Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We have Trump, we have Sanders. Why does it take so much MONEY in free world democracy to even show up? Maybe, Bernie will fix that, no more friggin' PAC money and millions just to show up. Enough, enough.
But it doesn't work.
England is a monarchy.
We're a representative republic. We declared independence from England over 200 years ago because we didn't want a monarch or king telling us what to do.
Again, if you prefer having a monarch or king tell you what you're going to do... move to England!
Now... "We're not England" isn't a reason, it's just a statement of fact. The reason we can't implement your idea is the First Amendment. And if you think that's foolish, you're free to move somewhere that doesn't have a First Amendment, the world is full of such shitholes. Otherwise, you are also free to get 75% of the country behind your efforts to amend the Constitution and repeal the First Amendment but I think you're going to find most people here like it and don't want to get rid of it. But as long as we have it, people are going to be free to support, with their money, the candidate with the political speech they prefer and there's nothing you can do about that.
Increased wealth gives you the increased opportunity to do most anything. This is true in our country with a Constitution or any other country... even one with a king or monarch. Our founding fathers knew this and that's why they established a First Amendment... so that individuals could contribute money to the people who they wished to have elected as opposed to only the wealthiest being able to hold office.So actually, what you are proposing is a giant step backwards and toward oligarchy or ruling class elites like they have in England and elsewhere in Europe.
Given the widespread disinformation campaigns over the last century, what that definition is, is going to vary tremendously, therefore you have no constant to work with in the question. Thus the question itself boils down to nothing more than, "what is your emotional reaction to the word "socialism?". And while that may tell us something about prejudice in political rhetoric, it tells us nothing about how anyone favors or disfavors any actual policy.
I can't say I disagree with you, after all, most nitwits who claim they favor Socialism have no idea of what kind of chaos, misery and death always follows in it's wake. They are oblivious to history, apparently. I guess we stopped teaching about it or we let modern-day progressives water it down and sugar coat it until they simply never comprehended the ramifications.
I can remember when I was... oh, about 12 or 13, and was first starting to learn about politics in school and such... and it kind of surprised me to discover that every presidential election, there was a Socialist Party candidate running. They never got much of the vote, but they were an option on the ballot. Seems like it was the same guy every time and there were always several thousand who voted for him. I always wondered who these people were and what were they thinking?
Now, I am 56 and the Democrats have an avowed Socialist running for the nomination and a sizable chunk of Millennials supporting him... and PROUD of it!
Not a "Socialist" --- a "Democratic Socialist".
But do go on --- what kind of "chaos, misery and death always follows in it is wake" then?
Socialism’s death count
The Super-delegates aren't ever going to let Crazy Bern win.
I tend to agree, but my point is that we might as well let it happen now. That way they will learn, and we can fix it before people forget what it was like without it.
I hope that you are just being sarcastic and not serious. If they destroy the free market capitalist system that built this country, it will never be the same again. Once you drive over the cliff, there's no recovering from that. There are countries in the Baltics who were only Communist for a few decades and they have been trying for 30 years to re-establish democracy since the fall of the USSR and it's damn near impossible because the infrastructure no longer exists.
The Millennials have to be educated on what Socialism brings with it. They are under this delusion of Utopia that will just never exist but they've bought into it hook, line and sinker. It seems like a hopeless endeavor, I admit, but we simply have to keep fighting. Surrender can't be an option.
I am serious. Remember however that I do not have the power to make it happen.
I believe and hope, that it won't take decades for young Americans to understand the error that they would make. It is truely my belief that we cannot stop the tide of ignorance and progressive indoctrination that is producing people dumb enough to actually vote crazy Bernie into office. You can call it surrender but maybe if it happens sooner than later, it can get fixed before people forget what it was like before him.
t absolutely DOES matter...
No, it DOESN'T matter. The Constitution is over 200 years old and it's still the law of the land. If you want to change it, there is a process you must go through. You can't simply win an election and decide it's outdated and obsolete. That's not how this is ever going to work and you need to get that through your stubborn little commie head.
Yes it DOES matter --- you made a bullshit point that tried to compare an 18th century action with a 21st century environment. That's bullshit, and that's why you keep editing the context out of the post --- because it proves you WRONG.
Dishonest hack.
No, I made an honest point and you're the dishonest hack. A 21st century environment doesn't negate the Constitution. I've read the Constitution and nothing in it says a thing about... once we get to the 21st Century, liberal socialists are free to rip this document to shreds and do their own thing.
The first two names of the party is National Socialist.
Money is speech
Who is funding Bernie's ideas and visions? Labor unions.
The first two names of the party is National Socialist.
The first two names of the party is National Socialist.
Guess how many musicians are in the band "10,000 Maniacs".
Guess how many grapes are in a box of Grape Nuts. Or for that matter how many nuts.
More to the point, guess how "democratic" and "populist" the DPRK is. Or the Democratic Republic of Congo was. Or the GDR.
The first two names of the party is National Socialist.
Please!
You're breaking their little hearts.......
The first two names of the party is National Socialist.
Guess how many musicians are in the band "10,000 Maniacs".
Guess how many grapes are in a box of Grape Nuts. Or for that matter how many nuts.
More to the point, guess how "democratic" and "populist" the DPRK is. Or the Democratic Republic of Congo was. Or the GDR.
Lame try.
Any of us can be president. If we had Millions of dollars. I am about to pull down the lever on Sanders, he gets money and support from the PEOPLE, not PACs.
Yes, it does, and it works in more than just England.
Being a representative republic doesn't mean we can't have publicly funded elections.
How would having publicly funded elections infringe on the first amendment?
Any of us can be president. If we had Millions of dollars. I am about to pull down the lever on Sanders, he gets money and support from the PEOPLE, not PACs.
Any of us can be president. If we had Millions of dollars. I am about to pull down the lever on Sanders, he gets money and support from the PEOPLE, not PACs.
No.. Bern gets his funding from labor unions. Little microcosms of Socialism who've driven all the jobs out of our country by overwhelming the capitalists. He has never held a private sector job. He has been a politician losing elections since high school. And he will lose this campaign as well because the Democratic Machine won't let him win. He's now 2-0 in terms of the people voting... he has won two primaries but he is 0-2 in terms of delegates because the DNC has no intention of him winning over Hillary. THEY control the shots, you have nothing to say about it... Enjoy Socialism!