I normally disagree with Billy cuz he's douchy but I think he's 50% right here. Socialism does stifle innovation. I agree with that. But people do have the right to protest to make things better HOWEVER, they don't have to the right to shut down other people's speech. I say this in reference to his Trump statements.
Last, I'm not pro-Israeli by any stretch, but I find it interesting how much sympathy there is for the Palestinians in the very liberal crowd, considering their total disregard for women's rights and their downright hatred of gays. I'm not really sure what to make of it all.
i can't really tell what corgan's position is on bernie ... not sure he's actually criticizing him ...
in any case - socialism stifling innovation is gotta be one of the most obtuse beliefs out there ... c'mon ... really? ... what conservative propaganda piece do people play when they go to bed to believe this stuff ...
It's simple economics. Why would I invest differentially in human capital, time, resources, effort, sweat equity, etc. when the gov't taxes me at a marginal rate that exceeds my time and stress. In other words, if I'm taxed at 30% when I make a 100k, but 60% when I make 200k, why should I put the extra effort, time and long nights and weekends to make 200k? I worked twice as hard but only have 50k more to show for it. It's just not worth it.
Innovation doesn't come from working 40 hours a week and punching a clock. It comes from people who are willing to work and do things that the rest of the population isn't willing to do. But when they are not going to see the fruits of that labor because the gov't is going to assess a high rate of taxation, what's the point? Altruism?
It's not a winning argument to say that China, Soviet Union, Sweden, Canada, France and any other socialist country is more innovative than the capitalistic US.
Tell me... please, how this is being obtuse. Give me a list of the greatest innovations originating from a socialist society. Tell me the greatest medical advances coming from a socialist medical community and I'll start layering in innovations comign from Hopkins, Mayo clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Shriners, etc. You cannot take the financial incentive out of the market. It dies. This isn't propaganda. It's economics and history.
You think canada is Socialist? You can't be serious? Yes we have universal health care and decent maternity leave and few public paid holidays ... hardly socialist we are.
Fair enough. I won't hang that on you. I'm not sure where the line of calling a country socialist actually exists. We have socialist programs in the US of course, but we are fundamentally capitalist. Canada certainly has capitalism.
In a way I do not consider the things I mentioned as socialist programs ... every person deserves health care, and its much better that it comes out of ta
Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.
It's also the same system that allowed Trudeau to win, or Martin or Chretian or any other PM.
I've mentioned this a few times, but a three+ party system in the US is really impractical. If no one wins a majority of electoral college votes, the top two candidates go to the House for a vote. Any competitive third party would essentially make the House the decider of the presidency.
We have a three plus party system ... Federally it's either the conservatives or liberals that always win. For me democracy has got nothing to do with how many parties any said country has ... A true democracy would include referendums on all major issues, I think it's ridiculous that all major decisions are left up to 300-400 politicians, they should be there to handle the day to day mundane decision ... All major issues should go to people.
I said earlier that three+ relevant parties will not happen. And what you are recommending is a direct democracy. The Founding Fathers expressly created a system to avoid that.
Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.
HA...."nearly crushed the Canadian spirit". Could be the funniest thing I've ever read on these boards.
Er, glad I could make you laugh. It was more a figure of speech (thought that would be obvious), but there is still some meaning behind it. Didn't you notice the immediate change among most Canadians the day Harper left office and ever since? Most people did and do, from what I've heard and read and felt and observed. It is very palpable.
We must travel in a very different circle of Canadian friends.
Well duh. But my entire family is right wing, and they are willing to admit the difference as well. But also look at all the opinion polls and everything too. I don't just go off of what my friends happen to say.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I normally disagree with Billy cuz he's douchy but I think he's 50% right here. Socialism does stifle innovation. I agree with that. But people do have the right to protest to make things better HOWEVER, they don't have to the right to shut down other people's speech. I say this in reference to his Trump statements.
Last, I'm not pro-Israeli by any stretch, but I find it interesting how much sympathy there is for the Palestinians in the very liberal crowd, considering their total disregard for women's rights and their downright hatred of gays. I'm not really sure what to make of it all.
i can't really tell what corgan's position is on bernie ... not sure he's actually criticizing him ...
in any case - socialism stifling innovation is gotta be one of the most obtuse beliefs out there ... c'mon ... really? ... what conservative propaganda piece do people play when they go to bed to believe this stuff ...
It's simple economics. Why would I invest differentially in human capital, time, resources, effort, sweat equity, etc. when the gov't taxes me at a marginal rate that exceeds my time and stress. In other words, if I'm taxed at 30% when I make a 100k, but 60% when I make 200k, why should I put the extra effort, time and long nights and weekends to make 200k? I worked twice as hard but only have 50k more to show for it. It's just not worth it.
Innovation doesn't come from working 40 hours a week and punching a clock. It comes from people who are willing to work and do things that the rest of the population isn't willing to do. But when they are not going to see the fruits of that labor because the gov't is going to assess a high rate of taxation, what's the point? Altruism?
It's not a winning argument to say that China, Soviet Union, Sweden, Canada, France and any other socialist country is more innovative than the capitalistic US.
Tell me... please, how this is being obtuse. Give me a list of the greatest innovations originating from a socialist society. Tell me the greatest medical advances coming from a socialist medical community and I'll start layering in innovations comign from Hopkins, Mayo clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Shriners, etc. You cannot take the financial incentive out of the market. It dies. This isn't propaganda. It's economics and history.
You think canada is Socialist? You can't be serious? Yes we have universal health care and decent maternity leave and few public paid holidays ... hardly socialist we are.
Fair enough. I won't hang that on you. I'm not sure where the line of calling a country socialist actually exists. We have socialist programs in the US of course, but we are fundamentally capitalist. Canada certainly has capitalism.
