[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/news/ - Current News

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 74 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks Make sure to check your spam box!



File: bernie.png (393 KB, 741x492)
393 KB
393 KB PNG
The anti Sanders shills are spamming fake articles on the board to distract you from Sanders' evisceration of cheap conservative low blow tactices

"Bernie Sanders’s Fox News town hall, which aired Monday night, showed that contrary to the belief of many of his detractors (and some of his supporters), the Vermont senator really does have more than one rhetorical mode."

"There was the mode he used for the town hall part, and the mode he used for the Fox News part — represented by anchors Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum, who liberally interspersed questions from the audience with questions of their own"

"When speaking directly to audience members or to the TV audience watching at home, Sanders was sincere and open. When asked about President Donald Trump, he spoke with emotion about how he hoped everyone could agree a “pathological liar” should not be president; in his closing statement, he practically begged for more comity in the country, without backing off his insistence that the rich need to do more to provide for working families."

"When speaking to Baier and MacCallum, however — or, in a couple of moments, directly to the Fox News-watcher-in-chief — Sanders was as prickly as you’d expect. “The president watches your network a bit, right?” he needled. He hectored the hosts for making more money than he did. He huffed that he’d give fair answers only if asked fair questions."

"The uncomfortable dynamic between Sanders and the hosts occasionally served to sharpen intellectual differences. Early in the hourlong town hall, Baier asked whether Sanders’ millionaire status (earned, he said, by the success of his recent book) proved that capitalism worked; Bernie tartly responded “no,” then, after a pause, launched into a mini-lecture about the obligation to ensure a minimum standard of living for the least wealthy in America."

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/15/18323347/bernie-sanders-town-hall-fox-news-bret-baier
>>
More often, though, it was just uncomfortably tense. And that worked great for Sanders.

For one thing, the audience was on his side.

After Sanders answered an audience question about why government-provided versus private-sector health care by outlining his health care proposal, Baier decided to poll the audience about it, asking people if they’d prefer it to their current, private-sector-provided health insurance. (That frame evokes Barack Obama’s famous promise that “If you like your healthcare, you can keep it” — something conservatives and Fox News frequently point to as a symbol of Obamacare’s broken promises.)

The poll ... did not go the way Baier appears to have thought it would.

It’s apparent that Fox didn’t stack the town hall with conservatives or people who hated Bernie Sanders; while the first questioner was a student organizer with the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA, the second was a progressive organizer who’d campaigned for Hillary Clinton.

But Baier and MacCallum’s questions were often rooted in the conservative assumptions that a stereotypical Fox News viewer might have: that cutting the defense budget would “send a message” to other countries that the United States is weak, or that migrant asylum seekers “have to go somewhere” because there’s no room for them in border communities (and therefore, implicitly, that they should go to sanctuary cities). Sometimes, Sanders simply dodged them without any newsworthy gaffes or saying anything that Democratic primary voters might disagree with.
>>
Sometimes, he fired right back and challenged the question. “Why are you so shocked by that?” he challenged MacCallum during a back-and-forth about paying for his health care proposal. When Baier characterized Sanders as a “staunch supporter of Congresswoman Ilhan Omar” during what was supposed to be a 15-second “lightning round,” Sanders spent at least 15 seconds rejecting the premise — “Hold it, hold it, hold it. I’ve talked to her about twice in my life” — before affirming that he supported the right of a “Muslim member of Congress not to be attacked every single day in outrageous, racist remarks.”

By the end of the town hall, audience members were booing the occasional Baier or MacCallum follow-up, even doing call-and-response with Sanders.

Maybe this proved the central point of Sanders’ campaign rhetoric: that the American people writ large, not just progressive Democrats, really do want the government to guarantee them a certain standard of living. Maybe it just proved that Sanders is a good politician who’s skilled at presenting his preferred policies in a way that sounds good to people.

Either way, Sanders looked like a frontrunner — which, if you look at the polls, is exactly what he is. Sanders lags behind former Vice President Joe Biden in some polls, but Biden hasn’t yet officially declared his candidacy; if Biden somehow decides not to run, polling experts say Sanders could inherit a big chunk of his supporters, making him the prohibitive favorite.

That’s a very unusual position for a politician who has won national fame by defining himself against other Democrats. And it’s an awkward fit with his gruffly persona. Sanders’s prickliness seems sensible when he’s punching up in the polls; but when there’s no one to punch up at, a combative attitude can come off as ungenerous or even bullying.
>>
The Fox News hosts provided the perfect foil.

Sanders directed his irritations at them, giving the audience plenty of the authentic-seeming “Bernie from Brooklyn” without actually being irritated with any potential voters, and without saying anything negative about any of his fellow Democrats also running for the presidency. When MacCallum invited him to attack Biden as a centrist or South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg for suggesting Sanders might be too old, Sanders demurred — pointing out that Biden was a friend and that the primary was for voters to hear differences and make up their minds, or half-joking about his distant past as a long-distance runner.

The answer gave the impression of Sanders floating above the fray, frontrunner-style. But he wasn’t. He was fighting MacCallum and Fox News. And in the same way that one might win a debate — but not a typical town hall — he won.
>>
The only thing the right really gives a shit about is immigration and pushing back against extreme social liberalism. Someone like Bernie could snatch a lot of them if they didn't have trans rights and reparations dragging them down.
>>
>>382070
Bernie IIRC wants strict immigration laws.

Only brainlets and latino supremecists want to open the border.

http://time.com/4170591/bernie-sanders-immigration-conservatives/
>>
>>382070
Social liberalism and neoliberalism are the same shit, just social liberals want token representation in the oligarchy. They have the same domestic and foreign political and economic aims.
>>
>>382072
He probably means the constant anti-social redefinition of already defined norms. Such as men claiming to be women. Its not progress when it goes against evolutionary biology. False social progress is regression. Social liberalism for agreed upon definitions should be clarified, and neoliberalism itself fails to even address notions of these definitions so they are inherently different.

Neoliberalism only works in the absence of corporate libertarianism and thus the current system we call neoliberalism is really just free market oligarchy.

Yet the right will haphazardly define it as neoliberalism despite its clear imbalance toward the rich. Also, REEEEEEE
>>
>>382058
He's being a hell of a lot more practical than the standard neolib tactic of hoping everyone who disagrees with them will die of a fentanyl overdose
>>
meet the noi
public Key

67684ww87skjd28398
see you opn the other side
ha
>>
>>382077
That's a yikes from me.
>>
>>382070
>>382070
>Welp, gotta keep voting for the oil companies and their representatives in the senate!

>They're the only ones evil enough to enacts my desires to fuck over transgender people! Who needs healthcare or a fair tax code? If there are dicks rubbing together anywhere, that has to stop! I'll sell my life away and strip myself of human rights, all so I can eliminate transgender people!

------------------------

THEY ARE GOING TO FUCK EACH OTHER ANYWAYS.

THIS IS THE LAND OF THE FREE MOTHER FUCKER
>>
>>382126
>I'll sell my life away and strip myself of human rights, all so I can eliminate transgender people!
If only the solution where this simple
>>
Tired of the phrase "working families." It inherently devalues an escalating ratio of the population.
>>
https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/1117924843746361345/video/1
This video should make Trump and the Republicans shit their pants after Trump's latest attempt to destroy ObamaCare and now his attempt to sell the same snake oil twice by claiming he'll put a better health care plan forward after the election.

This is a Fox News Audience and just about everyone who raised their hands first, kept their raised hand for the second question with some cheering.
>>
FOX NEWS ALREADY CONFIRMED FOR PUTTING PLANTS IN THE AUDIENCE.
https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/1117919398889762822

>Joe, a "student" from Allentown, PA.
>He's a campus coordinator with conservative campus group Turning Point USA.
>>
>>382138
They all do this, though. It's a liberal conceit that people like me care about Fox News, or that we see them as our friends. There is no one in the media we consider to be our friends, or the friends of truth and democracy. They are all hacks and shill. Even the ones who pretend to be on our side.
>>
>>382139
It just reconfirms it's Bernie and what America should be, against the world.
He was given a tight rope to walk today and he just effortlessly cartwheeled crossed it.

Fox's attempt to gotcha Sanders on how much he makes only to see it blow up in their face when Sanders jujitsu's it to be about Trump was another golden moment.
https://twitter.com/KristinFisher/status/1117927701233508352

If he called out the audit excuse, that would have been the spike in the end zone.
>>
>>382141
>He was given a tight rope to walk today and he just effortlessly cartwheeled crossed it
Lol
Do you even read what you type?
You sound like either a paid shill or a fanatic zealot
Don't be so try hard it really puts people off and lowers your credibility and causes people to ignore what you have to say
>>
>>382148
>Projection the post
You should make another anti bernie sanders thread to justify your paycheck
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ozAACcc8I
Damn. I mean, I don't know what I expected, but that was some really weak performance from Fox News. Bernie pretty much had his way with them the whole time.
>>
>>382161
To be fair, they came with the right loaded and gotcha questions. They just clearly underestimated Sanders and he used them as a perfect foil while also knowing to call out the entire media for being complicate too at the right times instead of just saying ti's all the conservative media's fault.

The big thing to notice is he's only combative with the Fox News hosts, he might not always gives a straight answer to the audience, but he never attacks them even when they attempt a gatcha question like the first one.
>>
>>382152
I'm not anti sanders,I would vote for him. But what you typed made me feel like only shills support Sanders
Please stop sounding like you've been paid to post here, it's really off-putting
>>
>>382162
My favorite loaded gotcha questions were from 2016 debates
> Mr trump, why are you a birther
> Mr trump, why are you RACIST
> Mr trump, why did you say Hillary
> Mrs Clinton became first woman nominated by Democratic party to become president and you said she didn't look presidential. She's standing here right now, what did you mean?
at least the members in this audience weren't reading their questions off of a pre-printed piece of paper with their question that have been emailed to them by CNN, like what happened during the 2016 Town Hall debate
>>
>>382058
Bernie is a Russian agent.

