullshit all you want.
Actually I'm serious. You've been talking about that bullshit for a week now. I have no clue what you're talking about so please, find where I said that.
I may not like Hillary, but I rely on info from credible sources. I'm not into alarmist tabloid news.
..as if the edit button doesn't exist on these posts. I could care less at this point. It was the precise point I stopped taking you even marginally seriously.
I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.
P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.
What math are you so worried about? The math some of us have talked about is delegate count. Delegate counts come from voter behavior. And statistics are used in polling. Statistics is math based, so I'm guessing that makes it suspect. But polling small groups is fine as long as it is a valid sample size. Properly sized statistical samples allow one to extrapolate data from the sample and make inferences about the population as a whole. It is scientific, it is math, it is used for all sorts of things (not just political polls) including scientific research. This isn't some corporate media generated voodoo. It is accepted reality.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.
P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.
What math are you so worried about? The math some of us have talked about is delegate count. Delegate counts come from voter behavior. And statistics are used in polling. Statistics is math based, so I'm guessing that makes it suspect. But polling small groups is fine as long as it is a valid sample size. Properly sized statistical samples allow one to extrapolate data from the sample and make inferences about the population as a whole. It is scientific, it is math, it is used for all sorts of things (not just political polls) including scientific research. This isn't some corporate media generated voodoo. It is accepted reality.
Awesome post. You hit it directly. I was about to launch into 95/5/5, response distribution and MOE... and then dovetail into a Six Sigma conversation... but maybe that would be going too far.
On a far more interesting note, how about Trump's horrible unforced error on abortion today? Think that might get some air time this fall?
I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.
P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.
What math are you so worried about? The math some of us have talked about is delegate count. Delegate counts come from voter behavior. And statistics are used in polling. Statistics is math based, so I'm guessing that makes it suspect. But polling small groups is fine as long as it is a valid sample size. Properly sized statistical samples allow one to extrapolate data from the sample and make inferences about the population as a whole. It is scientific, it is math, it is used for all sorts of things (not just political polls) including scientific research. This isn't some corporate media generated voodoo. It is accepted reality.
I studied and worked in media marketing for a while. Polling is marketing-based, more so than math-based. Taking opinions on a sample of people and determining an outcome. When you trying to predict something as big as an election with polls? It's an educated guess, not an accuracy. It's also manipulation, another word for marketing. Poll outcome *predictions* released to the public and then used to manipulate voter behavior.
Corporately owned media limits information to the public based on the bias of the corporation. The US media is now owned by six, count them, SIX corporations. The mainstream media used to be a public service. It is now owned and operated by these 6 corporations and they tell the reporters what to say. Journalists are not allowed to do independent investigative journalism anymore. They are told what to say and if they don't, they get fired. That is a fact, unless you work for independent media. They lie constantly in the mainstream media, just look at Fox, owned by Rupert Murdoch.
Like it or not, the media determines the election based on manipulation of the public especially voters who don't do their homework. And behind that manipulation is the corporations. Every candidate receives money from corporate interests, except Bernie, which explains why he is not covered well by the media. If you're going to be vote, Research the candidates on THEIR websites, and not the media websites and channels. They're more likely to be lying to you to appeal to their bias agenda.
I love these attacks keep them going. Keep following the math, and not voter behavior. That's the problem with math. Math can poll small groups, observe , analyze, equate, predict. But I'm not falling for that. The voters will decide. Whether it's rigged it or not we will find out.
P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.
What math are you so worried about? The math some of us have talked about is delegate count. Delegate counts come from voter behavior. And statistics are used in polling. Statistics is math based, so I'm guessing that makes it suspect. But polling small groups is fine as long as it is a valid sample size. Properly sized statistical samples allow one to extrapolate data from the sample and make inferences about the population as a whole. It is scientific, it is math, it is used for all sorts of things (not just political polls) including scientific research. This isn't some corporate media generated voodoo. It is accepted reality.
Poll outcomes released to the public and then used to manipulate voter behavior.
It is ridiculous how CNN presents exit polls with lightening quick precision. And they preface it by saying "again, these are early exit polls and too early too predict a winner" Tell me that doesn't influence others who have not voted yet. Good point Free.
Comments
For my Canadian friends like PJ Soul, maybe you have a solution. Are universities overseen by the provinces or federal gov't in Canada? What is the solution?