In a way I do not consider the things I mentioned as socialist programs ... every person deserves health care, and its much better that it comes out of ta
Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.
It's also the same system that allowed Trudeau to win, or Martin or Chretian or any other PM.
I've mentioned this a few times, but a three+ party system in the US is really impractical. If no one wins a majority of electoral college votes, the top two candidates go to the House for a vote. Any competitive third party would essentially make the House the decider of the presidency.
We have a three plus party system ... Federally it's either the conservatives or liberals that always win. For me democracy has got nothing to do with how many parties any said country has ... A true democracy would include referendums on all major issues, I think it's ridiculous that all major decisions are left up to 300-400 politicians, they should be there to handle the day to day mundane decision ... All major issues should go to people.
Not if they have anything to do with civil or human rights.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I normally disagree with Billy cuz he's douchy but I think he's 50% right here. Socialism does stifle innovation. I agree with that. But people do have the right to protest to make things better HOWEVER, they don't have to the right to shut down other people's speech. I say this in reference to his Trump statements.
Last, I'm not pro-Israeli by any stretch, but I find it interesting how much sympathy there is for the Palestinians in the very liberal crowd, considering their total disregard for women's rights and their downright hatred of gays. I'm not really sure what to make of it all.
i can't really tell what corgan's position is on bernie ... not sure he's actually criticizing him ...
in any case - socialism stifling innovation is gotta be one of the most obtuse beliefs out there ... c'mon ... really? ... what conservative propaganda piece do people play when they go to bed to believe this stuff ...
It's simple economics. Why would I invest differentially in human capital, time, resources, effort, sweat equity, etc. when the gov't taxes me at a marginal rate that exceeds my time and stress. In other words, if I'm taxed at 30% when I make a 100k, but 60% when I make 200k, why should I put the extra effort, time and long nights and weekends to make 200k? I worked twice as hard but only have 50k more to show for it. It's just not worth it.
Innovation doesn't come from working 40 hours a week and punching a clock. It comes from people who are willing to work and do things that the rest of the population isn't willing to do. But when they are not going to see the fruits of that labor because the gov't is going to assess a high rate of taxation, what's the point? Altruism?
It's not a winning argument to say that China, Soviet Union, Sweden, Canada, France and any other socialist country is more innovative than the capitalistic US.
Tell me... please, how this is being obtuse. Give me a list of the greatest innovations originating from a socialist society. Tell me the greatest medical advances coming from a socialist medical community and I'll start layering in innovations comign from Hopkins, Mayo clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Shriners, etc. You cannot take the financial incentive out of the market. It dies. This isn't propaganda. It's economics and history.
You think canada is Socialist? You can't be serious? Yes we have universal health care and decent maternity leave and few public paid holidays ... hardly socialist we are.
Fair enough. I won't hang that on you. I'm not sure where the line of calling a country socialist actually exists. We have socialist programs in the US of course, but we are fundamentally capitalist. Canada certainly has capitalism.
In a way I do not consider the things I mentioned as socialist programs ... every person deserves health care, and its much better that it comes out of ta
Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.
It's also the same system that allowed Trudeau to win, or Martin or Chretian or any other PM.
I've mentioned this a few times, but a three+ party system in the US is really impractical. If no one wins a majority of electoral college votes, the top two candidates go to the House for a vote. Any competitive third party would essentially make the House the decider of the presidency.
We have a three plus party system ... Federally it's either the conservatives or liberals that always win. For me democracy has got nothing to do with how many parties any said country has ... A true democracy would include referendums on all major issues, I think it's ridiculous that all major decisions are left up to 300-400 politicians, they should be there to handle the day to day mundane decision ... All major issues should go to people.
Not if they have anything to do with civil or human rights.
Excellent point. When Loving vs VA was decided, 80% of Americans were against inter racial marriage
I normally disagree with Billy cuz he's douchy but I think he's 50% right here. Socialism does stifle innovation. I agree with that. But people do have the right to protest to make things better HOWEVER, they don't have to the right to shut down other people's speech. I say this in reference to his Trump statements.
Last, I'm not pro-Israeli by any stretch, but I find it interesting how much sympathy there is for the Palestinians in the very liberal crowd, considering their total disregard for women's rights and their downright hatred of gays. I'm not really sure what to make of it all.
i can't really tell what corgan's position is on bernie ... not sure he's actually criticizing him ...
in any case - socialism stifling innovation is gotta be one of the most obtuse beliefs out there ... c'mon ... really? ... what conservative propaganda piece do people play when they go to bed to believe this stuff ...
It's simple economics. Why would I invest differentially in human capital, time, resources, effort, sweat equity, etc. when the gov't taxes me at a marginal rate that exceeds my time and stress. In other words, if I'm taxed at 30% when I make a 100k, but 60% when I make 200k, why should I put the extra effort, time and long nights and weekends to make 200k? I worked twice as hard but only have 50k more to show for it. It's just not worth it.
Innovation doesn't come from working 40 hours a week and punching a clock. It comes from people who are willing to work and do things that the rest of the population isn't willing to do. But when they are not going to see the fruits of that labor because the gov't is going to assess a high rate of taxation, what's the point? Altruism?
It's not a winning argument to say that China, Soviet Union, Sweden, Canada, France and any other socialist country is more innovative than the capitalistic US.
Tell me... please, how this is being obtuse. Give me a list of the greatest innovations originating from a socialist society. Tell me the greatest medical advances coming from a socialist medical community and I'll start layering in innovations comign from Hopkins, Mayo clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Shriners, etc. You cannot take the financial incentive out of the market. It dies. This isn't propaganda. It's economics and history.