Tad Devine is friends with Paul Manafort and receives payments from the Kremlin in exchange for promoting pro-Kremlin candidates. Bernie Sanders chose him as his chief strategist.

Sanders was one of only two senators to vote against putting sanctions on Russia. The other 98 voted for them.

Bernie Sanders honeymooned in the Soviet Union.

Bernie Sanders adopted a sister city in Russia as mayor of Burlington.

As a college student, his radical organization was under investigation by the House Un-American Activities Committee.

Mueller found evidence of Kremlin trolls promoting Bernie Sanders in 2016.
>>
>>382168
actual autism right here boys.
>>
>>382106
sorry t.brainlet go back to fortnite and pol
>>
>>382126
>saying land of the free unironically in 2019

goddamn is everyone retarded?
>>
>>382235
not even respectable bait.
>>
bump
>>
>>382165
>Thinking those are loaded questions
Trump was one of the people who started birtherism, which was racist at its core and he has a history of racism (central park 5, housing practices) Also, it's the entire conservative owned media, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, (controlled opposition) who is against Sanders and he pointed it out multiple times they're all at fault.
>>
>>382232
This is America
>>
But will Bernie offer us a refund for failing in 2016?
>>
>>382306
Whats insane to me is that Bernie hasn't spoken out against the corporate oligarchy that controls the media.

Hes done his best to toe their line and CNN still won't give pledge for him.

He could have so many times eviscerated them but hes patient. I fully expect him to unload massive anti corporate legislation when hes elected.
>>
>>382232
You have no idea how many countries where it's illegal to be gay, have abortions, buy loli sex toys and dolls, own a gun, speak out against the government. An attack on looking a bit girly and liking dicks is an attack on freedom.
>>
>>382327
>Whats insane to me is that Bernie hasn't spoken out against the corporate oligarchy that controls the media.
He's made allusions to it at the Faux News town hall pointing out how they're biased against him and what they report isn't what the American people care about.

Sanders it just playing it smart, if Sanders came out in favor of something like saying the News department has to serve the public good again or the reinstatement of equal time, the corporate media would see it as an act of war and would just bury him

What's funny is unless you're a fringe right winger or a corperate whore, everyone is saying Sanders did great during the Town Hall and point to that one instant survey Barr did about Medicare for all.
>>
>>382133
Yes, just like said working families are being devalued to the point where even the fucking life expectancy is going down.
>>
https://www.apnews.com/80676f95802541dea83feb2454031e1c
Bernie killed it in front of 2.5 million and Trump was clearly fuming while watching it based on is pitiful nickname.
>>
>>382496
He is such a caveman it’s ridiculous. He talks like an insane grandpa. “Crazy Bernie”. How about Bernie comes back with “Braindead Trump”. Crowd would go nuts.
>>
>>382515
>He is such a caveman it’s ridiculous. He talks like an insane grandpa.
Are you talking about Bernie or Trump here?
>>
>>382525
It's clearly Trump, Bernie is articulate, Trump is a rambling mess.

Never forget the iPhone experiment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHzv-UDXeC4
>>
>>382525
My bad it wasn’t readily obvious. I’m most definitely talking about Trump. He’s borderline denial. I’ve watched men descend into dementia and Trumps been on that ramp at least since the birther rants.
>>
>>382552
Senial.*** iPhone likes to autocorrect real words. Thanks iOS
>>
>>382553
I think it's senile not senial. :) But true. He has all the symptoms of dementia. So I don't think bashing him all the time is a very good idea if he's sick. Republicans should be held more responsible for doing whatever demented Trump wants them to do.
>>
>>382569
>t. soyboy
>>
>>382569
oh ya you're right and I'm retarded. iOS does correct real words though so I'm getting gaslit by my own phone.
>>
>>382569
I think bashing an old man in a wheelchair with no authority over anything is immoral.

Bashing the leader of the western world for what is clear and precipitous decline in cognition due to age is a civic duty.

We can mourn our insensitivity when the docuseries on his pitiable condition comes out in 10 years.

Our president is factually and technically in every sense of the word mentally retarded.
>>
>>382077
Cringe
>>
>>382602
>doesn't understand adult words and concepts

LITERALLY CRINGING
>>
>LITERALLY CRINGING

LITERALLY SHAKING AND CRYING WHILE TYPING THIS
>>
>>382599
Fair enough. But I think Republicans should be held way more responsible for allowing that kind of behaviour.
>>
>>382613

>EVERYTHING IS CRINGE

LITERALLY BUYING FORTNITE SKINS AND DYING HAIR BLUE TO COPE
>>
>>382614
Ehh. I'd say if you tall shit you get hit. Republicans just do it way more and have zero interest in policing themselves. They only use moral standards to make democrats LOOK as corrupt as they are so as to make it seems like no one in government is upright and moral, which makes people stop caring about their ACTUAL corruption.

>Common GOP reasoning: I don't care how out of line he is, as long as he gives me what I want. Everyone does (illegal thing) anyway.
>>
>>382310
he got raeped by the dcccp can't really fault him. hes old af though, if we think dornal gramph is out of touch, wait until based bernie can operate his own twittter, which he never will - doubt he can see things that close to his face
>>
>>382705
t.boomer.

This is what happens when you turn over 40 years old and your mental faculties fall off.

I was talking to a boomer last night and he said "if trump is so bad, how has it gone from 1.4 GDPs under Obama to 3.4 GDPs under Trump". This is the literal state of the retarded right.

After explaining to him how economics work and explaining that the economy has been on an 8 year upturn before Trump he casually said "I don't know what any of that means" with a gaping dumbfounded look on his face.

I explained further that the environment is going to literally die if we elect conservatives because they are pro oil pro coal and have zero ethics.

He just flat said "well I'll be dead by then".

This is the true face of Republicans ladies and gents.
>>
Bernie Sanders just Factpilled the Faux News audience. More Democrats should grow a spine and go into Trump's propaganda center to Factpiill his followers.
>>
We now have 8 anti-Bernie Sanders threads on /news/.
/pol/ is feeling the Bern.
>>
>>382070
I've vote Dem if they weren't anti-gun. Nothing to be done.
>>
>>382807
The people I've met who genuinely believe a majority of Democrats are "anti-gun" are the same people who for some reason believe that adding a few more steps into the process of owning a gun is some insane slippery slope to a state sponsored genocide.
>>
>The anti Sanders shills are spamming fake articles on the board

Oh really? Care to give an example of a “fake” article? I haven’t seen any.
>>
>>382849
>people who genuinely believe a majority of Democrats are "anti-gun"
Everyone who's ever remotely paid attention to the gun issue know that Democrats are anti-gun.

>some insane slippery slope
The slippery slope to the general removal of guns of society has been slid down by all European societies that liberals so love and wish to emulate, and Democrats have in numerous municipalities attempted to ban guns entirely until the Supreme Court said they could not.
>>
>>382852
>Everyone who's ever remotely paid attention to the gun issue know that Democrats are anti-gun.
There is a strong argument to support the theory that gun culture and romanticization of guns in this country is directly responsible for their role in violence and death. In my opinion its simply a matter of politics over pragmatism. Logically speaking, making the process of owning guns similar to owning cars would not at all prevent a law abiding citizen from owning them. Closing loopholes and creating gun registries would also not prevent law abiding citizens from owning them. It seems as though the conservative tilt is that any step towards involving the government in your gun ownership, regardless of how minuscule or common sense it is, is the first steps towards tyranny. That isn't an argument, its just another right-wing fear-based talking point meant to soothe the illogical anxieties of their knuckle-dragging, evangelical fly-over base. This is all, of course, ignoring the fact that fundamental argument om favor of an unregulated 2nd amendment is completely illogical. There are no amount of AR-15s or high capacity magazines that could even remotely put a dent in the U.S. military if the government wanted you dead. You could sit on as many guns as you want. If a tyrannical government who massacres its own citizens is unironically what you're afraid of then I suggest you invest a few hundred million in drones and heavy artillery because its the only way you'd stand a chance.


>>382852
>general removal of guns of society
>ban guns

You know you're debating someone who has no idea what they're talking about when they believe that banning the sale of guns and going door to door and confiscating guns from private citizens is the same thing.
>>
>>382858
>It seems as though the conservative tilt is that any step towards involving the government in your gun ownership, regardless of how minuscule or common sense it is
"Common sense" can be used to justify gun confiscation: the right of people not to be shot by you is more important than your right to own guns, hence, give up your guns. In Europe this is "common sense." Right-wingers don't buy into "common sense" arguments because what people call "common sense" is able to justify everything up to and exceeding confiscation.

>If a tyrannical government who massacres its own citizens is unironically what you're afraid of then I suggest you invest a few hundred million in drones and heavy artillery because its the only way you'd stand a chance.
Historically, when the United States has brought aircraft, artillery, tanks and helicopters to bear against illiterate goat fuckers with AK-47s, the United States has performed exceedingly poorly.

>You know you're debating someone who has no idea what they're talking about when they believe that banning the sale of guns and going door to door and confiscating guns from private citizens is the same thing.
The fact that liberals may never reach their dream goal does not mean that it's not their goal, or that they won't take all possible steps to move society in that direction.
>>
>>382851
Just because you haven't seen them, doesn't mean they don't exist.

I reported 2 of them and they are now gone. I'm not sure if they are just buried or the reports worked.

