How many idiots in here are going to vote for Biden?

On 3/4/20 11:06 AM, pjp wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 3/3/20 8:57 PM, pjp wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 3/3/20 6:44 PM, pjp wrote:
In article .at,
says...

You know voting for Biden means you're stupid, right?

I pity Americans only have two choices neither of which appears suitable
for the needed task at hand.

Not true. You just never hear of the other candidates from the US
media. I just cast my primary ballot, and there are 6 (I think) primary
candidates on the Republican ballot.

What are you talking about? Doesn't matter what candidate they all will
never change that MONEY and maintaining control over all else is all the
US is really about. People are just a means to an end and treated as
nothing to be concerned about whenever need arises. You sow the seeds of
your own destruction but the whole world will pay for it when it finally
happens and becomes apparent.

WTF???? That has nothing to do with your statement of there being only
2 choices in the US. Which is incorrect, and that is what I responded to.

My apologies then. I'm not American so from the outside it seems there's
only ever two choices Dem or Rep. Both seem more or less the same to me
and is no different than in my own country Canada except we do have a
couple extra choices.


They are quite different. While there is a more "corporate" side of the
Democrats which are similar to the more "liberal" side of the
Republicans (a group which is shrinking), at its best the Democrats promote:

• Reducing big corporate control
• Universal health care (better outcomes and a lower cost)
• Accessible higher education
• Improved worker's rights
• Addiction treated as a health issue and not a criminal one,
• Equal rights for the LGBTQ+ community
• Equal rights for people of all races
• Equal rights for people of all religions (or none)
• Fewer wars
• Environmental protection
• Protecting a woman's right to her own body
• Ending the use of private prisons
• Trackable, fair elections
• Having people get more of the money they earn
• Paying teachers more and otherwise investing in our future
• Having evidence-based polices dealing with climate change

And more. The two parties are quite different.


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

In article , Ken Springer
wrote:

I find it somewhat hypocritical that the rules Bernie supported in 2016
he now opposes.

politicians support whatever gives them more power and furthers their
career.

In article , pjp
wrote:


WTF???? That has nothing to do with your statement of there being only
2 choices in the US. Which is incorrect, and that is what I responded to.

My apologies then. I'm not American so from the outside it seems there's
only ever two choices Dem or Rep.

the system is intentionally rigged for only two choices. third party
candidates do not stand a chance.

Both seem more or less the same to me
and is no different than in my own country Canada except we do have a
couple extra choices.

they're all cut from the same cloth.

"pjp" wrote

| WTF???? That has nothing to do with your statement of there being only
| 2 choices in the US. Which is incorrect, and that is what I responded
to.
|
| My apologies then. I'm not American so from the outside it seems there's
| only ever two choices Dem or Rep. Both seem more or less the same to me
| and is no different than in my own country Canada except we do have a
| couple extra choices.

You were right. There's the big money Dem or
the big money Rep. There are some differences, but
mostly they're both working for big money. So public
policy has gone steadily in the direction of plutocracy.

I think it used to be that the strength of the Dems
was that they idealized fairness. Their weakness was
that they created convoluted red tape. The strength
of the Reps was their goold old boy, backroom
dealings. They tended to favor monarchy, but with
a sense of noblesse oblige.

Now we have squealing progressives who only want
to assign blame and talk nonsense about inclusiveness
and intersectionality, as though the most profound
question in human history were the issue of gay marriage.
Meanwhile, among the monied classes, noblesse oblige
is gone. It's just a blind, drooling land grab. And both
sides work for big business. So the differences are minimal.

Oddly enough, I think Mitt Romney might have been
the most moral politician of the past couple of decades.
He's pro-business and follows a New Age religion, but
he seems to have a true sense of morals and common
decency.

On 3/4/20 12:43 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , pjp
wrote:


WTF???? That has nothing to do with your statement of there being only
2 choices in the US. Which is incorrect, and that is what I responded to.

