Democratic Debate

[LoAmmi]

Wow. Lots of hate and name calling from the left. You all must be scared spitless.

Where?

 

[Sumwear]

He identifies as a Jew. I've never heard him identify as an atheist.

I really wouldn't be surprised if he was actually a secular Jew. I feel like that with a lot of politicians, it not all of them. A believer, pandering to the religious crowd in some way whilst trying to gain or retain office, only to be upfront that they don't hold any belief whatsoever once they step away from politics. Ventura and Frank spring to my mind.

 

[OldFashionGal]

Who's telling them to get a job?
We're not talking about retired people, we're talking about young people who see that they have no future other than a lifetime of poverty.
Nobody has said anything about taking benefits from those who have earned them. Not ever.
Every election cycle it seems we have liberal politicians lying to the elderly and the retired about people wanting to take their social security. I find those lies pretty disgusting.

Compassionate people do not condemn others to a life of poverty so they can solidify a voting block. Compassionate people do not try to scare others with made up tales of things that will happen to them if they don't vote Democrat.

I'm one of them.

Ahh, this old boogeyman again. Ask yourself this.
1. Should we allow oil companies to take a tax deduction also available to any U.S. manufacturer?
2. Should farmers be allowed a fuel tax exemption for the fuel they use on the farm?
3. Should we fund programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP) that help low-income families with their heating bills?”

Those are the programs Democrats call oil subsidies. They also consider anything that reduces the cost of producing energy a subsidy. Think about that for a moment. Who actually USES the energy being produced? Reducing the cost of production benefits anyone who uses energy in any form, which includes the poor man who has to drive between his two jobs. Once again, Democrats champion a lie.

Again, you're being lied to.
Corporations exist to make a profit. That profit goes to their shareholders, who pay taxes on it. You probably own stock in at least one major corporation. Simply send in double the amount of taxes you would normally pay and you can see how double taxation affects your pocketbook.

This is easily done. Simply have networks give free air time, magazines give free advertising space and newspapers devote entire sections to the candidates so they never have to buy advertising. That way we could ALL run for president. Doesn't that make more sense? Of course, you'd have to ask the media outlets to work without pay and the ballots would be a thousand pages long, but that's a small price to pay to deny those who wish to donate their right to do so.

He would if he could get it, but since he's a socialist with no chance of winning he isn't going to get any.

You said "Nobody has said anything about taking benefits from those who have earned them. Not ever." I really do wish I had the sources for this but if you don't want to believe it that is fine with me! I have heard Republican politicians out of their own mouths (not quotes from news people) say such things as I will stop talking about Medicare when there is no Medicare and similar comments on social security. Reducing COLAs is reducing benefits and I know some on both sides said that. I find it disgusting those that don't see the wrongs in both parties. Sure, some Republicans are more careful so they try to talk about changing the programs instead of doing away with them but I have heard enough and seen enough to feel good about my vote going to Bernie Sanders! I wish I had the sources to take the debate further but I will leave that to the candidates to do (debates) but then again I have found out that even when have sources most people don't change their opinions but then again we were Republicans for MANY years and changed ours after listening to Republican politicians and watching how they act and treat people. I am against Keystone, I am against TPP, as well as the other issues I named that I know Bernie Sanders is the same on.

 

[KWCrazy]

I have heard Republican politicians out of their own mouths (not quotes from news people) say such things as I will stop talking about Medicare when there is no Medicare and similar comments on social security.

Democrats will stop lying about Medicare when there is no Medicare.
Social Security should be taken from the hands of the government. They can't be trusted. We're better off with individual retirement accounts. Social Security must be kept in place until it can be phased out, which means that we have to fulfill our obligation to everyone who counted on it to aid in their retirement. For people in their 30's and younger, there is plenty of time to transition into an approved retirement account. Forget the "Social Security Trust Fund." It never existed.

Reducing COLAs is reducing benefits and I know some on both sides said that.

Increasing the COLA 3% in an economy with 1% inflation is increasing the benefit. It is NOT a draconian cut like the liars-for-hire claim because they wanted a 5% increase. So long as it keeps pace with inflation, everything is good. Baseline budgeting needs to be eliminated.

I find it disgusting those that don't see the wrongs in both parties.

Trust me, we see the weakness in the Republicans.

Sure, some Republicans are more careful so they try to talk about changing the programs instead of doing away with them but I have heard enough and seen enough to feel good about my vote going to Bernie Sanders!

There is no place for socialism in the US. We are a capitalist republic. We became the most powerful nation in the world because we reward people financially for their innovation. The drive for personal success has enabled people to rise from abject poverty to become billionaires. The Indians were socialists. That's why they were still a primitive people while the rest of the world advanced around them.