They were using reports on Sarah Sanders pro Trump views but linking images of Bernie.
>>
>>382860
Nobody cares about your guns bro. They aren't taking them all away. You don't need most of them anyways.

I know you want your kids to have the right to shoot up their school because you raised them too authoritatively and of course infused your 4chan autism into them, but the rest of us don't really care about .556 or .762 rifles being confiscated.

If the government rolls on its citizens (which it won't, and if it was, ironically, it would be conservatives to do it) your pea shooter isnt going to do jack shit. Enjoy being drone striked plebe.
>>
>>382860
>"Common sense" can be used to justify gun confiscation
Your hypothetical, slippery slope ramblings are rather irrelevant. Its not an argument, its just more fear-based incentive to avoid having pragmatic, rational conversation. You pretending to not understand what common sense means is also rather amusing.

>the United States has performed exceedingly poorly.
That could not be possibly be more untrue. I think this is another case of you pretending to be stupid to avoid the gigantic flaws in your argument.

>The fact that liberals may never reach their dream goal does not mean that it's not their goal
Just more tin-foil hat nonsense and goal-post moving. You're so idiotic you've even managed to twist the fact that everything you're saying is non-existent into evidence that you're right. This signals to me that you're not interested in any kind of rational conversation. It doesn't matter what facts anybody hits you with you'll find a way to distort it into proof for your irrational confirmation bias. Try InfoWars, anon. I think you'd be more comfortable there.
>>
>>382865
>Nobody cares about your guns bro. They aren't taking them all away. You don't need most of them anyways.
They should and then when he murders people trying to keep them it'll only provide more evidence that guns need to be banned.
>>
>>382872
now this is some next level /pol/.

If the government starts taking guns, there are far bigger worries in the world than "muh 2nd amendment".

Revising gun laws to keep them out of the hands anyone who has ever commented on /pol/ unironically is a net win for everyone in the world.
>>
>>382867
>Its not an argument
The term "common sense" is in and of itself a non-argument.

>That could not be possibly be more untrue.
Did the United States succeed in suppressing insurgencies in Afghanistan or Vietnam? Have they been policy successes for the United States?

>Just more tin-foil hat nonsense and goal-post moving.
And here comes more non-argument. At least the other liberals in this thread like >>382865 and >>382872 are openly pro-confiscation, unlike you, who thinks confiscation is a "conspiracy theory" and that these people don't exist.
>>
>>382876
>Revising gun laws to keep them out of the hands anyone who has ever commented on /pol/ unironically is a net win for everyone in the world.
I see you're as eager to shit on the First Amendment as the Second.

Liberalism at work.
>>
>>382878
/pol/ is proof of mental illness.

sorry about your weapons, Cletus, I'm taking them to my FEMA youth camp to be redistributed to true patriots.
>>
>>382880
Case in point.
>>
>>382881
Lampooning the conservative fake narrative that liberals want to take away guns is better than engaging with a t.rumplet or a t.retardlican when you can't even present the actual legislation democrats are attempting to pass.

Not only that, the gun issue is so trivial compared to lobby reform and anti-corporate legislation that prevents monopolies, anyone who hinges the election on whether or not a schizophrenic can get a gun is an absolute fucking retard.
>>
>>382418
>I might get shot by the police for holding an overly ripe banana, I might be getting lied to from every facet of the government, I might be getting spied on constantly
>but at least I can fuck men

Americorpulants are fucking dumb.
>>
>>382885
>Lampooning the conservative fake narrative that liberals want to take away guns
Left-wingers have taken away guns in many countries. The US is not immune to this push.

>Not only that, the gun issue is so trivial compared to lobby reform and anti-corporate legislation
Then you should start pushing pro-gun Democrats through primaries so they can capture single-issue defectors and push through issues that "actually matter."

If Beto hadn't been so anti-gun he'd have Cruz's Senate seat right now.
>>
>>382886
None of those are mutually exclusive
>>
>>382877
>The term "common sense" is in and of itself a non-argument.
Debating someone who insists on being purposefully obtuse just to avoid having to address the massive holes in their argument is pointless. What you're doing is pretending to not understand what basic logic is so that you can use that as a foundation for your irrational slippery-slope argument.

>Did the United States succeed in suppressing insurgencies in Afghanistan or Vietnam?
You're purposely muddying the difference between policy success and military success the same way you did with gun sale bans and gun confiscation. Another bad-faith debate technique meant to cover up your lack of logic. No, Afghanistan has not been a policy success but it has almost nothing to do with the effectiveness of the U.S. military in comparison to that of Afghan insurgents. Afghanistan and Vietnam were military disasters based primarily on the fact that they were battling what was essentially a faceless enemy; dozens of uncoordinated, unconnected military cells operating within and through the common citizenry. The U.S. military could of carpet bombed the entire country if they wanted to and ended this struggle years ago but, obviously, that would be a war crime. The fact remains that, in terms of firepower, manpower and casualties, ISIS and Al Qaeda have been extremely ineffective against the U.S. military. Our failure in those wars has nothing to do with our weapons not being effective enough.

>And here comes more non-argument.
You've provided no argument therefore I'm not obliged to counter it. Baselessly claiming that liberals are secretly plotting to overthrow the central government and use military forces to murder and strip citizens of their firearms isn't an argument. Its illogical tinfoil hat bullshit that has no basis in objective reality and deserves absolutely zero consideration in a rational conversation.
>>
>>382888
You are beyond not worth engaging with
>>
>>382892
>Debating someone who insists on being purposefully obtuse
"Common sense" is whatever the speaker says it is. It's a non-argument.

>Afghanistan and Vietnam were military disasters based primarily on the fact that they were battling what was essentially a faceless enemy
Any domestic conflict in the United States would not involve a uniformed standing army fighting against the US government.

>Our failure in those wars has nothing to do with our weapons not being effective enough.
If ISIS and our enemies in Afghanistan and Vietnam did not have even have firearms, then we would have won despite the various inefficiencies that were made during those conflicts. Your claim is that small arms are useless against the US military and that you need drones and artillery pieces. History proves this is not the case.

>Baselessly claiming that liberals are secretly plotting to overthrow the central government and use military forces to murder and strip citizens of their firearms
Point to a post in which I made this claim.

>>382893
Then stop engaging, retard.
>>
>>382894
>"Common sense" is whatever the speaker says it is. It's a non-argument.
I'm not engaging with you on this anymore. You want to pretend to be stupid to avoid talking about this topic so that's fine.

>If ISIS and our enemies in Afghanistan and Vietnam did not have even have firearms, then we would have won despite the various inefficiencies that were made during those conflicts.
More hypothetical bullshit. Next.

>Your claim is that small arms are useless against the US military and that you need drones and artillery pieces. History proves this is not the case.
False. There have been 288,000 civilian and combatant deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan since the start of the war whereas only there have only been 4,424 U.S. military and non-combatant deaths. Small arms are extremely ineffective against the U.S. military, as the numbers clearly show.

>Point to a post in which I made this claim.
>>382852
>>382860
You clearly stated that is libera's "dream goal" is to go door to door and confiscate guns. Basic logic dictates that physically removing people's property against their will is going to involve violence. You clearly insinuated that this is their "dream goal" meaning that they're developing and enacting legislation to move towards this direction. This hypothetical situation would also obviously mean that conservatives and gun-right advocates are in no position of power to stop them, meaning that liberals have somehow managed to take over. You heavily insinuated this and now, again, you're playing stupid to avoid the logical holes and delusional nature of your argument. And, with that, I'm done going around in circles with you. You don't live in reality, therefore, there's really nothing else I can say to you.
>>
>>382900
>I'm not engaging with you on this anymore. You want to pretend to be stupid to avoid talking about this topic so that's fine.
You attempted to label your policy proposals beyond debate by calling them "common sense."

>More hypothetical bullshit. Next.
We're only in this debate at all because you introduced a hypothetical bullshit example featuring drones and artillery.

>Small arms are extremely ineffective against the U.S. military, as the numbers clearly show.
I guess we're winning, then!

>You clearly stated that is libera's "dream goal" is to
I like how instead of quoting me, you took a single word from my post, and then substituted wild inventions for the rest of my post.
>>
>>382888

You just admitted that a right to a gun is more important than the toppling corporate libertarian big lobby regime that Reagan and Carter initiated and persists to this day, robbing us of democracy.
>>
>>382908
The post >>382888 directly states that gun rights don't "actually matter" and offered electoral advice to Democrats seeking to topple "corporate libertarian big lobby regimes."

If you don't want to take that advice that's your problem.
>>
>>382910
And I'm saying that anyone who hinges their actual freedom on whether or not mentally insane or criminals can have guns are retarded either way.

Your liberal gun narrative is fictitious, therefore your argument that liberals need to adjust to the center on the issue is too.
>>
>>382912
>mentally insane
"Mentally ill" is a label that can be applied to people without due process and has been abused by governments, including the United States, for political purposes.

>Your liberal gun narrative is fictitious, therefore your argument that liberals need to adjust to the center on the issue is too.
There are many places where liberals would enjoy trivial or irrelevant benefits from shifting to the right on guns, but Texas is not one of them.
>>
>>382914
Nobody cares. There are 320 million people in the country, most of which do not qualify as mentally ill.

>hinging your freedom on guns makes you retarded.

confirmed retard.
>>
>>382917
>Nobody cares.
And there you have it: the liberal attitude towards individual rights.

>confirmed retard.
The people who founded America unanimously agreed that an armed populace was necessary to the security of a free state.
>>
>>382918
Again, and I know you're a poltard so its hard for you to not do this, you're creating a strawman.