My apologies then. I'm not American so from the outside it seems there's
only ever two choices Dem or Rep.

the system is intentionally rigged for only two choices. third party
candidates do not stand a chance.

It's not rigged, just that more people vote for the Rs and Ds than other
candidates. Too many people cast a ballot against someone instead of
for someone.

Both seem more or less the same to me
and is no different than in my own country Canada except we do have a
couple extra choices.

they're all cut from the same cloth.



--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.6
Firefox 70.0.1
Thunderbird 60.9
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

In message Ken Springer wrote:
On 3/4/20 6:36 AM, chrisv wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:

pjp wrote:

I pity Americans only have two choices neither of which appears suitable
for the needed task at hand.

Not true.

Is true.

You just never hear of the other candidates from the US
media.

Not true.

But, in the general election, it comes down to two, obviously. I
don't know why anyone would object to what pjp wrote.

Because what pjp said is fundamentally untrue. You have more than 2
choices, if you so desire. Just because 2 candicates are the most
popular by far does mean you only have 2 choices to vote for.

Pretending there are other viable choices is a fantasy. Voting for a
non-viable choice is literally throwing your vote away.

--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Yes, I am!"

In message Ken Springer wrote:
On 3/4/20 12:43 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , pjp
wrote:


WTF???? That has nothing to do with your statement of there being only
2 choices in the US. Which is incorrect, and that is what I responded to.

My apologies then. I'm not American so from the outside it seems there's
only ever two choices Dem or Rep.

the system is intentionally rigged for only two choices. third party
candidates do not stand a chance.

It's not rigged, just that more people vote for the Rs and Ds than other
candidates. Too many people cast a ballot against someone instead of
for someone.

It is most assuredly rigged to be a two-party system. When a new party
gains power (like the Republicans did in 1860) one of the other parties
goes away.

Pretending the facts are otherwise is either fantasist or ignorant.

You cannot have a three party system in the USA, it is literally
impossible.

--
Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it's wrong. No
matter how fast light travels it finds the darkness has always
got there first, and is waiting for it. --Reaper Man

On 3/4/20 3:04 PM, Lewis wrote:
In message Ken Springer wrote:
On 3/4/20 12:43 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , pjp
wrote:


WTF???? That has nothing to do with your statement of there being only
2 choices in the US. Which is incorrect, and that is what I responded to.

My apologies then. I'm not American so from the outside it seems there's
only ever two choices Dem or Rep.

the system is intentionally rigged for only two choices. third party
candidates do not stand a chance.

It's not rigged, just that more people vote for the Rs and Ds than other
candidates. Too many people cast a ballot against someone instead of
for someone.

It is most assuredly rigged to be a two-party system. When a new party
gains power (like the Republicans did in 1860) one of the other parties
goes away.

Currently the debates and more are set up to make it harder for other
parties to enter. Ross Perot managed to get in but it is very rare for
that to happen.

Pretending the facts are otherwise is either fantasist or ignorant.

You cannot have a three party system in the USA, it is literally
impossible.



--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

On 3/4/20 11:06 AM, pjp wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 3/3/20 8:57 PM, pjp wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 3/3/20 6:44 PM, pjp wrote:
In article .at,
says...

You know voting for Biden means you're stupid, right?

I pity Americans only have two choices neither of which appears suitable
for the needed task at hand.

Not true. You just never hear of the other candidates from the US
media. I just cast my primary ballot, and there are 6 (I think) primary
candidates on the Republican ballot.

What are you talking about? Doesn't matter what candidate they all will
never change that MONEY and maintaining control over all else is all the
US is really about. People are just a means to an end and treated as
nothing to be concerned about whenever need arises. You sow the seeds of
your own destruction but the whole world will pay for it when it finally
happens and becomes apparent.

WTF???? That has nothing to do with your statement of there being only
2 choices in the US. Which is incorrect, and that is what I responded to.