You think canada is Socialist? You can't be serious? Yes we have universal health care and decent maternity leave and few public paid holidays ... hardly socialist we are.
Fair enough. I won't hang that on you. I'm not sure where the line of calling a country socialist actually exists. We have socialist programs in the US of course, but we are fundamentally capitalist. Canada certainly has capitalism.
In a way I do not consider the things I mentioned as socialist programs ... every person deserves health care, and its much better that it comes out of ta
Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.
It's also the same system that allowed Trudeau to win, or Martin or Chretian or any other PM.
I've mentioned this a few times, but a three+ party system in the US is really impractical. If no one wins a majority of electoral college votes, the top two candidates go to the House for a vote. Any competitive third party would essentially make the House the decider of the presidency.
We have a three plus party system ... Federally it's either the conservatives or liberals that always win. For me democracy has got nothing to do with how many parties any said country has ... A true democracy would include referendums on all major issues, I think it's ridiculous that all major decisions are left up to 300-400 politicians, they should be there to handle the day to day mundane decision ... All major issues should go to people.
Not if they have anything to do with civil or human rights.
Excellent point. When Loving vs VA was decided, 80% of Americans were against inter racial marriage
I won't be a proponent of direct democracy until we're rid of religion, bigotry and stupidity.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I normally disagree with Billy cuz he's douchy but I think he's 50% right here. Socialism does stifle innovation. I agree with that. But people do have the right to protest to make things better HOWEVER, they don't have to the right to shut down other people's speech. I say this in reference to his Trump statements.
Last, I'm not pro-Israeli by any stretch, but I find it interesting how much sympathy there is for the Palestinians in the very liberal crowd, considering their total disregard for women's rights and their downright hatred of gays. I'm not really sure what to make of it all.
i can't really tell what corgan's position is on bernie ... not sure he's actually criticizing him ...
in any case - socialism stifling innovation is gotta be one of the most obtuse beliefs out there ... c'mon ... really? ... what conservative propaganda piece do people play when they go to bed to believe this stuff ...
It's simple economics. Why would I invest differentially in human capital, time, resources, effort, sweat equity, etc. when the gov't taxes me at a marginal rate that exceeds my time and stress. In other words, if I'm taxed at 30% when I make a 100k, but 60% when I make 200k, why should I put the extra effort, time and long nights and weekends to make 200k? I worked twice as hard but only have 50k more to show for it. It's just not worth it.
Innovation doesn't come from working 40 hours a week and punching a clock. It comes from people who are willing to work and do things that the rest of the population isn't willing to do. But when they are not going to see the fruits of that labor because the gov't is going to assess a high rate of taxation, what's the point? Altruism?
It's not a winning argument to say that China, Soviet Union, Sweden, Canada, France and any other socialist country is more innovative than the capitalistic US.
Tell me... please, how this is being obtuse. Give me a list of the greatest innovations originating from a socialist society. Tell me the greatest medical advances coming from a socialist medical community and I'll start layering in innovations comign from Hopkins, Mayo clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Shriners, etc. You cannot take the financial incentive out of the market. It dies. This isn't propaganda. It's economics and history.
You think canada is Socialist? You can't be serious? Yes we have universal health care and decent maternity leave and few public paid holidays ... hardly socialist we are.
Fair enough. I won't hang that on you. I'm not sure where the line of calling a country socialist actually exists. We have socialist programs in the US of course, but we are fundamentally capitalist. Canada certainly has capitalism.
In a way I do not consider the things I mentioned as socialist programs ... every person deserves health care, and its much better that it comes out of ta
Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.
It's also the same system that allowed Trudeau to win, or Martin or Chretian or any other PM.
I've mentioned this a few times, but a three+ party system in the US is really impractical. If no one wins a majority of electoral college votes, the top two candidates go to the House for a vote. Any competitive third party would essentially make the House the decider of the presidency.
We have a three plus party system ... Federally it's either the conservatives or liberals that always win. For me democracy has got nothing to do with how many parties any said country has ... A true democracy would include referendums on all major issues, I think it's ridiculous that all major decisions are left up to 300-400 politicians, they should be there to handle the day to day mundane decision ... All major issues should go to people.
Not if they have anything to do with civil or human rights.
Excellent point. When Loving vs VA was decided, 80% of Americans were against inter racial marriage
I won't be a proponent of direct democracy until we're rid of religion, bigotry and stupidity.
A Trump administration should solve all three, so get ready.
I normally disagree with Billy cuz he's douchy but I think he's 50% right here. Socialism does stifle innovation. I agree with that. But people do have the right to protest to make things better HOWEVER, they don't have to the right to shut down other people's speech. I say this in reference to his Trump statements.
Last, I'm not pro-Israeli by any stretch, but I find it interesting how much sympathy there is for the Palestinians in the very liberal crowd, considering their total disregard for women's rights and their downright hatred of gays. I'm not really sure what to make of it all.
i can't really tell what corgan's position is on bernie ... not sure he's actually criticizing him ...
in any case - socialism stifling innovation is gotta be one of the most obtuse beliefs out there ... c'mon ... really? ... what conservative propaganda piece do people play when they go to bed to believe this stuff ...
It's simple economics. Why would I invest differentially in human capital, time, resources, effort, sweat equity, etc. when the gov't taxes me at a marginal rate that exceeds my time and stress. In other words, if I'm taxed at 30% when I make a 100k, but 60% when I make 200k, why should I put the extra effort, time and long nights and weekends to make 200k? I worked twice as hard but only have 50k more to show for it. It's just not worth it.