... I have found out that even when have sources most people don't change their opinions

Why should we when we're right? Our economic system has resulted in us being able to feed and protect half the world. Companies that find cures for diseases make millions; but people are cured. Energy companies make millions; but we have plenty of energy. The problem is that so few people any more understand economics. If I generate wealth it does not come at the expense of anyone else. The billionaire creates businesses run by millionaires, who employ managers who make hundreds of thousands, and that all filters down to the new employee starting out part time. Until the billionaire took a chance nobody had a job. People don't own wealth. They accumulate and manage it.

...but then again we were Republicans for MANY years and changed ours after listening to Republican politicians and watching how they act and treat people.

You mean they treat people like adults? They don't feed one liners to the stupid, like Republicans hate old people, they want to push Granny off a cliff, they want to starve children, they want to destroy the world and the make-believe "war on women?" I believe that a large portion of the Democrat base is stupid. They believe these things. You'd HAVE TO be stupid to believe them. The politicians know better. They're just lying.

I am against Keystone,

There's no intelligent reason to oppose the keystone pipeline any more than there is to oppose drilling in the arctic wasteland in ANWR.

I am against TPP,

The TPP ia an Obama initiative. Obama is America's most dangerous enemy. Therefore I oppose the TPP as well. There may be things about it that are good, but if it came from Obama it can't be in America's best interests. Sanders is to the left of lunatic. He belongs in the nut house, not the White House.

 

[OldFashionGal]

Democrats will stop lying about Medicare when there is no Medicare.
Social Security should be taken from the hands of the government. They can't be trusted. We're better off with individual retirement accounts. Social Security must be kept in place until it can be phased out, which means that we have to fulfill our obligation to everyone who counted on it to aid in their retirement. For people in their 30's and younger, there is plenty of time to transition into an approved retirement account. Forget the "Social Security Trust Fund." It never existed.

Increasing the COLA 3% in an economy with 1% inflation is increasing the benefit. It is NOT a draconian cut like the liars-for-hire claim because they wanted a 5% increase. So long as it keeps pace with inflation, everything is good. Baseline budgeting needs to be eliminated.

Trust me, we see the weakness in the Republicans.

There is no place for socialism in the US. We are a capitalist republic. We became the most powerful nation in the world because we reward people financially for their innovation. The drive for personal success has enabled people to rise from abject poverty to become billionaires. The Indians were socialists. That's why they were still a primitive people while the rest of the world advanced around them.

Why should we when we're right? Our economic system has resulted in us being able to feed and protect half the world. Companies that find cures for diseases make millions; but people are cured. Energy companies make millions; but we have plenty of energy. The problem is that so few people any more understand economics. If I generate wealth it does not come at the expense of anyone else. The billionaire creates businesses run by millionaires, who employ managers who make hundreds of thousands, and that all filters down to the new employee starting out part time. Until the billionaire took a chance nobody had a job. People don't own wealth. They accumulate and manage it.

You mean they treat people like adults? They don't feed one liners to the stupid, like Republicans hate old people, they want to push Granny off a cliff, they want to starve children, they want to destroy the world and the make-believe "war on women?" I believe that a large portion of the Democrat base is stupid. They believe these things. You'd HAVE TO be stupid to believe them. The politicians know better. They're just lying.

There's no intelligent reason to oppose the keystone pipeline and more than there is to oppose drilling in the arctic wasteland in ANWR.
The TPP ia an Obama initiative. Obama is America's most dangerous enemy. Therefore I oppose the TPP as well. There may be things about it that are good, but if it came from Obama it can't be in America's best interests. Sanders is to the left of lunatic. He belongs in the nut house, not the White House.

Totally DISAGREE on you about having retirement accounts for seniors!

My husband a veteran as well as worked for his benefits (if what I heard is correct) next year will receive NO COLA and that makes I think it's 3 out of 5 years there is NO increase. Medical bills are enormous and he has not even had his cancer check up in years because of how much he owes so for you to act like the COLA is fine makes me not want to comment to anymore of your comments! I say again the lack of compassion, love, and greed of most in the Republican party is exactly why we want no part of it anymore. My reasons for being against keystone well my main reason you did not even name!

 

[LivingWordUnity]

He identifies as a Jew. I've never heard him identify as an atheist.

Either way, what bearing does it have on whether his form of socialism is the Church-prohibited form? Has Bernie talked about abolishing private property or forcibly turning the means of production over to the Proletariat?

According to the Church, Catholics can not subscribe to even to a "moderate socialism".

"Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority." - St. John XXIII, Mater et Magistra (1961)

Other reasons I would NOT vote for Bernie Sanders are that he is for so-called "same-sex marriage" and abortion.
.

 

[Tallguy88]

According to the Church, Catholics can not subscribe to even to a "moderate socialism".

"Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority." - St. John XXIII, Mater et Magistra (1961)

Other reasons I would NOT vote for Bernie Sanders are that he is for so-called "same-sex marriage" and abortion.
.

So, where are the Papal condemnations of the Nordic countries form of Socialism? Or the economic policies of the UK Labour Party? Sanders is roughly in line with those. And plenty of devout Catholics support them in good conscious. In fact, the Labour party is the historically Catholic party in the UK.

Remember, the document you quoted was written at the height of the Cold War when the USSR was actively oppressing the Church in Europe and trying to export it's revolution worldwide. Sanders is not a Marxist-Leninist. There are other forms of "socialism", such as Trotskyism, Menshevism, and the kind that Sanders subscribes to, Democratic Socialism.

 

[Hank77]

Either way, what bearing does it have on whether his form of socialism is the Church-prohibited form? Has Bernie talked about abolishing private property or forcibly turning the means of production over to the Proletariat?

I have never heard him say that.

1. Should we allow oil companies to take a tax deduction also available to any U.S. manufacturer?

Subsidies are not the same thing as tax deductions.
I know about farm subsidies and who they went to in 2005, exactly by the name, county, and state or the corporation. Almost ALL of the millions went to large corporations, like those owned by Ted Turner of Turner Entertainment.

That way we could ALL run for president.

That is not true. For someone to run for President they have to be accepted by the individual states. In order for that to happen they have to show that they are a viable candidate within that state or they don't get on that state's ballot. No one can win without being on every state's ballot. So that would be one of the qualifications for receiving taxpayer funding, that they have to be a viable candidate; they have a possibility of actually winning.

With the internet, media TV advertising isn't as big a deal as it once was. I'd rather go to a candidate's website to see what the are proposing than to listen to some super pac's rhetoric. TV is becoming a thing of the past, why do you think corporations want to take over the internet? Right now the internet helps flatten the playing field for small businesses and entrepreneur's who can't afford TV ad time, big corp wants to change that to get rid of the competition. It is small businesses and cottage industries that are products made in the USA, which is where I like to buy from. Big corp. wants us all to buy their made in China and India junk.
I don't get CNN on my TV, I watched it online. I am an Independent and lean Libertarian, so I watch both sides and listen to all the candidates.

 

[KWCrazy]

Totally DISAGREE on you about having retirement accounts for seniors!

Why? Do you know that if you put $1,000 in a good growth stock mutual fun when a baby is born it will completely fund his/her retirement? Amazing how that works.

My husband a veteran as well as worked for his benefits (if what I heard is correct) next year will receive NO COLA and that makes I think it's 3 out of 5 years there is NO increase.

Nobody is talking about eliminating benefits, other than Democrats who are lying about the issue. COLA should be tied to the cost of living, which has been stagnant. We're talking about the retirement portion of Social Security, which offers a minute fraction of what any other savings plan would yield.

Medical bills are enormous and he has not even had his cancer check up in years because of how much he owes

He needs to take care of himself. The bills will either get paid or they won't. For the record, I support catastrophic long term care insurance.

so for you to act like the COLA is fine makes me not want to comment to anymore of your comments!

A cost of living adjustment that reflects no increases in the cost of living when there has been no inflation is exactly as it should be. If the cost of living goes up 2%, you should get a 2% raise. Above and beyond that, I think our veterans deserve a heck of a lot more than they get, but that has nothing to do with an inflation index.

I say again the lack of compassion, love, and greed of most in the Republican party is exactly why we want no part of it anymore.

Now you're repeating lies. You complain that you don't have enough of a retirement benefit but at the same time you argue against privatized savings that would have let you retire with dignity... with a few million in the bank. You talk about a COLA but you don't deny that the inflation index has been flat. If you want to discuss increased benefit for our veterans I'm on your side. You're talking about a specific standard that is tied to the rate of inflation, which has been around zero.

My reasons for being against keystone well my main reason you did not even name!

Nor did you.
The free flow of North American crude can make us no longer dependent on our enemies for our energy needs. Turning off the tap would give them less money to give to terrorists, and would ultimately save lives. American dollars belong in America where possible, not in the Middle East.

 

[KWCrazy]

Subsidies are not the same thing as tax deductions.

The items I listed listed are the "subsidies." Taxpayer dollars do NOT flow into the pockets of the oil companies. That's a Democrat lie.

