All purpose news and politics thread part v: The quickening

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Stop with the personal insults and let's discuss actual policy.

Post links to data that backs up your chosen candidate in comparison.

I did discuss actual policy. I discussed the policy in your link more than you did. Stand by your links and be willing to have it analyzed and discussed. I don't know where you get off thinking you can just put something out there and then demand the terms of the discussion on it.

Sanders voted for nearly everything in your link. That's my link and data. If Obama signing it at the end counts for him then Sanders voting for it counts for him.

But it's clear you are more interested in deflecting and trying to win than actually even analyzing your own links. If they were so strong don't know why you are so resistant to discussing them.

There were no personal insults either. Stop gaslighting. You can discuss the links you put in this thread. Nobody is making you post them

[aja_christopher]

I did discuss actual policy. I discussed the policy in your link more than you did. Stand by your links and be willing to have it analyzed and discussed. I don't know where you get off thinking you can just put something out there and then demand the terms of the discussion on it.

Sanders voted for nearly everything in your link. That's my link and data.

So you can't post actual data showing why Sanders is the better candidate and how he will pay for his programs.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

So you can't post data showing why Sanders is the better candidate and how he will pay for his programs.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Aja, you posted a link, I read your link and discussed your link. For some reason you want to post things and don't want people to discuss them. Based on your own loose criteria, everything in that link applies to Sanders because he put the same amount of effort into it (tacit approval).

I'm going to go back to not engaging with you because you have no interest in having an honest discussion, can't even discuss your own links, and quite frankly have just been rude and demanding as if you have some moral authority to dictate the discussion when I gave you the benefit of the doubt and directly engaged with everything you provided. It's very evident you aren't here for discussion and just want to put on performance. Do it with someone else, there's other people here to have a real conversation with it.

I don't know who posts links and then is too afraid to actually talk about them, but here we are. Later.

[aja_christopher]

Aja, you posted a link, I read your link and discussed your link.

You read 134 pages of legislation in under five minutes.

Either you're the best reader in the world or the worst liar in the world.

When you come back, make sure you bring some actual data with you instead of the same old rhetorical attacks.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

You read 134 pages of legislation in under five minutes.

Either you're the best reader in the world or the worst liar in the world.

When you come back, make sure you bring some actual data with you instead of the same old rhetorical attacks.

It's the titles of the acts. It's not a comprehensive detailing of each one. Maybe if you read it even a little you would know that and know how bad the content inside made you look.

You posted a link, I looked at it and I addressed it. You don't want to discuss it, so that's the end of the discussion. That's not my problem that you are afraid of your own data and don't understand how legislation works and the content of your own "data".

At least have the integrity to stand behind and defend what you post. It speaks volumes that I can address your posts directly and you can't bring yourself to do the same. Whatever it's a reflection on you.

[aja_christopher]

At least have the integrity to stand behind and defend what you post. It speaks volumes that I can address your posts directly and you can't bring yourself to do the same. Whatever it's a reflection on you.

I have enough "integrity" to point out that you cherry-picked Secret Service raises rather than environmental protection legislation, didn't read through 134 pages in under five minutes, still have yet to show any data backing up your candidate or how he will pay for his ideas, and that you said you were leaving this discussion in your last post.

Again, all you have is personal attacks because you can't show any actual data that proves that Sanders is the better candidate than Biden.

[PaulBullion]

Bros are gonna bro.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I have enough "integrity" to point out that you cherry-picked Secret Service raises rather than environmental protection legislation, didn't read through 134 pages in under five minutes, still have yet to show any data backing up your candidate or how he will pay for his ideas, and that you said you were leaving in your last post.

Again, all you have is personal attacks because you can't show any actual data that proves that Sanders is the better candidate than Biden.

You didn't set a parameter. Most of those are procederals that he didn't sponsor or introduce to Congress and he merely just signed after the fact. So what is the equivalent. Also bring data to show Biden supported all those.