Democrats don't want to take away guns. They want the pathway to getting guns legally to be harder, especially for the mentally ill and proven dangerous or criminally dangerous.

The current pathway to taking a dangerous persons guns away is to get a stalking / protective order.

The mere fact that you're misrepresenting liberal legislation (on something I barely think about but apparently know far more than you t.brainlet), makes you a coward, a degenerate, and an overall faggot.
>>
>>382925
>Democrats don't want to take away guns.
Democrats know that confiscation is currently politically impractical, but if it were not barred by the Second Amendment and the political environment, they would do so. The "you don't need an AR-15" rhetoric is echoed across the nation by liberals everywhere.

>The mere fact that you're misrepresenting liberal legislation
I am not talking about a specific piece of legislation. I am talking about the overall ideological goal.
>>
>>382926

So you base your entire argument on enormous speculative reasoning and have no facts to back up any of your claims.

Welcome to being a conservative ladies and gentlemen
>>
>>382927
>So you base your entire argument on enormous speculative reasoning and have no facts to back up any of your claims.
Liberal jurisdictions such as DC have attempted to implement complete firearms bans. Activist groups like the Brady Campaign want semiautomatic rifles banned. Left-leaning countries have instituted complete firearms bans (ie, "mandatory buybacks.")

The only thing that stands between liberals and a complete absence of civilian gun ownership (except perhaps vintage bolt-action rifles and the like) is political reality.
>>
>>382918
You dont think its a bit ironic that a /pol/fag, whose party wants to erradicate brown people, the blacks, and islam, and who enacted the patriot act, wants to talk about liberals taking individual rights? You're probably too retarded to see the hypocrisy so I'm just gonna let you continue your retarded debate with yourself.
>>
>>382929
>tin foil intensifies.

wew lad. We got a live one.
>>
>>382930
We're talking about the Second Amendment. If you want to discuss genocide you can do it in a thread where it's on-topic.

>and who enacted the patriot act
The PATRIOT Act was a bipartisan effort, and was voted into law 98-1.
>>
>>382931
Not an argument.
>>
>>382932
Goddamn you are a shill. Republican regime instituted the Patriot Act. It was created by Republicans.

Stop denying history faggot.

Written by Republican Jim Sensenbrenner within a month of 9/11 during the Bush Administration.

Voting against the act would have been seen as heresy and any democrat who opposed would have been renounced to rubble.

Imagine being as dumb as you. I swear youre an autist.
>>
>>382934
>Goddamn you are a shill. Republican regime instituted the Patriot Act. It was created by Republicans.
Had all the Republicans died the day before the bill was voted on, Democrats would have passed it in the House 49-1 and 145-62 in the House.

>any democrat who opposed would have been renounced to rubble.
I guess if you voted for something because you were scared of being criticized you didn't really vote for it!
>>
>>382933
You haven't provided a single argument in this entire thread. You've just rambled on about hypothetical atrocities and falsely claimed that "liberals" are plotting violent gun confiscations. What makes you believe people are at all obligated to provide you logic based arguments to your illogical assertions?
>>
>>382935
>reading comprehension skills

"Voting against the act would have been seen as heresy and any democrat who opposed would have been renounced to rubble."

Do you enjoy being BTFOd?
>>
Jesus christ Bernie owned the room. Fucking chad.
>>
>>382877
>>382860
>>382852
Hi sock puppet anon.
>>
>>382163
fox news was obviously doing their damnedest to make him look bad, and failed because he handled himself well, how was that not an apt metaphor?
>>
>>382310
his first campaign was enough to make him the frontrunner of dems actually running this cycle(second to biden because the media hates sanders enough to include someone that hasnt announced a campaign), so I'd say that was worth the money used to support him. and i imagine they think that as well, considering many people are again sending him a ton of money
>>
>>383003
To Fox News's credit I think they allowed for a fairly balanced audience. They could have forced a homefield screwjob if they had really wanted to, not that Bernie didn't win over a few conservatives.
>>
>>382982
Yeah I noticed the posting style and didn't engage. Disappointing he keeps ruining arguments.
>>
>>382310
Will Trump refund everyone when he loses in 2020?

I'm only joking, Trump doesn't even pay his workers and scams everyone. (See Trump university)
>>
>>383007
yeah, im really surprised about that, to the point it seems like an oversight to me on their part, or they didnt vet as well as they intended to. obviously speculation on my part
>>
How does Bernie respond when he's out of the dnc kiddie pool and the repubs start literally calling him a communist instead of just hinting it at it? Own it or deny?
>>
>>383007
>Fairly balanced audience.
>Fox News has this guy ask the first question
https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/1117919398889762822
>>
I love how when people clap at something Sanders says, he always looks like he's thinking "shut the fuck im trying to make a point" but he waits patiently to continue
>>
>>383012
I didn't say they were running for jesus, obviously they were going to have plants, still that was a representative body of a swing district, not a trump rally by any means.
>>
>>383011
he'll explain what democratic socialism is for the umpteenth time
>>
>>383027
>democratic control of the economy
Isn't that what communists always pretended was the actual state of things?
>>
>>383033
certain aspects of the economy. its not the government seizing the means of production
>>
>>383033
Teddy Roosevelt is a communist now?

Have you ever studied US history?

We are a nation built on democratic socialist ideals. Your prosperity hinges on it.

Or would you like to go back to robber baron times?
>>
>>383034
As disingenuous as it might be I think the semantics are really going to matter, People like the new deal, FDR image of a democrat but the second you bring in the proper European terms people get wary. I can't imagine it won't chill a segment of voters who would have otherwise gone dem.
>>
>>383037
thats a good point, i can only hope that they actually listen to what he has to say and what he proposes because his policies look a lot better than what you might imagine when you hear everyone calling him a socialist and a communist. and he outlines how to actually pay for them as well https://youtu.be/hSnxuzDm7C0?t=357
>>
>>382071
No, this is the narrative you hear from Tim Pool and other retards. In the very same town hall from Monday, Sanders used the same sob story rhetoric about "muh people looking for a better life." I don't care how many controls you put in place or how strict of a process you make it, the issue is the number of people coming in, the reasons they're coming in, and the places they're coming from. Legal and illegal are meaningless distinctions if the effects on your host population and host culture are the same
>>
>>383041
and you're just using a sob story about "muh brown people". if a judge finds their claim to asylum to be legitimate, then why should we turn them away? america has always been a melting pot, new culture coming in isnt going to have a substantial effect on the overall culture of the country
>>
>>382982
>>383008
You're both complete fucking moron who calls everyone who doesn't blandly buy into your retarded shit "sock puppet anon."

>Disappointing he keeps ruining arguments.
You never came to have an argument in the first place. 99% of the shit you do is literally make shit up and accuse other people or saying or doing it.
>>
>>382952
i know you. youre the guy from the other threads. youre a shit debater. the guy youre aguing with has provided evidence that dems want to take away guns here:
>>382929
i remember hillary clinton mentioning australia forced buyback on the campaign trail. and YES the patriot act was bipartisan. its you trying to rewrite history because you have to defend your TEEEAAAM. you dont want your TEEEAAAM to lose a point so you cant concede that your TEEEAAAM made a bad call. and after obama ran against the patriot act, he made adjustments but didnt allow it to expire. but hey hes on your TEEAAAM. so you ignore the fact he got caught spying on germany and ignore snowdens whistleblowing because muh TEEEAAAM. rank partisanship is part of whats destroying political discourse because imbeciles with an axe to grind against the other TEEEAAAM reduce things to my TEEEAAAM vs their TEEEAAAM. pathetic.
>>383007
people make the mistake of thinking fox is essentially a rightwing version of cnn or msnbc. its not. if you would have told me fox news would become most accurate and impartial during the bush years i wouldnt have believed you. but here we are.
>>
>>382952
You're mindblowingly retarded, dude. I've given you specific examples of gun suppression enacted by liberals ranging from general bans on usage to confiscation and the only thing you have to say in response is "hurr hypotheticals." And this whole thing only started in the first place because >>382849, the galaxy-brained retard that he is, went all-in on a ponitless ad hom against someone he didn't like.

>>382954
And I informed you that fully sixty-three Democrats (and three Republicans) voted against the bill. Democrats had a choice and they made it; they passed the bill in overwhelming numbers.

If you're going to absolve Democrats because they literally cannot make their own decisions because they're TERRIFIED of the electorate, then that's a problem that should see them all out of office anyway.
>>
>>383046
>new culture coming in isnt going to have a substantial effect on the overall culture of the country
the mistake youre making is that people are interchangeable. they are not. cultures are not. this is something liberals used to understand. i remember W saying that wed be greeted as liberators because every people yearn to be free. i remember thinking 'no they dont dude.' now i have to explain the same thing to libs who have somehow embraced that brand of narcissism.
>>
>>383056
so whats the cataclysmic event you think immigrants will cause?
>>
>>383057
>cataclysmic event
dont be so melodramatic. i never said there would be a cataclysmic event. what i am calling your question is your naive attitude about humans and cultures being interchangeable. there WILL be a substantial effect. we are already seeing some of them. there will be some good things. there will be some bad things. but to say that there will be none? this kind of ignorance you typically get from the white suburban mammal whose only overseas travel is backpacking through safe zones and smoking marijuana. and george W.
>>
>>383060
just fucking substantiate something. what is the bad shit thats going to happen that means we should send people back to their shithole countries to live in abject poverty and be subject to the whims of cartels?
>>
>>383061
no. do you own homework.
you think about it. W was also lazy. dont be like W.
>>
>>383062
fuck off, dont try to argue without an argument. i dont see any miniscule cultural shift making it morally correct to send the people who have been judged as legitimate claimants of asylum back to their cartel-run countries
>>
>>383063
>dont try to argue without an argument
by definition if im not making an argument then im not arguing
> i dont see
>i
and if you dont see it then it must not exist. because thats what its all about: YOU.