For someone to run for President they have to be accepted by the individual states. In order for that to happen they have to show that they are a viable candidate within that state or they don't get on that state's ballot.

If you have a 700 person tie for first place, you have to have 700 names on the ballot.

No one can win without being on every state's ballot. So that would be one of the qualifications for receiving taxpayer funding, that they have to be a viable candidate; they have a possibility of actually winning.

How about this? NO taxpayer funding for candidates. NO union funding for candidates. NO corporate funding for candidates. FULL disclosure regarding donations. Candidates will have a harder time playing up to multiple individuals than to three or four big donors.

I don't get CNN on my TV, I watched it online. I am an Independent and lean Libertarian, so I watch both sides and listen to all the candidates.

Just remember, Republicans vote on the first Tuesday in November, Democrats the following Wednesday.

 

[Hank77]

The free flow of North American crude can make us no longer dependent on our enemies for our energy needs. Turning off the tap would give them less money to give to terrorists, and would ultimately save lives. American dollars belong in America where possible, not in the Middle East.

This I agree with.
I am for the Keystone project. But only with proper over-site and continued over-site for proper maintenance. We have seen the damage that has been done to property and the environment when pipelines are not properly maintained and it is obvious that we cannot trust corps. to do it without outside supervision.
I'd say think about hiring Native Americans to do this job, they seem to care more about the land and water than anyone else appears to.

If you have a 700 person tie for first place, you have to have 700 names on the ballot.

I think we could make rules that the states are required to follow that would eliminate this possibility, don't you?

How about this? NO taxpayer funding for candidates. NO union funding for candidates. NO corporate funding for candidates. FULL disclosure regarding donations. Candidates will have a harder time playing up to multiple individuals than to three or four big donors.

No Super Pacs, everything individual contributions made directly to the candidate's fund, with full disclosure. No Super Pacs running ads, etc.
I could go for something like this but it would still leave the candidates with their own personal funding, like Trump, who would have a huge advantage over so many other better candidates simply because of their personal wealth.
Capitalism in this country has gone backwards. We are almost back to the days before any kind of labor laws. Too big to fail banks and corps. are running this country and the rest of us are nothing but pawns on a chess board. When we figure out a way to get out from under, to bring the country back to the people, they step in and stop it any way they can. It is both sides playing the big money/power game, throw in the most powerful lobbyists and freedom is a fading thing.
We might as well be a democratic socialist country for all the good it is doing us to fight for the better way.

 

[OldFashionGal]

This I agree with.
I am for the Keystone project. But only with proper over-site and continued over-site for proper maintenance. We have seen the damage that has been done to property and the environment when pipelines are not properly maintained and it is obvious that we cannot trust corps. to do it without outside supervision.
I'd say think about hiring Native Americans to do this job, they seem to care more about the land and water than anyone else appears to.

I think we could make rules that the states are required to follow that would eliminate this possibility, don't you?

No Super Pacs, everything individual contributions made directly to the candidate's fund, with full disclosure. No Super Pacs running ads, etc.
I could go for something like this but it would still leave the candidates with their own personal funding, like Trump, who would have a huge advantage over so many other better candidates simply because of their personal wealth.
Capitalism in this country has gone backwards. We are almost back to the days before any kind of labor laws. Too big to fail banks and corps. are running this country and the rest of us are nothing but pawns on a chess board. When we figure out a way to get out from under, to bring the country back to the people, they step in and stop it any way they can. It is both sides playing the big money/power game, throw in the most powerful lobbyists and freedom is a fading thing.
We might as well be a democratic socialist country for all the good it is doing us to fight for the better way.

You mentioned hiring Native Americans regarding Keystone when there is treaties it would break if Keystone was passed. Not to mention others that don't want to be forced into having it go through their property!

 

[Hank77]

You mentioned hiring Native Americans regarding Keystone when there is treaties it would break if Keystone was passed. Not to mention others that don't want to be forced into having it go through their property!

I am very aware of the feelings of the Lakota on the reservations in SD. I think their fears could be alleviated if the government would give them equal control over the supervision of the project and it's maintenance in the long term. The problem is that they have been unable to trust the government to stick to previous agreements.
I am on their side and the side of the environment. SD is especially important to me, I was born there, my family has lived there for 6 generations and farm there to this day. I have been to the Pine Ridge res. and have seen the poverty and the sad state of the people. The Keystone will not go through the Pine Ridge but through the far south corner of the res. north of my folks. When the interstate went right through my grandpa's farm, he didn't like it either. It would cause his cattle to be cut off from their source of water and possibly damage these natural springs. Because he knew about road construction and what could be done to protect his property, he knew what to demand from the government without a court battle. He got his way about the construction and more money then they had originally offered. Just one little farmer with knowledge.
I believe the Lakota have a lot more backing than they have had in the past and more power. They need to use it and their knowledge, to work this out to their advantage.