My apologies then. I'm not American so from the outside it seems there's
only ever two choices Dem or Rep. Both seem more or less the same to me
and is no different than in my own country Canada except we do have a
couple extra choices.

Accepted. Sadly, I don't think most American voters know there will be
more than 2 candidates if the "real election", where you actually elect
someone to a n elected position. The primaries do nothing for that.
The primaries are simply the method that the various political parties
choose their candidate. Other parties may or may not have primaries, I
do not know. But come the General Election this year, there will be
candidates from political parties other than Rs and Ds. The one's I can
think of, off the top of my head, are Greene, Socialist, Communist,
American Constitution, and LIbertarian.

If you go back in US political history far enough, you'll find the Rs
and Ds flip positions ever;y 30-40, IIRC. And you're right, there's not
much difference between them. :-(


--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.6
Firefox 70.0.1
Thunderbird 60.9
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

In article , Ken Springer
wrote:

If Senator Sanders has his way, he's publicly stated he will raise your
taxes. How is that for keeping more of the money you earn?

you're ignoring that his way will eliminate health premiums, copays,
etc., which is larger than the additional tax.

In article , Ken Springer
wrote:

WTF???? That has nothing to do with your statement of there being only
2 choices in the US. Which is incorrect, and that is what I responded to.

My apologies then. I'm not American so from the outside it seems there's
only ever two choices Dem or Rep.

the system is intentionally rigged for only two choices. third party
candidates do not stand a chance.

It's not rigged, just that more people vote for the Rs and Ds than other
candidates. Too many people cast a ballot against someone instead of
for someone.

it's very much rigged.

anything other than r/d can't get to where people even know they exist.
for example, the debates are designed so that it's next to impossible
for a non-r/d to qualify.

https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...ign/280045-an-
independent-cant-be-president-heres-the-real

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...ats-and-republ
icans-rig-rules-against-independents/INvdZX4ZkiWxowhp0j8FgJ/story.html

On 3/4/20 3:36 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Springer
wrote:

If Senator Sanders has his way, he's publicly stated he will raise your
taxes. How is that for keeping more of the money you earn?

you're ignoring that his way will eliminate health premiums, copays,
etc., which is larger than the additional tax.

Exactly! The idea really is not hard. And that is just with health. You
also get paid sick and family days, the availability of higher education
for "free" (no added cost), and likely higher wages.

Now that is by plan. Of course there will be cost over-runs and the
like. But overall we would clearly be better off.


--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They
cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel
somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

wrote in news:NtWdnaa9EM9dYMPDnZ2dnUU7-
:

Foreign influence in an American election.


Hey all you voters for Alzheimer patients unite!

On 04/03/2020 12:43, SC Tom wrote:



If Pete and Bernie would run together, then they'd be ButtBern2020 :-)


Sanders want to lick the ass of African American if he is selected to be
the Democrats' nominee. He is on record to say that his vice president
won't be "all white" person. Whatever this means!

What I find amusing that in Politics you have to talk about minorities &
homosexuals to be elected otherwise you are branded as racists or
homophobic. What the **** is with 21st century politics? Why can't
people speak their mind about what they believe in rather than
patronising the minorities & homosexuals as if they are not capable to
looking after themselves. They earn millions in sports and activities
that require their skills and yet they still need special treatment.




--
With over 1.2 billion devices now running Windows 10, customer
satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.

Snit wrote:

Exactly! The idea really is not hard. And that is just with health.
You also get paid sick and family days, the availability of higher
education for "free" (no added cost), and likely higher wages.

Now that is by plan. Of course there will be cost over-runs and the
like. But overall we would clearly be better off.

There will be massive cost overruns, shortages and severe rationing of
medical care, because socialism is NEVER as efficient as capitalism, as
there is no reward for innovation in socialist systems.

And why do you think that angry black "youths" should be allowed to
spend fifty to one hundred thousand dollars of "free" taxpayer money
(with no obligation to pay it back) to get worthless degrees in hating
white people?