Innovation doesn't come from working 40 hours a week and punching a clock. It comes from people who are willing to work and do things that the rest of the population isn't willing to do. But when they are not going to see the fruits of that labor because the gov't is going to assess a high rate of taxation, what's the point? Altruism?
It's not a winning argument to say that China, Soviet Union, Sweden, Canada, France and any other socialist country is more innovative than the capitalistic US.
Tell me... please, how this is being obtuse. Give me a list of the greatest innovations originating from a socialist society. Tell me the greatest medical advances coming from a socialist medical community and I'll start layering in innovations comign from Hopkins, Mayo clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Shriners, etc. You cannot take the financial incentive out of the market. It dies. This isn't propaganda. It's economics and history.
You think canada is Socialist? You can't be serious? Yes we have universal health care and decent maternity leave and few public paid holidays ... hardly socialist we are.
Fair enough. I won't hang that on you. I'm not sure where the line of calling a country socialist actually exists. We have socialist programs in the US of course, but we are fundamentally capitalist. Canada certainly has capitalism.
In a way I do not consider the things I mentioned as socialist programs ... every person deserves health care, and its much better that it comes out of ta
Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.
It's also the same system that allowed Trudeau to win, or Martin or Chretian or any other PM.
I've mentioned this a few times, but a three+ party system in the US is really impractical. If no one wins a majority of electoral college votes, the top two candidates go to the House for a vote. Any competitive third party would essentially make the House the decider of the presidency.
We have a three plus party system ... Federally it's either the conservatives or liberals that always win. For me democracy has got nothing to do with how many parties any said country has ... A true democracy would include referendums on all major issues, I think it's ridiculous that all major decisions are left up to 300-400 politicians, they should be there to handle the day to day mundane decision ... All major issues should go to people.
Not if they have anything to do with civil or human rights.
Excellent point. When Loving vs VA was decided, 80% of Americans were against inter racial marriage
I won't be a proponent of direct democracy until we're rid of religion, bigotry and stupidity.
A Trump administration should solve all three, so get ready.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I normally disagree with Billy cuz he's douchy but I think he's 50% right here. Socialism does stifle innovation. I agree with that. But people do have the right to protest to make things better HOWEVER, they don't have to the right to shut down other people's speech. I say this in reference to his Trump statements.
Last, I'm not pro-Israeli by any stretch, but I find it interesting how much sympathy there is for the Palestinians in the very liberal crowd, considering their total disregard for women's rights and their downright hatred of gays. I'm not really sure what to make of it all.
i can't really tell what corgan's position is on bernie ... not sure he's actually criticizing him ...
in any case - socialism stifling innovation is gotta be one of the most obtuse beliefs out there ... c'mon ... really? ... what conservative propaganda piece do people play when they go to bed to believe this stuff ...
It's simple economics. Why would I invest differentially in human capital, time, resources, effort, sweat equity, etc. when the gov't taxes me at a marginal rate that exceeds my time and stress. In other words, if I'm taxed at 30% when I make a 100k, but 60% when I make 200k, why should I put the extra effort, time and long nights and weekends to make 200k? I worked twice as hard but only have 50k more to show for it. It's just not worth it.
Innovation doesn't come from working 40 hours a week and punching a clock. It comes from people who are willing to work and do things that the rest of the population isn't willing to do. But when they are not going to see the fruits of that labor because the gov't is going to assess a high rate of taxation, what's the point? Altruism?
It's not a winning argument to say that China, Soviet Union, Sweden, Canada, France and any other socialist country is more innovative than the capitalistic US.
Tell me... please, how this is being obtuse. Give me a list of the greatest innovations originating from a socialist society. Tell me the greatest medical advances coming from a socialist medical community and I'll start layering in innovations comign from Hopkins, Mayo clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Shriners, etc. You cannot take the financial incentive out of the market. It dies. This isn't propaganda. It's economics and history.
You think canada is Socialist? You can't be serious? Yes we have universal health care and decent maternity leave and few public paid holidays ... hardly socialist we are.
Fair enough. I won't hang that on you. I'm not sure where the line of calling a country socialist actually exists. We have socialist programs in the US of course, but we are fundamentally capitalist. Canada certainly has capitalism.
In a way I do not consider the things I mentioned as socialist programs ... every person deserves health care, and its much better that it comes out of ta
Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.
It's also the same system that allowed Trudeau to win, or Martin or Chretian or any other PM.
I've mentioned this a few times, but a three+ party system in the US is really impractical. If no one wins a majority of electoral college votes, the top two candidates go to the House for a vote. Any competitive third party would essentially make the House the decider of the presidency.
We have a three plus party system ... Federally it's either the conservatives or liberals that always win. For me democracy has got nothing to do with how many parties any said country has ... A true democracy would include referendums on all major issues, I think it's ridiculous that all major decisions are left up to 300-400 politicians, they should be there to handle the day to day mundane decision ... All major issues should go to people.
Not if they have anything to do with civil or human rights.
Well those privileged Politicians are our Representatives...
Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.
HA...."nearly crushed the Canadian spirit". Could be the funniest thing I've ever read on these boards.
Er, glad I could make you laugh. It was more a figure of speech (thought that would be obvious), but there is still some meaning behind it. Didn't you notice the immediate change among most Canadians the day Harper left office and ever since? Most people did and do, from what I've heard and read and felt and observed. It is very palpable.
We must travel in a very different circle of Canadian friends.
Well duh. But my entire family is right wing, and they are willing to admit the difference as well. But also look at all the opinion polls and everything too. I don't just go off of what my friends happen to say.
I don't know...maybe I'm just surrounded by a bunch of "do'ers". We tend to not live or die by who our leader is because on the whole we take responsibility for how our lives play out for us and our families. I guess if you depend on your government to determine your self-worth I can see how the last election prevented your Canadian spirit from being crushed.
Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.
HA...."nearly crushed the Canadian spirit". Could be the funniest thing I've ever read on these boards.
Er, glad I could make you laugh. It was more a figure of speech (thought that would be obvious), but there is still some meaning behind it. Didn't you notice the immediate change among most Canadians the day Harper left office and ever since? Most people did and do, from what I've heard and read and felt and observed. It is very palpable.
We must travel in a very different circle of Canadian friends.
Well duh. But my entire family is right wing, and they are willing to admit the difference as well. But also look at all the opinion polls and everything too. I don't just go off of what my friends happen to say.
I don't know...maybe I'm just surrounded by a bunch of "do'ers". We tend to not live or die by who our leader is because on the whole we take responsibility for how our lives play out for us and our families. I guess if you depend on your government to determine your self-worth I can see how the last election prevented your Canadian spirit from being crushed.
Actually this reminded me of something I saw recently...how People or Society in general want to have an Authority figure...hence Presidents...Prime Ministers...Kings and Queens...
I mean the perception of this could be wrong and it could be simply viewed as just wanting a representative of Society...just a thought...
Bernie Sanders isn't just winning the youth vote — he's crushing it.
A new analysis from Tufts University shows that Sanders has now surpassed Barack Obama's 2008 Democratic primary totals among young people in the 25 states where we can draw a comparison — whether you count by raw vote total or percentage of the overall vote share.
In 2008, the press marveled that Obama beat Hillary Clinton by 60 to 35 points among voters under 30, racking up around 2.2 million young votes throughout the primary.
Now Sanders is beating Clinton by a 71-to-28 margin, receiving more than 2.4 million votes from young voters in the 25 states we can compare, according to numbers compiled by Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg, director of the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tufts.
"The energy that young voters have kept up throughout the primary has been incredible," Kawashima-Ginsberg says in an interview. "It's been amazing to see."
Sanders's insurgency is being powered by young people, who are thrilling to his message in what looks like historic numbers...
Time to do whats right, Bernie. It's over. Don't screw this up for the entire party. Heard a knucklehead on NPR this morning say he's voting for Trump if Bernie doesn't get the nod. Not sure it's possible to say something more idiotic.
How is this process unfair? Hillary has beaten him by something like 3 million votes.
Time to do whats right, Bernie. It's over. Don't screw this up for the entire party. Heard a knucklehead on NPR this morning say he's voting for Trump if Bernie doesn't get the nod. Not sure it's possible to say something more idiotic.
How is this process unfair? Hillary has beaten him by something like 3 million votes.
It's over.
I'll steal what I said from the Hillary thread - First, they're bitching that superdelegates are unfair and want them eliminated, but then they're bitching that it's not over yet because the SD's have the opportunity to change their vote, then that's all on the precedent that "the people" want change....yet, Hillary has 3 million more voters in the popular vote. As a whole, it's the fucking 16 year old rebellious kid yelling just to fucking yell. Please. Just stop already. The fact that I have to be associated with these idiots makes me embarrassed.
For either candidate to win they would need superdelegates (which Hillary is winning), or you go strict popular vote (which Hillary is also winning). And even if you tripled Bernie's SD support he'd still be not even be an eyelash closer to what Clinton has. And there's the fact that SD support Bernie has had are coming out saying that the party now has to unite behind Clinton.
Time to do whats right, Bernie. It's over. Don't screw this up for the entire party. Heard a knucklehead on NPR this morning say he's voting for Trump if Bernie doesn't get the nod. Not sure it's possible to say something more idiotic.
How is this process unfair? Hillary has beaten him by something like 3 million votes.
It's over.
I'll steal what I said from the Hillary thread - First, they're bitching that superdelegates are unfair and want them eliminated, but then they're bitching that it's not over yet because the SD's have the opportunity to change their vote, then that's all on the precedent that "the people" want change....yet, Hillary has 3 million more voters in the popular vote. As a whole, it's the fucking 16 year old rebellious kid yelling just to fucking yell. Please. Just stop already. The fact that I have to be associated with these idiots makes me embarrassed.
For either candidate to win they would need superdelegates (which Hillary is winning), or you go strict popular vote (which Hillary is also winning). And even if you tripled Bernie's SD support he'd still be not even be an eyelash closer to what Clinton has. And there's the fact that SD support Bernie has had are coming out saying that the party now has to unite behind Clinton.
People are very, very dumb.
Bingo. Who in the hell would have thought that the Dems could have a contested convention and the right wouldn't?
I get that Bernie wants to take his "revolution" to the convention, but he needs to stop lying to his supporters. It's over. Hillary has complete control. She owns the popular vote, the delegates, and the superdelegate count. The only thing Bernie is doing now is helping Trump. If that's his goal, then well played, Bernie.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I get that Bernie wants to take his "revolution" to the convention, but he needs to stop lying to his supporters. It's over. Hillary has complete control. She owns the popular vote, the delegates, and the superdelegate count. The only thing Bernie is doing now is helping Trump. If that's his goal, then well played, Bernie.
I don't see how it would be helping Trump. The general election campaign isn't happening yet. Whether Bernie bows out now, or makes his point by staying in the race until the Dem nomination is ACTUALLY won, instead of fake-won the way the media wants it, it won't impact how the two ACTUAL nominees go head to head.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I get that Bernie wants to take his "revolution" to the convention, but he needs to stop lying to his supporters. It's over. Hillary has complete control. She owns the popular vote, the delegates, and the superdelegate count. The only thing Bernie is doing now is helping Trump. If that's his goal, then well played, Bernie.