 

[Genersis]

...In fact, the Labour party is the historically Catholic party in the UK.
...

Just to elaborate on this point a little.
The Labour Party has historically seen more Catholic support than it's opposing party, the Conservatives.(though I wouldn't call it Catholic)

This is, I would think is in large part, due to inheriting the mantle of "Conservative's primary opposition" from the Liberal Party and it's forebear parties.
The Conservative Party's predecessor party, the Tory Party strongly supported the monarchy and by extension the Church of England. In turn it did it's best to privilege the CofE and keep rights from religious minorities.

Tony Blair is Catholic...I'm unsure if he identified as such while Prime Minister though.

 

[OldFashionGal]

I am very aware of the feelings of the Lakota on the reservations in SD. I think their fears could be alleviated if the government would give them equal control over the supervision of the project and it's maintenance in the long term. The problem is that they have been unable to trust the government to stick to previous agreements.
I am on their side and the side of the environment. SD is especially important to me, I was born there, my family has lived there for 6 generations and farm there to this day. I have been to the Pine Ridge res. and have seen the poverty and the sad state of the people. The Keystone will not go through the Pine Ridge but through the far south corner of the res. north of my folks. When the interstate went right through my grandpa's farm, he didn't like it either. It would cause his cattle to be cut off from their source of water and possibly damage these natural springs. Because he knew about road construction and what could be done to protect his property, he knew what to demand from the government without a court battle. He got his way about the construction and more money then they had originally offered. Just one little farmer with knowledge.
I believe the Lakota have a lot more backing than they have had in the past and more power. They need to use it and their knowledge, to work this out to their advantage.

I am glad you are aware of this! My understanding is that it would break treaties and I would not be for that regardless unless however the process worked where the Native Americans would agree to breaking the treaty. NOT forced to break it. This is just one source out of many I read about it: I am glad your grandfather had the knowledge he did. So many don't I really did like how the cowboys and Indians came together to protest

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/17/3592947/sioux-keystone-act-of-war/

 

[LivingWordUnity]

According to the Church, Catholics can not subscribe to even to a "moderate socialism".

"Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production, it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority." - St. John XXIII, Mater et Magistra (1961)

Other reasons I would NOT vote for Bernie Sanders are that he is for so-called "same-sex marriage" and abortion.
.

So, where are the Papal condemnations of the Nordic countries form of Socialism? Or the economic policies of the UK Labour Party? Sanders is roughly in line with those. And plenty of devout Catholics support them in good conscious. In fact, the Labour party is the historically Catholic party in the UK.

Remember, the document you quoted was written at the height of the Cold War when the USSR was actively oppressing the Church in Europe and trying to export it's revolution worldwide. Sanders is not a Marxist-Leninist. There are other forms of "socialism", such as Trotskyism, Menshevism, and the kind that Sanders subscribes to, Democratic Socialism.

When did the Church ever abrogate what was said by St. John XXIII on socialism? It wasn't that long ago that he said it (1961). Plus, I wouldn't vote for him even if he were not a socialist since he supports so-called "same-sex marriage" and abortion.
.

 

[Tallguy88]

When did the Church ever abrogate what was said by St. John XXIII on socialism? It wasn't that long ago that he said it (1961). Plus, I wouldn't vote for him even if he were not a socialist since he supports so-called "same-sex marriage" and abortion.
.

The meaning of words change over time. What Sanders believes is socialism, is not the same thing as what the Church condemns.

 

[KWCrazy]

I could go for something like this but it would still leave the candidates with their own personal funding, like Trump, who would have a huge advantage over so many other better candidates simply because of their personal wealth.

How is this a problem? I'd rather hire a CEO who knew how to build wealth than one who would spend my company... or my country.. into insolvency.

We are almost back to the days before any kind of labor laws.

Untrue. We're regulated to death.

Too big to fail banks and corps. are running this country and the rest of us are nothing but pawns on a chess board.

Ever try to win without pawns?

 

[Hank77]

I am glad you are aware of this! My understanding is that it would break treaties and I would not be for that regardless unless however the process worked where the Native Americans would agree to breaking the treaty. NOT forced to break it. This is just one source out of many I read about it: I am glad your grandfather had the knowledge he did. So many don't I really did like how the cowboys and Indians came together to protest

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/17/3592947/sioux-keystone-act-of-war/

Thanks, that was a good read.

 

[parousia70]

And you're right that I have a strong bias against the Democrat party.

So much so that you refuse to call it by it's real name.