Your link is very lacking. It doesn't give enough information to detail what you think is legislation someone is responsible for. So everything Democrats and Republicans passed that Obama signed he somehow gets credit for, but Sanders gets zero credit for voting for them? Seems dubious.

There were no personal attacks. I said you continually have posted links and not stood by then. Thats just a fact, you haven't. The fact that you want to make out pointing your actions out to be personal attacks is very dubious.

Seriously. You want to have a discussion, go through the link you posted, find things he actually submitted and spearheaded to Congress so we can actually discuss them and then compare his influence to Sanders on other bills. I'm not even asking you to tie them to Biden, which considering you keep tying all your arguments back to him, you should be obligated to do, but whatever.

The onus is on you to support your link, explain your reasonings, and what your parameters for your ask are. As far as I can tell you did a quick google search and regurgitated a link, the first five pages of it were pretty much procedural votes that had minimal influence from Obama.

You want to have a real discussion, that's called having a real discussion. Posting a link you didn't read and never had interest in reading and then asking for a counter link is silly. If I just post a link of Bills than Bernie Sanders voted for that passed are you going to go through them or is are you going to have some arbitary metric where he had to do more for the Bills than what was done in the links you posted?

See?

Also if you consider me repeating the actions you took in this thread as "personal attacks", maybe you should evaluate how you discuss things here. Because I have never said anything about you personally, just how you posted.

[aja_christopher]

Bros are gonna bro.

He talked about me more than he talked about Sanders' policies and budget plans.

I'll have to keep those criticisms in mind in case I ever run for president.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

As a taxpayer, and soon to be retiree on a fixed budget, I’d like to know how Sanders, Warren or any candidate for president will pay for the healthcare programs they want to institute.

[SquirrelMan]

This, apparently is from Joe Rogan's subreddit.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

As a taxpayer, and soon to be retiree on a fixed budget, I’d like to know how Sanders, Warren or any candidate for president will pay for the healthcare programs they want to institute.

For Medicare they would just expand it. Probably a moderate tax increase in Sanders plan but for most people it would be a net savings when you account for costs with preemiums. Warren already has a slightly different method she released which is essentially reworking employer based health costs. It's a bit convoluted but workable under the correct frame work.

[Tami]

As a taxpayer, and soon to be retiree on a fixed budget, I’d like to know how Sanders, Warren or any candidate for president will pay for the healthcare programs they want to institute.

There is a lot of wasted money in government, like how much is spent following Trump around. Plus all of the taxes unpaid by the wealthy and large corporations. If Obama was able to help the Dems in Congress correct the economic disaster of 2008, I'm sure a smart candidate can do something similar here. Since the current economy isn't quite as bad as 2008, yet, they may have more to work with.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

There is a lot of wasted money in government, like how much is spent following Trump around. Plus all of the taxes unpaid by the wealthy and large corporations. If Obama was able to help the Dems in Congress correct the economic disaster of 2008, I'm sure a smart candidate can do something similar here. Since the current economy isn't quite as bad as 2008, yet, they may have more to work with.

Also the real boon is the miliary budget. Even a 2% cut would fund a lot of ****.

[aja_christopher]

There is a lot of wasted money in government, like how much is spent following Trump around. Plus all of the taxes unpaid by the wealthy and large corporations. If Obama was able to help the Dems in Congress correct the economic disaster of 2008, I'm sure a smart candidate can do something similar here. Since the current economy isn't quite as bad as 2008, yet, they may have more to work with.

This is all conjecture though, and there's still the issue of passing legislation that will raise taxes or cut military spending to fund said programs.

Republicans -- and many moderates -- will almost always choose to cut non-military/entitlement spending rather than raise taxes.

Correcting the recession was essential to our survival as a country and even then the Republicans did their best to curtail spending, promote tax cuts, and oppose stimulus packages that buttressed needed social programs (like unemployment and health care funding) and helped save our automotive industry.

I'm no fan of walking into the next election without a solid plan, and higher taxes and military cuts will definitely come up in the debates with Trump.

We can either address those issues now, or wait until they are hammered by Trump and his Republican allies in the debates.