>cultural shift
see this is teenager talk. because al;l a kid cares about is culture. but who said anything about cultural? expand your thinking to issues beyong culture.
>>
>>383063
>who have been judged as legitimate claimants of asylum
Every year under Obama there were under 100,000 claimants of asylum judged legitimate. The overwhelming majority of immigrants not legally admitted to the United States are not valid asylum claimants.

If all you cared about was those poor refugees the Republicans would almost certainly cut a deal to exchange 10 million non-refugee illegal immigrants for a few hundred thousand refugees with valid asylum claims.
>>
>>383065
sorry i should have thrown "attempt" into that first part, but its hard to even call it an attempt. funny how you've wasted all this time to avoid having to come up with a single reason to defend your position. and you, or at least the person i originally replied to, mentioned culture here >>383041
>Legal and illegal are meaningless distinctions if the effects on your host population and host culture are the same
>>
>>383066
>If all you cared about was those poor refugees the Republicans would almost certainly cut a deal to exchange 10 million non-refugee illegal immigrants for a few hundred thousand refugees with valid asylum claims.
ill be sure to take that up with them next time i have the floor in congress
>>
>>383049
>Sock puppet anon in full damage control.
You might as well just get a trip and own it. And then we can laugh when you try to same fag without it.
>>
>>383067
>funny how you've wasted all this time to avoid having to come up with a single reason to defend your position.
my position is the same:
human beings and cultures are not interchangeable
do you think they are!?
and no im not the other guy you were talking to
>>
>>383070
You're a complete fucking moron who calls everyone who doesn't blandly buy into your retarded shit "sock puppet anon."
>>
>>383071
i dont even know what you fucking mean by interchangeable. extrapolate or something, put it into context
>>
>>383072
Sock puppet anon status: SEETHING
>>
>>383074
You've literally done nothing this entire thread but make unfalsifiable claims, ad hom, and shitpost.
>>
>unfalsifiable claims
That means I've only said the truth sock puppet anon. You're getting so angry, you're just coping with my superior intellect.
>>
>>383076
>That means I've only said the truth sock puppet anon.
It means literally the opposite of that, but by all means feel free to make another hundred retarded unfalsifiable accusations in this thread. The more you reflexively shitpost the more it becomes clear that you're entirely incapable of discussion.
>>
>>383074
anon proves a point here. This isn't reddit.

however, t.rumplets are still retarded.
>>
>>383061
>what is the bad shit thats going to happen that means we should send people back to their shithole count
Why is their country something you would describe as a shit hole? One of the reasons may be that a portion of the people who live there are inclined towards making things shit holes. Should we ban Latinos from entering the country? We should consider carefully whether or not the Latinos we're letting in will be conducive with american society at large, just like we should with a white immigrant from France, or Germany.
>>
>>383078
Figuratively, you're wrong, stop getting upset that you've been exposed again.
>>
>>383082
Is your goal to terminate this thread by making increasingly dumber posts defending your idiotic unfalsifiable claim so that it becomes unusable by anyone else?
>>
>>383081
cont. If evey Latin American coming in was selected from a class of educated professionals that could participate in a service economy I think we would have significantly fewer problems.
>>
>>383083
Why are you getting so mad at the facts?
>>
>>383084
>significantly fewer problems
would we? what if we wouldnt. what if we would not only just be importing more labor to compete with our own 'young professionals' who are having trouble but simultaneously making things worse in their home countries?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE
>>
>>383087
cont. and by making things worse in their home countries, we would be increasing the numbers of """refugees""" who want to come here?
>>
>>383014
>>383012
>>383007
Fox News, while they did clearly stack the audience had to make sure it wasn't all Fascists Trump supporters, because if they did that and Bernie got booed out and called a communist, it would just reconfirm to the Democrats that they can't trust Fox News.
That didn't stop Trump from getting massively butthurt at seeing Sanders directly call him out as a pathological liar and say he's got something to hide by not releasing his taxes on his safe space network when he demanded that Fox should pack the next town hall with his supporters.

The big take away from that town hall was the roar of approval for a medicare for all system and how it was a really, REALLY bad sign for anyone who hates Bernie, both in the Democratic and Republican side. For the Democrats, it's obvious they hate Bernie and they still have no idea how to oppose him since any coordinated plan would mean Bernie could pull the 'anti-establishment' card and it would only solidify his base even more. And the few times they did try it, it blew up in their face instantly. You had this hit job by think progress.
https://thinkprogress.org/how-off-brand-bernie-sanders-is-barely-a-millionaire-653da838c44c/
Which caused Sanders to send this letter out and just humiliate them.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5839898-Bernie-Sanders-Letter-Accusing-CAP-of.html

Furthermore, you have David Brook, the guy that runs /pol/'s favorite boogyman, Shareblue just wringing his hands because he knows, if the democrats do nothing and Sanders doesn't self destruct or something magical happens, he'll get the nomination. It's a real damned if they do, damned if they don't.

As for Republicans, that's pretty self explanatory. Sanders went into Trump country and they are receptive to his ideas, the fact they like his healthcare plan should make Trump shit himself, if Sanders gets the nomination and if he can make the election a referendum on healthcare, he wins.
>>
>>383088
>conducive
Of course the unsaid implication is that we aren't bringing in destabilizing amounts of immigrants. 5 or 10 where exceedingly advantageous instead of twenty thousand. If that number happens to be zero then fine.
>>
>>383090
>they did clearly stack the audience
>make sure it wasn't all Fascists Trump supporters
i get it. so fox stacked the audience but they really didnt. and they had to not stack the audience (but they really did) to show dems that they can trust fox which they wont anyway even if they did stack the audience, which they didnt. but did.
>>
>>383092
i think youre quoting wrong anon
>>
>>383093
They fact they planted at least one Republican operative to ask a question and not disclose he's an operative is proof they staked the audience. But feel free to ignore that part.
>>
>>383093
They held it in a swing district, Bernie would have gotten a decent amount of supporters with just open admittance.
>>
He's a pretty good article on the consternation of the democratic establishment.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/stop-bernie-sanders-democratic-establishment-campaign-2020.html
>>
>>383096
>planted at least one republican operative
there was no plant, dude see
>>382061
>the first questioner was a student organizer with the conservative youth organization Turning Point USA, the second was a progressive organizer who’d campaigned for Hillary Clinton.
>progressive organizer who’d campaigned for Hillary Clinton.
>PROGRESSIVE ORGANIZER
>HILLARY CLINTON
>>383097
>Bernie would have gotten a decent amount of supporters with just open admittance
i agree. and he did. almost like it WAS OPEN ADMITTANCE.


guys this was a political event. you expect folks from both sides to take an interest
>>
>>383099
Good job showing that Fox News planted operatives from both sides who hate Bernie and proving my point.
Didn't stop them from getting Berned badly in the end.
>>
>>383100
right. fox news planted the audience with nazis and antibernie people who...liked...bernie. liberalism, folks!
>>
>>383101
Non sequitur, I am enjoying watching you squirm and your refusal to address everything else about the post. Is it because you know it's correct and you can only nitpick? Similar to what Republicans and corporate democrats do with Bernie?
>>
>>383102
>Non sequitur
non argumentur

>refusal to address everything else about the post
refusal is loaded language. the implication is that i have been asked to address other things in your post and have refused. this is not true and it is disingenuous. the reason i have not addressed it is because theres nothing to really address. its all your speulation about future events so theres no real EVIDENCE either way. those were your political theories. maybe youre right maybe you arent. we will see how the campaign rolls out. not everyone is like you. some of us debate because we actually want to hear others ideas and exchange our own. not everyone debates in bad faith. not everyone debates because of muh TEEEAAAM. not everyone is liberal.
see:
>>383051
>>
>>383100
>>383102
As I read this you sound legit dumb
>>
>>382908
It is.
>>
>>383109
>I'm drowning in debt, eating shitty food, drinking shitty water, breathing shitty air, dying to shitty disease BUT AT LEAST I GOT MUH GUN. GONNA TOPPLE THAT GOVERNMENT ANY DAY NOW. NO STEPPY ON SNEK
>>
>>383110
>getting put to to death for hate speech
>at least the rich pay .05% more in taxes
Also if you can’t eat good food on the cheap you’re fucking retarded.
>>
>>383111
Neither of those things are the realistic future alternative, and it doesn't surprise me even a little that this is how you choose to respond when faced with the truth. No steppy on snek, my dude.
>>
>>383110
>drowning in debt
dont buy things you cant afford
>eating shitty food
what you eat is a choice
>drinking shitty water
what you drink is a choice
>dying to shitty disease
everyone dies, anon

we are not talking about politics anymore. your issue seems to be your worldview. you seem to see life as something inflicted on you as popposed to something you take part in. a lot of the things you complain about are your choice. the idea that you forgo those choices ad lay them at the feet of some conspiracy just shows an inability to deal with the realities of adulthood. youre immature anon.
>>
>>382910
>>382910
>>382912
>>382914
>>382917
you guys are missing the point. The 'gun debate' isnt even worth our words. Specific policies like banning ar-15's will have no impact on crime, or the rate of self defense. Statistics will be the same.

Percentage-wise, nobody even uses a gun in their lifetime. You are literally better off wearing a lightning rod hat 24/7. The NRA pulls numbers out of their ass (8k gun self defense per day: LOL, get real).

Owning a gun is a liability overall. Also, no one is taking away pistols and shotguns. Go forth and buy them, have fun owning something that only hurts people.