I don't see how it would be helping Trump. The general election campaign isn't happening yet. Whether Bernie bows out now, or makes his point by staying in the race until the Dem nomination is ACTUALLY won, instead of fake-won the way the media wants it, it won't impact how the two ACTUAL nominees go head to head.
You don't think the same point you're making of how "the media wants it" just drips with irony when you ignore the fact that that same media does have an impression on people right? I mean, per the logic you're presenting, the media & its coverage has an influence on this election but not the GE?. And if that's the case, then perception of unity within a party is a huge ordeal. One you're willing to ignore, and how it effects the general election, for the purpose of just believing - again, per that logic - that the media has "won" an election for Clinton but does not, in any way whatsoever, effect the subsequent general election nor how the perception of the party as whole is seen. That's just all-around flawed logic.
I get that Bernie wants to take his "revolution" to the convention, but he needs to stop lying to his supporters. It's over. Hillary has complete control. She owns the popular vote, the delegates, and the superdelegate count. The only thing Bernie is doing now is helping Trump. If that's his goal, then well played, Bernie.
I don't see how it would be helping Trump. The general election campaign isn't happening yet. Whether Bernie bows out now, or makes his point by staying in the race until the Dem nomination is ACTUALLY won, instead of fake-won the way the media wants it, it won't impact how the two ACTUAL nominees go head to head.
The general election campaigning is currently under way. The presumptive nominees have been decided, and both the presumptive nominees are focused on one another. So if Bernie keeps up his campaign against Hillary, that is providing fuel for Trump. It also essentially pits Hillary against Trump and Bernie. Bernie needs to help unite the party. The longer he battles Clinton, the more damage he's doing to the Dems chances in the general. His current fight against Clinton is an exercise in futility. If he plays nicely he can still have an influence on the party platform. But at this point he isn't and won't be the nominee. He needs to stop pretending.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I get that Bernie wants to take his "revolution" to the convention, but he needs to stop lying to his supporters. It's over. Hillary has complete control. She owns the popular vote, the delegates, and the superdelegate count. The only thing Bernie is doing now is helping Trump. If that's his goal, then well played, Bernie.
I don't see how it would be helping Trump. The general election campaign isn't happening yet. Whether Bernie bows out now, or makes his point by staying in the race until the Dem nomination is ACTUALLY won, instead of fake-won the way the media wants it, it won't impact how the two ACTUAL nominees go head to head.
The general election campaigning is currently under way. The presumptive nominees have been decided, and both the presumptive nominees are focused on one another. So if Bernie keeps up his campaign against Hillary, that is providing fuel for Trump. It also essentially pits Hillary against Trump and Bernie. Bernie needs to help unite the party. The longer he battles Clinton, the more damage he's doing to the Dems chances in the general. His current fight against Clinton is an exercise in futility. If he plays nicely he can still have an influence on the party platform. But at this point he isn't and won't be the nominee. He needs to stop pretending.
Maybe Bernie knows something we don't know, I have no idea. But I really don't think that Bernie continuing to campaign will make those who wouldn't vote for Trump now change their minds. I honestly do not think that it will have the kind of impact you're suggesting. Also, I think that just on principle alone, Bernie has a good point. The way the media has played this nomination "announcement" is just plain wrong.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I get that Bernie wants to take his "revolution" to the convention, but he needs to stop lying to his supporters. It's over. Hillary has complete control. She owns the popular vote, the delegates, and the superdelegate count. The only thing Bernie is doing now is helping Trump. If that's his goal, then well played, Bernie.
I don't see how it would be helping Trump. The general election campaign isn't happening yet. Whether Bernie bows out now, or makes his point by staying in the race until the Dem nomination is ACTUALLY won, instead of fake-won the way the media wants it, it won't impact how the two ACTUAL nominees go head to head.
The general election campaigning is currently under way. The presumptive nominees have been decided, and both the presumptive nominees are focused on one another. So if Bernie keeps up his campaign against Hillary, that is providing fuel for Trump. It also essentially pits Hillary against Trump and Bernie. Bernie needs to help unite the party. The longer he battles Clinton, the more damage he's doing to the Dems chances in the general. His current fight against Clinton is an exercise in futility. If he plays nicely he can still have an influence on the party platform. But at this point he isn't and won't be the nominee. He needs to stop pretending.
Maybe Bernie knows something we don't know, I have no idea. But I really don't think that Bernie continuing to campaign will make those who wouldn't vote for Trump now change their minds. I honestly do not think that it will have the kind of impact you're suggesting. Also, I think that just on principle alone, Bernie has a good point. The way the media has played this nomination "announcement" is just plain wrong.
You know how the media calls states before every vote has been counted? Yeah, same thing.
Like I said, heard a guy on NPR this morning say he's voting for Trump if not Bernie. Enough said.
I get that Bernie wants to take his "revolution" to the convention, but he needs to stop lying to his supporters. It's over. Hillary has complete control. She owns the popular vote, the delegates, and the superdelegate count. The only thing Bernie is doing now is helping Trump. If that's his goal, then well played, Bernie.
I don't see how it would be helping Trump. The general election campaign isn't happening yet. Whether Bernie bows out now, or makes his point by staying in the race until the Dem nomination is ACTUALLY won, instead of fake-won the way the media wants it, it won't impact how the two ACTUAL nominees go head to head.
The general election campaigning is currently under way. The presumptive nominees have been decided, and both the presumptive nominees are focused on one another. So if Bernie keeps up his campaign against Hillary, that is providing fuel for Trump. It also essentially pits Hillary against Trump and Bernie. Bernie needs to help unite the party. The longer he battles Clinton, the more damage he's doing to the Dems chances in the general. His current fight against Clinton is an exercise in futility. If he plays nicely he can still have an influence on the party platform. But at this point he isn't and won't be the nominee. He needs to stop pretending.