All he is trying to do is bring facts and logic to the discussion and apparently you can't handle that.
I am with you on the Bernie support, and I do think the deck is stacked against him, but your demeanor on this forum is more akin to that of an irrational Trump supporter than a rational liberal.
Mrussel, your patience is admirable and your contributions here add much value and truth to the discussions you join.
You are a true moderate, and by that I mean that you hold the facts of an issue dearer than your own opinions and feelings. As a true liberal, I admire that, but I can't keep my heart out of the issues as much as I'd like to.
European countries offer free University. It can be done.
... And this quote from you yesterday? Yeah you're a Bernie fan.
In Canada students pay too much tuition IMO, but it is still subsidized by the government, though it is largely provincial governments that fund universities and that determine tuition rates through both funding and government mandated tuition freezes. I.e. BC students enjoyed several years of tuition freezes thanks to the NDP provincial government in the 90s. So back then (thankfully when I was a university student), it cost about $1100 per term for a full time course load (plus books). That's very manageable, and did not restrict access to university for poorer people, and kept student debt low. Other provinces currently have tuition freezes, others have had them and lifted them like in BC, others will enact them in the future I'm sure. Obviously tuition freezes are accompanied by funding promises. Anyway, the BC Liberals lifted that tuition freeze several years ago, and now tuition has more than tripled since then. A term costs like $4000+ now (so $8000 - $12,000 a year, depending on how many terms you attend). And that is pretty unaffordable for normal people in a place where the cost of living is high and salaries aren't. Of course, it's not so unaffordable that regular people can't go to university, or that it's really building a bigger bridge between rich and poor. It just means that more and more students are graduating with way bigger student debt loads. So that sucks, but it's nothing at all like in the US, where students are priced out of the best schools. (btw, colleges are cheaper, but I don't know what the tuition rates are. In Canada, colleges are on a lower level than universities. They often serve as a bridge for those who couldn't get into university directly out of high school.... Not to discount the usefulness of some college programs though. Some of them are insanely useful).
But anyhow, either way, the government pays for some of it, and students pay for some of it. Apparently there are a small number of private universities in Canada, but I don't even know what they are, as most of them are simply religious schools. They aren't the competitive, with the best reputations, as is the case in the US with the likes of Harvard, Yale, etc etc. They seem to be a total non-factor in Canada. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that these weird private institutions are forced to be relatively competitive with public universities, since hardly anyone even wants to go to them in the first place, lol.
I may not like Hillary, but I rely on info from credible sources. I'm not into alarmist tabloid news.
Still in denial, huh? Deliberate voter suppression in AZ. And you wonder why I won't discuss anything with you anymore
Yeah, I am a big Bernie guy. You can take that to the fucking bank.
I do, however, live in the real world, where facts and math and reality matter. The plain truth of reality is that Bernie as a write-in almost guarantees a Republican president. How is that good for progress?
Now, you deny historical fact and plain truth and go about your day, but if that scenario plays out will you still deny reality and math and the polls which told you it was a certainty?
And now you claim Gambs isn't a Bernie supporter? OK. You seem to have all of the answers, and are an awesome consensus builder.
P.s. Gambs, you made it sound yesterday that you were in direct opposition of Sanders.
On a far more interesting note, how about Trump's horrible unforced error on abortion today? Think that might get some air time this fall?
Corporately owned media limits information to the public based on the bias of the corporation. The US media is now owned by six, count them, SIX corporations. The mainstream media used to be a public service. It is now owned and operated by these 6 corporations and they tell the reporters what to say. Journalists are not allowed to do independent investigative journalism anymore. They are told what to say and if they don't, they get fired. That is a fact, unless you work for independent media. They lie constantly in the mainstream media, just look at Fox, owned by Rupert Murdoch.
Like it or not, the media determines the election based on manipulation of the public especially voters who don't do their homework. And behind that manipulation is the corporations. Every candidate receives money from corporate interests, except Bernie, which explains why he is not covered well by the media. If you're going to be vote, Research the candidates on THEIR websites, and not the media websites and channels. They're more likely to be lying to you to appeal to their bias agenda.
And they preface it by saying "again, these are early exit polls and too early too predict a winner"
Tell me that doesn't influence others who have not voted yet.
Good point Free.