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602143823/how-often-do-people-use-guns-in-self-defense
>>
>>383117
>The 'gun debate' isnt even worth our words
Then don't spend words on it.

>Percentage-wise, nobody even uses a gun in their lifetime. You are literally better off wearing a lightning rod hat 24/7.
According to the BJS study cited in your own article, "In 2007-11, there were 235,700 victimizations where the victim used a firearm to threaten or attack an offender," whereas only 51 people were struck by lightning in the last twenty years.

>Also, no one is taking away pistols and shotguns.
The only reason Heller prevailed at the Supreme Court is because Democrats attempted to institute a jurisdiction-wide ban on all pistols.
>>
>>383113

>dont buy things you cant afford
agreed
>what you eat is a choice
to a degree but shitty food is more affordable
>what you drink is a choice
agreed. don't know where this point even came from unless he's talking about the lead content in michigan.
>everyone dies, anon
I'd prefer not to die because I can't afford treatments or advanced screening.
>>
Did he do good
>>
>>383129
>shitty food is more affordable
i disagree to an extent. raw chicken, storebrand canned veggies, rice and beans are dirt cheap.
>lead content in michigan
good point, but i dont think even that would help his cause. thats govt not private sector isnt it?
>I'd prefer
fair enough. but again. everyone dies. and a lot of that is lifestyle choices as well
>>
>>383131
>dirt cheap
Yeah
No
>>
>>383132
Not him, but at least for rice you can get those huge bags for cheap. Don't know anyone who actually does though.
>>
>>383132
not an argument. i see were resorting back to our primal liberalism. all those things are cheap in places ive lived. again you may not be taking responsibility for your choices
>>
>>383137
Anonymous is more than one person anonymous
>>
>>383108
>>383104
So you can't argue in good faith.
Okay.
>>
>>383324
your post >>383324 is in and of itself a bad-faith contentless shitpost
>>
>>383053
>I've given you specific examples of gun suppression enacted by liberals ranging from general bans on usage to confiscation
You haven't, but okay.
>>
>>383404
Both DC's gun ban and Australia's confiscation of firearms have been brought up in this thread.
>>
>>383346
Not an arguement
>>
>>383417
>DC's gun ban
DC's "gun ban" was not passed by any liberal government. It was a city council policy that was not in any way, shape or form a widespread policy. If a temporary gun ban (which had dozens of exemptions) in one district passed by one city council is supposed to be evidence of a widespread liberal conspiracy to outlaw gun ownership in the entire U.S. then I very much so beg to differ.

>Australia's confiscation of firearms
Australia's mandatory buyback was the product of a joint agreement between all of the separate states. It was not an exclusively liberal based policy as the anon insisted. There was no widespread resistance and, in reality, the buyback only destroyed 20% of privately owned firearms in the country. So, not only did Australia not forcibly confiscate guns from people in any kind of violent, liberal fueled confrontation it only eliminated 1/5th of privately owned firearms. Neither example is evidence of "liberals" doing anything. The DC gun restrictions were enacted by a city council, not the democratic party and Australia gun restrictions were bi-partisan and decided as an entire country with agreement by each individual state. No "lefty" conspiracy to be found.
>>
>>383113
My argument's on regulation, you fat projecting neckbeard faggot. If your first thought was "ARHURHURR PEOPLE CHOOSE WHAT THEY AHRUHRURUR" then you didn't realize the implication of regulation. STANDARDS WILL GO DOWN FOR ALL FOOD WITH CORPORATE LOBBYING. THEY WILL GO DOWN FOR ALL WATER WITH CORPORATE LOBBYING. THEY WILL GO DOWN WITH HEALTHCARE AND ALL PREMIUMS WILL GO UP BECAUSE CORPORATIONS EXIST FOR ONE REASON AND ONE REASON ONLY: TO PUT PROFIT ABOVE ALL ELSE. Take your proto-communist bullshit back to your retard cave and get your fucking life in order. Your worldview is sheltered and retarded and doesn't take any semblance of realism into consideration. Fuck you, lolbertarian cunt.
>>
>Sanders marches into the heart of Trump State TV and wins over Trump's followers while making fools of of the hostile hosts
>Shows that Healthcare is the winning issue to win back Trump voters who aren't apart his cult.
>The thread gets derailed to be about gun control
Yup. Something's up here.
>>
>>383113
You really are a dumb piece of shit if you genuinely believe that debt, poor food choice and low quality drinking water is a product of character flaws in poor people.
>>
>>383159
of course not, but theres no way of knowing that when everyone is anonymous, welcome to IBs.

>>383324
>can't argue in good faith
okay so this is the new lib buzzword to avoid making arguments everyone. watch. hey anon, not an argument but try to make one. here, ill set it up for you:
what part of my post do you disagree with and why?

>>383611
me:
>youre immature anon
you:
>reeeeeee
exactly like i said. see, anon, not everything is either or. we can have a balance of reasonable regulation and and personal choice. and you keep implying here that "will go down , will go down, will go down." and that might actually might be my fault here. you see, i thought we were debating the current state of the real world and not the deranged ramblings of your imagination. my bad.
>>
>>383620
>piece of shit
another classic lib post. heres the problem with your kind: you cant imagine someone disagreeing with you and not being a bad person. and you project that at the end of your post here:
>product of character flaws in poor people
whoever said these were character flaws? no one did. you projected that. protip: just because someone makes a bad decision that does not make them have poor CHARACTER. grow up.
>>
>>383628
>>383630
Hey, Sock puppet anon's back.
Hiya buddy
>>
>>383635
good to see you
hows your day?
>>
>>383630
>you cant imagine someone disagreeing with you
A classic right-wing tactic is to characterize believing false things as simply "disagreeing". People chastise you because your ideas are false and damaging, not because they are different.

>whoever said these were character flaws? no one did
Another classic right-wing post; make obvious insinuations then gaslight and play stupid when people call you on them.
>just because someone makes a bad decision that does not make them have poor CHARACTER. grow up.
Fuck off, sockpuppet.
>>
The crass dishonesty of the right is endemic to their core. Conservatively raised individuals are taught to be self reliant and individualistic. It’s a part of the psychology of the right and is proven. Liberals are taught to carefully consider others opinions.

The right will never consider your opinions because they are psychologically incapable.

It most definitely accounts for their average IQ being a full standard deviation lower than liberals.
>>
>>383678
That and conservatives are largely irish. And irish whites have the worst genetics of the indoeuropean races.
>>
>>383678
>Liberals are taught to carefully consider others opinions.
so you can see when they've violated rightthink and immediately call them racist or sexist or evil without listening to a single thing they had to say
>>
>>383678
>Liberals are taught to carefully consider others opinions...

You left out "...of those that support them"

Liberals are often hyper bigoted against anything that dismantles their worldview.
>>
>>383637
>Conservatives are hyper bigoted against anything that dismantles their worldview.
Fixed
>>
>>383678
>Conservatively raised individuals are taught to be self reliant and individualistic.
What myth is this? Conservatives are largely authoritarian because they believe everyone has a role in society and some people are just born to lead and the rest to serve. Look up the Conservative Order and Europe after the French Revolution. Conservatives wanted a return to the monarchy. That's where Conservatives are conservative, they wanted a ruling class. Similar to how they use capitalism today to have billionaires be modern day oligarchs and poor who are conservatives support them blindly even if it harms their own interests. They believe they belong at the bottom of the pyramid because it's best for socioty.
>>
>>383678
Apparently being raised with a two-party political system leaves you mentally stunted regardless of inclination
>>
>>383719
>Conservatives are largely authoritarian because they believe everyone has a role in society and some people are just born to lead and the rest to serve.
Not him but Conservative in America and Europe are two completely different things
>>
>>383719
Yeah your anecdote is bullshit. Here, this is from a conservative site.

https://www.traditionalright.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/leftright_US_1416-e1379543284624-1024x6671.gif
>>
I have not posted since my first post about Nasty Filthy Debaucherous Liberal Traitors.

The Page has Turned, Time To Hide Liberals.
Its time for the Discovery Process and The Origins Of The FISA Warrants and Russia Probe.

If Your Name is Christopher Steele, RUN,
Red Coat Spies Get Hung in Treason Trials.
>>
>>383714
Having trouble with your replies son?
>>
>>383057
Not a cataclysm.
First generation immigrants integrate poorly on average. Learning a new language and culture and adopting it fully is something most adults can't do. Getting educated when you're a 24 year old who didn't receive a western k-12 is almost impossible. Immigration pays off in the second generation. The children of first gens go to a western school, interact with true natives with native families, visit friends and see what a true native life looks like, grow up educated, children of their own, and teach their children the native style first and their historical heritage second. This is important for full integration. The western culture works well and provides prosperity to those who would adopt it. They must adopt it.

That's the result of slow immigration where you can ensure the people coming in find a place in the community, even if they aren't capable of fitting in completely. It's very important that they're stable and believe in the local culture so they don't prevent their children from experiencing it. If your immigration is too fast though, the first gen will clump. They'll form micro communities of their own and self-segregate. These micro communities retain the old ways, which perpetuates failure and pisses off the natives who have to deal with them. The children go to schools filled with kids from the old country, and they clump as well. The children do not grow into the western culture, so they remain poorly educated and they isolate their own children. This is what happens in poor black neighborhoods. The cycle of a failing culture is difficult to break once set.

Immigration in the US has been too fast for years. In 1990 8% of the population was immigrants. In 2016 the number was 13%, and it's rising steadily. This isn't sustainable, and we've been seeing the results of poor integration for some time.