Maybe Bernie knows something we don't know, I have no idea. But I really don't think that Bernie continuing to campaign will make those who wouldn't vote for Trump now change their minds. I honestly do not think that it will have the kind of impact you're suggesting. Also, I think that just on principle alone, Bernie has a good point. The way the media has played this nomination "announcement" is just plain wrong.
You know how the media calls states before every vote has been counted? Yeah, same thing.
Like I said, heard a guy on NPR this morning say he's voting for Trump if not Bernie. Enough said.
It's funny how many dudes are not voting for Hillary strictly based on her being a woman.
I get that Bernie wants to take his "revolution" to the convention, but he needs to stop lying to his supporters. It's over. Hillary has complete control. She owns the popular vote, the delegates, and the superdelegate count. The only thing Bernie is doing now is helping Trump. If that's his goal, then well played, Bernie.
I don't see how it would be helping Trump. The general election campaign isn't happening yet. Whether Bernie bows out now, or makes his point by staying in the race until the Dem nomination is ACTUALLY won, instead of fake-won the way the media wants it, it won't impact how the two ACTUAL nominees go head to head.
The general election campaigning is currently under way. The presumptive nominees have been decided, and both the presumptive nominees are focused on one another. So if Bernie keeps up his campaign against Hillary, that is providing fuel for Trump. It also essentially pits Hillary against Trump and Bernie. Bernie needs to help unite the party. The longer he battles Clinton, the more damage he's doing to the Dems chances in the general. His current fight against Clinton is an exercise in futility. If he plays nicely he can still have an influence on the party platform. But at this point he isn't and won't be the nominee. He needs to stop pretending.
Maybe Bernie knows something we don't know, I have no idea. But I really don't think that Bernie continuing to campaign will make those who wouldn't vote for Trump now change their minds. I honestly do not think that it will have the kind of impact you're suggesting. Also, I think that just on principle alone, Bernie has a good point. The way the media has played this nomination "announcement" is just plain wrong.
I agree that the media shouldn't be making those pronouncements so prematurely, and probably should have waited one more day. But to me it was the same as if they announced that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. It hasn't happened yet, but there is a pretty high degree of certainty.
There are many Bernie supporters who will assist Trump in his quest for office simply by bailing from the process unless Bernie steps up and faces reality, The Bernie or Bust people, by not participating in the general will help Trump. So while they aren't supporting Trump, they are assisting him. Bernie needs to pretend he has some leadership skills and do the right thing. The republicans fucked themselves by having so many candidates in the clown car, and not rallying behind someone more reasonable against Trump. Had they narrowed the field, and pitted one establishment party candidate against Trump a few months earlier, they might have been able to put up an actual candidate. Instead, their egos or their fantasies got in the way, and their party was screwed. Same as what Bernie is now doing to the dems.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I get that Bernie wants to take his "revolution" to the convention, but he needs to stop lying to his supporters. It's over. Hillary has complete control. She owns the popular vote, the delegates, and the superdelegate count. The only thing Bernie is doing now is helping Trump. If that's his goal, then well played, Bernie.
I don't see how it would be helping Trump. The general election campaign isn't happening yet. Whether Bernie bows out now, or makes his point by staying in the race until the Dem nomination is ACTUALLY won, instead of fake-won the way the media wants it, it won't impact how the two ACTUAL nominees go head to head.
The general election campaigning is currently under way. The presumptive nominees have been decided, and both the presumptive nominees are focused on one another. So if Bernie keeps up his campaign against Hillary, that is providing fuel for Trump. It also essentially pits Hillary against Trump and Bernie. Bernie needs to help unite the party. The longer he battles Clinton, the more damage he's doing to the Dems chances in the general. His current fight against Clinton is an exercise in futility. If he plays nicely he can still have an influence on the party platform. But at this point he isn't and won't be the nominee. He needs to stop pretending.
Maybe Bernie knows something we don't know, I have no idea. But I really don't think that Bernie continuing to campaign will make those who wouldn't vote for Trump now change their minds. I honestly do not think that it will have the kind of impact you're suggesting. Also, I think that just on principle alone, Bernie has a good point. The way the media has played this nomination "announcement" is just plain wrong.
You know how the media calls states before every vote has been counted? Yeah, same thing.
Like I said, heard a guy on NPR this morning say he's voting for Trump if not Bernie. Enough said.
It's funny how many dudes are not voting for Hillary strictly based on her being a woman.
I get that Bernie wants to take his "revolution" to the convention, but he needs to stop lying to his supporters. It's over. Hillary has complete control. She owns the popular vote, the delegates, and the superdelegate count. The only thing Bernie is doing now is helping Trump. If that's his goal, then well played, Bernie.
I don't see how it would be helping Trump. The general election campaign isn't happening yet. Whether Bernie bows out now, or makes his point by staying in the race until the Dem nomination is ACTUALLY won, instead of fake-won the way the media wants it, it won't impact how the two ACTUAL nominees go head to head.
The general election campaigning is currently under way. The presumptive nominees have been decided, and both the presumptive nominees are focused on one another. So if Bernie keeps up his campaign against Hillary, that is providing fuel for Trump. It also essentially pits Hillary against Trump and Bernie. Bernie needs to help unite the party. The longer he battles Clinton, the more damage he's doing to the Dems chances in the general. His current fight against Clinton is an exercise in futility. If he plays nicely he can still have an influence on the party platform. But at this point he isn't and won't be the nominee. He needs to stop pretending.