Immigrants are fleeing a bad life, and finding another bad life here. Where's the logic in that?
>>
>>383719
Both American parties are Liberals.
They lack both Conservatives and Socialists.
>>
>>383747
This take is so hot I'm gonna recommend you lock yourself in a fucking freezer so you can cool off and die so we never have to read anything this stupid ever again.
>>
>>383726
>>383724
Refer to the Conservatism Order and Counter-Enlightenment, furthermore a lot of conservatives in America adopted the thinking of Eastern European conservatives in the 18th and 19th century. There's this claim of 'lack of government' that the chart creates, but power doesn't just magically vanish into the ether, it comes to rest in the hands of those with influence, I.E. the oligarchs. Just because the government is smaller, doesn't mean power doesn't cease to exist, and in this case it's just consolidated. Hence, why it's authoritarianism and to say libertarianism can't be authoritarian is a massive misnomer, you just don't control people through traditional means.
>>
>>383813
I grew up with conservative parenting and in a red area of a extremely blue city, and went to school with elite liberals.

This infographic couldn't be more spot on.

This is specifically in regard to the types of humans created by conservative vs liberal parenting. Don't really give a fuck about over complicating it with historical pedantry.
>>
>>383822
Anecdotal evidence.
Furthermore this isn't a left verses right issue, but a conservatives are authoritarians. Which is the case. If you want history look at the Civil War, conservatives defended the institution of slavery which is an authoritarian system where one group is enslaved by another. They were fought by multitude of other groups including both those who wanted to free the slaves and those who felt that betraying the Union was a sin that needed to be punished. So you could argue it was both liberals and converatives who fought for the north. But make no mistake, the South was dominantly conservative.
>>
>>383827
Its not anecdotal if it supports all of the psychological data that went into the infographic.

Conservatives are self reliant individualists.

Thanks for the debate.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758/BF03342689.pdf

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1997-04066-018

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327582ijpr1604_3

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00395.x

https://www.psycharchives.org/handle/20.500.12034/1330
>>
>>382058
He didn’t btfo anyone.
>>
>>383665
>characterize believing false things as simply "disagreeing"
first of all, in order to prove that i believe in false things requires an argument and its obvious that youre not ready for that yet so ill just move on to
second, believing in false things, YES, is a form of disagreement. you think its something more? there are anons in this very thread who believe our president is in league with putin. these people are clearly believing something that is false.
>your ideas are false and damaging
ideas arent damaging. the inability of weak men to stand up to those ideas with ideas of there own respectfully is what is damaging. you have a long way to go anon. damaging ideas? you should be stronger than that.
>make obvious insinuations then gaslight and play stupid
first, obvious insinuations requires an argument on your part, but like i said youre not ready yet so lets just move on to:
second, wrong=immoral is not an insinuation i made, but an assumption that you made. i explain that here:
>>383630
>just because someone makes a bad decision that does not make them have poor CHARACTER
back to my example about people who believe in the russia hoax. they are not bad people simply because they are wrong. people are wrong all the time. and if you equate wrongness as some moral failing you should take a moment to show more compassion for your fellow american. no ones gaslighting you. you were simply wrong but your arrogance wont let you face it so there must be some evil agent (me) at play. these selfcentered delusions will not serve you well.
>Fuck off, sockpuppet.
now stay mad

>>383714
youre quoting the wrong anon. i have no idea what youre babbling about and i dont care. get your shit together or fuck off back to snapchat.
>>
>>383837
>Raising children
That doesn't disprove the fact that Conservatives favor authoritarianism. If anything Trump is more evidence they do given how a majority of them favor cancelling the 2020 elections if Trump says so.
>>
>>383907
>majority of them favor cancelling the 2020 elections if Trump says so
this was exposed in the other thread. shame on you for repeating it.
>>
>>383907
What the fuck are you on about? The far left is literally all about authoritarianism.They're trying to take Trump off the ballet completely in some states just to remove the chance of him getting re-elected. They're trying to bypass the electoral college because they know they have the big cities in their pockets and that's all they need.
>>
>>383909
>Exposed
Try again.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/08/10/52-percent-republicans-would-support-postponing-2020-election/555769001/

Shame on you for being against democracy. But that's expected of authoritarians.

>>383922
Is that why the Republicans are cancelling primaries so people can't challenge Trump? Sounds what a dictator would do. In fact Trump loves to cuddle up with dictators and authoritarians, whom are all conservatives too.
Hmmm...
>>
>>383924
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/troll-poll-republicans-support-postponing-2020-election/

come harder
>>
>>383907
Authoritarianism is not indicative of not being self reliance. Think about it.

You're essentially forgoing the collective to promote your own ideals.
>>
>>383924
>Republicans are cancelling primaries so people can't challenge Trump
what primary has been cancelled?
>>
>>383678
>It most definitely accounts for their average IQ being a full standard deviation lower than liberals.
Umm what? Studies have shown Conservatives have Higher IQs than liberals.

>Liberals are taught to carefully consider others opinions.
That is the furthest things from the truth. Liberals base their opinions on emotions rather than logic and reason.
>>
>>383837
>Conservatives are self reliant individualists.
That makes them much brighter and more logical than your average liberal.
>>
>>382306
If you're not racist you're not paying attention.
>>
>>382423
That because the general public are fools. Of course idiots will saying "Free everything" is great. The reality is that Sanders doesn't have a clue and his policies are not feasible.
>>
>>382515
>>382496
Jesus you bernie bros are delusional.
>>
>>382547
>>382552
It's sad how easily you ill informed children are duped but bernies half truths and pie in the sky plans.
>>
>>382625
What corruption?
>>
>>382740
>After explaining to him how economics work and explaining that the economy has been on an 8 year upturn before Trump he casually said "I don't know what any of that means" with a gaping dumbfounded look on his face.
See you don't understand how economics work then.

A simple gdp graph will show you that obamas last 2 years showed a flattening and decline. It wasn't until Trump won the election and instituted much needed reforms that we saw the GDP rise again,

Do you lefties really not pay attention to facts?
>>
>>383924
>Anonymous
Yes. I am contra democracy.
No I'm not a commie or a fascist. I am pro republic. As out lined in the us constitution. How about that EC
>>
>>383924
Jesus you lefties are ignorant. That push poll has been debunked and the only authoritarians are the lefties these days.

But please keep shilling bernies far left nonsense.
>>
>>383932
>I don't like the line of quesrtioning so it's a troll
No.

>National Review
So you just admit it's just damage control by the fascist right. Thanks.

>>383934
They're still trying to
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/04/681987077/rnc-members-want-to-block-a-primary-challenge-to-trump-but-the-rules-may-stop-th
>>
>>383952
Now this is bullshit.

Economies don’t instantly react to executive tax plans. It takes 2 to 3 years. Technically this is the only year that Trumps tax plans could be considered to be showing an effect.

Say it with me.

INELASTICITY.
>>
>>384179
>still trying to
but you said here:
>>383924
>are
see how you change tense? see how conveniently your aguments change when called out? this is why no one takes you seriously

>>384179
>damage control
attacking the source? also why no one takes you seriously. so make an argument. what part of the article do you disagree with and why?

>>384229
>Economies don’t instantly react to executive tax plans
youre forgetting that tax plans arent the only thing that effect an economy either. much of it is based on optimism of investors. when obama took over the economy reacted almost immediately from gas prices to the monthlly job/loss. liberals cheered. when the economic boom under clinton happened, no gave credit to george bush. when the economy stagnated under W no one gave the blame to clinton. and when the economy stopped sinking under obama no one gave the credit to bush. giving credit to a previous president for a current economy is somethingi have never heard until now. this constantly giving credit to obama for trumps economy is more of this TEEAAAM shit i talk about here:
>>383104
and
>>383051

and this 'i have to defend my TEEEAAAM' even if it means lying your ass off is why no one SHOULD take you seriously
>>
>>384179
Jesus bernie bros like you really do just ignore reality and facts to continue to push your lies.
>>
>>384229
>Economies don’t instantly react to executive tax plans
No you are right they don't it takes months for that to happen and thats exactly what we saw. We also so the gdp growth slowly increase as more and more regulations were gutted and consumer confidence returned.

But please go ahead and tell us all those "booomers" you slayed with you "Facts and logic".
>>
>>384229
>Technically this is the only year that Trumps tax plans could be considered to be showing an effect.
actually thats false. The tax cuts started in feb of 2018 when withholding was significantly reduced Please educate yourself bernie bro.
>>
>>382058
the guy was completely lost when the they asked why he payed 26% tax with his only defense being "ask trump about his taxes"
this is how these socialists work they like it imposed on the others not them
>>
>>384367
Except that's a good Fucking question. How much taxes does Trump pay?
>>
>>384390
Except its besides the point. Drumpf is a capitalist pig. The real question is why the honorable & noble Boinee Sanduhs who has fought for decades for poor and downtrodden has failed to give his excessive millions and excessive homes to those on need SINCE THAT'S WHAT HE'S RUNNING ON.
>>
>>384332
Pure bullshit economics. Literally impossible for policies to take just months to show any tangible returns. Financial planning based off expected government tax plans are at least a year out and the fiscal reverberations would take even longer.

You fucking trumptards aren’t autistic enough for math.
>>
>>384367
Haven't time to watch this yet, but wasn't there a point they ask him what to do with immigrants and he acted just like a berniefag anon here and handwaved it away as 'not a real question?' We can't turn them away b/c m'asylum, I think some judge ruled we can't make them wait in Mexico, libs say we can't detain them, so WHERE DO THEY GO?
>>
>>383922
Fuck the Electoral College. It's a waste. It doesn't help the smallest states get any attention during campaigns. It weakens the vote of the largest states. It concentrates tons of voting power in Florida, Vermont, Ohio, and Virginia. It's a corrupt system.
>But muh big cities
Bitch even if you added up the top 10 biggest cities in the country you only get under 10% the population in numbers. Fuck the Electoral college, it is a complete joke.
>>
>>384396
Since when is charity required? He runs on augmented welfare, funded by taxes on people such as himself. Why the arbitrarily high standard o virtue?
>>
>>384413
I'm going to love your reaction.