Maybe Bernie knows something we don't know, I have no idea. But I really don't think that Bernie continuing to campaign will make those who wouldn't vote for Trump now change their minds. I honestly do not think that it will have the kind of impact you're suggesting. Also, I think that just on principle alone, Bernie has a good point. The way the media has played this nomination "announcement" is just plain wrong.
It may have been wrong but HRC didn't want it either. It doesn't make her any less the nominee.
The guy spent a month in California and lost by 12. He spent weeks in NY and got clobbered. He lost FL, VA, NC, OH, PA. These are the swing states. He lost pledged, super, and total vote. There is literally no argument for him not to concede, other than stubbornness or narcissism. He has the influence to shape the platform, but he will lose it if he doesn't drop by next week.
Sanders reminds me of a football team that is losing by 30 points with 20 seconds to go, they complete a pass for a first down, and then they call time-out. "Sure we're beat and just wasting everybody's time...BUT HE HAVE 20 SECONDS LEFT AND WE'RE WITHIN OUR RIGHTS TO DO WHATEVER WE WANT WITH THOSE 20 SECONDS!"
I get that Bernie wants to take his "revolution" to the convention, but he needs to stop lying to his supporters. It's over. Hillary has complete control. She owns the popular vote, the delegates, and the superdelegate count. The only thing Bernie is doing now is helping Trump. If that's his goal, then well played, Bernie.
I don't see how it would be helping Trump. The general election campaign isn't happening yet. Whether Bernie bows out now, or makes his point by staying in the race until the Dem nomination is ACTUALLY won, instead of fake-won the way the media wants it, it won't impact how the two ACTUAL nominees go head to head.
The general election campaigning is currently under way. The presumptive nominees have been decided, and both the presumptive nominees are focused on one another. So if Bernie keeps up his campaign against Hillary, that is providing fuel for Trump. It also essentially pits Hillary against Trump and Bernie. Bernie needs to help unite the party. The longer he battles Clinton, the more damage he's doing to the Dems chances in the general. His current fight against Clinton is an exercise in futility. If he plays nicely he can still have an influence on the party platform. But at this point he isn't and won't be the nominee. He needs to stop pretending.
Maybe Bernie knows something we don't know, I have no idea. But I really don't think that Bernie continuing to campaign will make those who wouldn't vote for Trump now change their minds. I honestly do not think that it will have the kind of impact you're suggesting. Also, I think that just on principle alone, Bernie has a good point. The way the media has played this nomination "announcement" is just plain wrong.
It may have been wrong but HRC didn't want it either. It doesn't make her any less the nominee.
The guy spent a month in California and lost by 12. He spent weeks in NY and got clobbered. He lost FL, VA, NC, OH, PA. These are the swing states. He lost pledged, super, and total vote. There is literally no argument for him not to concede, other than stubbornness or narcissism. He has the influence to shape the platform, but he will lose it if he doesn't drop by next week.
Well, it does actually make her less the nominee, because she's not the nominee until she is nominated!
I think there are a few arguments for him not to concede myself. I'm not saying that I agree with them in the long run (although do on principle if not in practice), but they are still valid arguments IMO. Perhaps stubbornness has something to do with it (which isn't always a bad thing), but I don't think narcissism does. And remember, you can't lose pledged or SD votes until you lose them. This is the main point. Until the convention, he hasn't lost those, and Hillary hasn't won them. I understand that predictions hold some water, but I don't feel like they're being handled as prediction anymore, which is a real problem.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Comments
I mean the perception of this could be wrong and it could be simply viewed as just wanting a representative of Society...just a thought...
June 02, 2016, 07:41 pm
Poll: Sanders edging Clinton out in California
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/bernie-sanders-leads-hillary-clinton-new-poll-california
http://www.vox.com/2016/6/2/11818320/bernie-sanders-barack-obama-2008
How is this process unfair? Hillary has beaten him by something like 3 million votes.
It's over.
For either candidate to win they would need superdelegates (which Hillary is winning), or you go strict popular vote (which Hillary is also winning). And even if you tripled Bernie's SD support he'd still be not even be an eyelash closer to what Clinton has. And there's the fact that SD support Bernie has had are coming out saying that the party now has to unite behind Clinton.
People are very, very dumb.
Like I said, heard a guy on NPR this morning say he's voting for Trump if not Bernie. Enough said.
There are many Bernie supporters who will assist Trump in his quest for office simply by bailing from the process unless Bernie steps up and faces reality, The Bernie or Bust people, by not participating in the general will help Trump. So while they aren't supporting Trump, they are assisting him. Bernie needs to pretend he has some leadership skills and do the right thing. The republicans fucked themselves by having so many candidates in the clown car, and not rallying behind someone more reasonable against Trump. Had they narrowed the field, and pitted one establishment party candidate against Trump a few months earlier, they might have been able to put up an actual candidate. Instead, their egos or their fantasies got in the way, and their party was screwed. Same as what Bernie is now doing to the dems.
The guy spent a month in California and lost by 12. He spent weeks in NY and got clobbered. He lost FL, VA, NC, OH, PA. These are the swing states. He lost pledged, super, and total vote. There is literally no argument for him not to concede, other than stubbornness or narcissism. He has the influence to shape the platform, but he will lose it if he doesn't drop by next week.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
I think there are a few arguments for him not to concede myself. I'm not saying that I agree with them in the long run (although do on principle if not in practice), but they are still valid arguments IMO. Perhaps stubbornness has something to do with it (which isn't always a bad thing), but I don't think narcissism does. And remember, you can't lose pledged or SD votes until you lose them. This is the main point. Until the convention, he hasn't lost those, and Hillary hasn't won them. I understand that predictions hold some water, but I don't feel like they're being handled as prediction anymore, which is a real problem.