The law says: admit them until their case is processed.
>>
>>384418
>why arbitrarily high standard of virtue?
That's my question, actually. Why does he expect others to do what he is not willing to do himself? And what steps has he taken outside a few amendments to make this a reality in his thirty years as an """outsider""" in Congress?
>384419
>let them in
That's my point, actually. Trump wants to admit them to the places that want them. Why would Bernie be against that? Why would anyone not want these self sufficient non criminals who contribute so much economically?
>>
>>384419
See
>>384425
>>
>>384425
You tried, but then you ruined it with your last question. It doesn't matter if you want them or not.
>>
>>384425
>Why does he expect others to do what he is not willing to do himself?
He...doesn't? He's talking about raising taxes which he would have to pay. You're not making any sense.

As for the immigrants, I'm actually fine with the sanctuary city thing. I do find it amusing how far of a departure that is from Trump's previous position, though:
>country's full fuck off
>>
>>384425
> Why does he expect others to do what he is not willing to do himself?
He wants everyone to pay what they are legally required to pay. Himself included. What he is proposing is changing what amount is legally required. If he's successful in raising that legal requirement, he'll abide by that and pay at the new level just as everyone else should.
>>
>>384396
Because that isn't what he wants. He wants government systems for things everyone requires to get ahead in life (health care and education) so the poor can dedicate their time and money to elevating their economic status instead. This system does not exist yet, so their is nowhere for him to give him money efficiently. He never said he wants millionaires to buy random shit for random people.

Whether you agree or disagree with him, your argument for why you shouldn't listen to him is objectively fucking retarded. Just let actually intelligent people come up with counter arguments so you don't make your side seem stupid. Ben Shapiro's standard argument is that it is morally bankrupt to force someone to give up their earned money for another. Note, he never adds a retarded false equivalency to ruin his own argument.
>Hurrdurr, how can you say you care about global warming if you are still living? Don't you know that creates CO2.
>>
>>384450
> Hurrdurr, how can you say you care about global warming if you are still living? Don't you know that creates CO2.
> implying that argument is somehow made invalid just because you put hurrdurr in front of it.
>>
>>384436
You miss the point. Why is he not already donating more of his money, while simultaneously trying to get higher taxes? He would still be paying that higher money once the higher taxes pass, but there's no reason for him to not start now.
>>
>>384456
Because he wants to help the poor universally instead of relying on private charities that can 1) be corrupt and 2) miss large portions of the populace?

He's right, this is a loaded question. Spend multiple decades being the guy arguing for universal healthcare and higher wages and the question you get hit with is 'why aren't you doing EVEN MORE to help'.
>>
>>384456
How much does Trump donate?
>>
>>384458
Because Trump doesn't think people should pay more. He thinks they should pay less. That's why he cut taxes.
>>
>>384459
That wasn't a 'why' question, it was a 'how much' question. Please read.
>>
>>384458
It actually doesn't really matter how much Trump or Bernie donates. The altruism of billionaires is not going to fix the massive income inequality in this country. Giving people money while perpetuating a system that punishes people for being poor while enabling the mega rich to avoid paying taxes, commit financial crimes and centralize/horde their immense wealth is rather meaningless in the long run. Trump or Bernie could give away every cent of their personal wealth and it wouldn't even put a dent in our income inequality problem. The system that enables the subjugation of the poor would still be in place regardless of how many toys they bought cancer kids for Christmas.
>>
>>384468
But muh tax returns!
>>
>>384468
Best part of being a conservative is the countless historical instances where liberals give them some massive form of prosperity, they take full advantage, then vote conservative the next election and paint liberals as the devil.

I love all the trump supporters on obama care calling trump a god until he mentions the thing he ran on - cancelling Obama care

Never change retardlicans.
>>
>>384457
He could start a charity organization to facilitate that without dragging down everybody around him.
>>
>>384478
Funny part is that this is the guy who for years ran on the platform that Obama wasn't a legitimate president because he wouldn't provide him with a birth certificate, falsely claiming he wasn't even an American citizen. Then, suddenly, this same guy turned around and claimed that asking to see his tax returns, like every other president in the past two centuries has been asked to do, was some kind of liberal shakedown.
>>
>>382880
Patriots to what commie!? The US CONSTITUTION and BILL OF RIGHTS?!? I Think not!!! Sounds like you're patriotism is to another system than a constitutional Republic... In which case you're a TRAITOR!!!
>>
>>384494
Shut the fuck up, boomer
>>
>>384517
Do all boomers and trump supporters type with periodic caps and excessive exclamation points?
>>
>>384529
Yes. Everything they type reads like your senile grandfather's average Facebook post.
>>
>>384328
You still and are trying to push lies.
Damage control.

Republicans want a dictatorship, did you forget the video of the Trump supporters applauding the idea that Trump becomes a dictator already?
>>
>>384435
>It doesn't matter if you want them or not.
which brings you back to my first question, cluebird: where should they go?

>>384436
>He's talking about raising taxes which he would have to pay.
but he doesnt need to raise taxes to pay more taxes. so why has he not? can you answer that or can you not?

>>384448
If he's successful in raising that legal requirement, he'll abide by that and pay at the new level just as everyone else should.
but he doesnt need to raise taxes to pay more taxes. so why has he not? can you answer that or can you not?

>>384450
>their is nowhere for him to give him money efficiently
not true at all. bernie gets to decide how much he pays and what to do with his homes. if the wealthy paying more to help others is his core issue, then as a wealthy person what has he done in his personal life and in congress to do that?

> your argument for why you shouldn't listen to him is objectively fucking retarded
speaking of fucking retarded, please quote the post where i said one shouldnt listen to bernie. nevermind. you cant. so dont bring me your little hissy fits berniebro because youre not mad at me. youre mad at your mommy for not being here to save you. youre mad at your daddy for not being here to save you. youre mad at the mods for not being here to save you. im not your university-issued ass powderer. im a guy asking you a question about a candidate you (presumably) support. if you can answer the question thats fine, we can have a discussion. if you cant, thats fine too, but just say that you cant and stop wasting everyones time.

>why does bernie need to raise taxes on everyone to pay more in taxes himself
>what has bernie done (outside a few amendments, a few speeches, and five books) in congress the past three decades that have brought his policies to fruition

no one is coming to save you so stop pouting, get to work, and impress me
>>
>>384544
what part of my post do you disagree with and why?
make an argument, and ill check it out in the morning. ive had enough of you kids for one night
>>
>>384557
>>He's talking about raising taxes which he would have to pay.
>but he doesnt need to raise taxes to pay more taxes. so why has he not? can you answer that or can you not?

Because just him paying more taxes wouldn't solve anything. Some millions more to US budget doesn't solve the deficit for example. That's way little money to do that. Other rich people have to pay more taxes too if it's going to help anything. He knows that, I know that, everybody else knows that, but you don't because you're a brainlet. Or a troll pretending to be retarded. Which is more likely, I have seen your dishonest, goal-post-moving, posts before. But if you're not, your just an idiot like proven earlier in this post.. Not good, either way
>>
>>384560
what a lazy halfassed post. would a few million end the deficit? no. but it would be enough money to help. and thats what hes about right? helping? but maybe taxes are too much to ask. maybe he rents out one of his 3 homes for a few hundred bucks to help out a struggling family or two? no. well maybe there have been some very charitable donations from his FIVE books. none? well speaking of writing books, if hes had time to write books then he must have a lengthy history of legislation in his THIRTY years in office ensuring that these millionaires are paying their fare share? whats that? not so? just one piece of legislation helping vets. well thats odd. i know maybe he and his wife culd put together some charitble organization like a school to help those struggling with education. oh he did! great! but it was FOR profit!? ohhhhhh. well thats no good.

you see, a millionaire in the most powerful legislative body in history has a million avenues to use his million dollars to help those in need. so do you have any evidence that he has done any of that at length or not? because so far im not impressed. not by your candidate. not by your post.

>brainlet
>retarded
>idiot
now stay mad
>>
>>384425
>a few amendments
He's the amendment king bro. That's not a few amendments.
>>
>>384562
>he must have a lengthy history of legislation in his THIRTY years in office ensuring that these millionaires are paying their fare share
What is he supposed to do when he's the only progressive in congress for thirty years? Be realistic man. It seems he would have to live penniless on the streets and suck dick for free to have the right to DARE propose we raise taxes on the rich.
>>
>>384623
Of course! Clearly only the impossibly humble and righteous have the moral authority to guide the country in fixing its most obvious wrongs.

It's not as if anon is arguing in bad faith by setting a pointlessly high standard of morality that literally no reformer ever could measure up against. That would be SILLY.
>>
>>384558
You should know what part i'm replying to, keep track of the conversation.
>>
>>384652
You talk to bigly for republicans. More caps and exclamation points and more hyperbolic simplification.

ORANGE TREMENDOUS

TAX BAD

BERNIE CRAZY
>>
>>383952
I bet you think the stock market is a good indication of the economic condition of the average american
>>
>>384557
>not true at all. bernie gets to decide how much he pays and what to do with his homes. if the wealthy paying more to help others is his core issue, then as a wealthy person what has he done in his personal life and in congress to do that?
he could give literally all of his wealth away, and it would be a drop in the bucket. the only way to enact the kind of change that is necessary is for the rich to pay a higher percentage than they are currently



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.