- Aug 27, 2014
- 3,995
- 4,930
according to this logic...
children brought up in poverty who didn't get aid from state funded programs...
should do substancialy better in society than trust fund babies who have never had to worry about money.
***Official Political Discussion Thread***
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by rico x hood,
- Start date
children brought up in poverty who didn't get aid from state funded programs...
should do substancialy better in society than trust fund babies who have never had to worry about money.
- Sep 10, 2005
- 9,253
- 3,007
They do. And when they succeed they get paraded through the media, get brought up by politicians, as examples of American vigor an ingenuity and are shown as inspirations to all of us. There victories are sweeter and they can enjoy them more because they did it on their own.
Last edited:
- Oct 18, 2017
- 2,695
- 5,660
-Sorry to be harsh, but you're being delusional.
-Obama was supported by "the establishment" (funny how this is a dirty word for Sanders supporters) , and he took money from Wall Street.
But go read up on some of the things Obama tried to do, but couldn't.
Even in this first two years he had Blue Dogs to deal with. He wanted a pubic option, he wanted to unleash Elizabeth Warren on Wall Street, he want a infrastructure bill, he passed a stimulus, he wants a jobs bill, he wanted to reform students loans, he nominated liberal Supreme court justices, and he has been pushing for a infrastructure bill.
Most of the more liberal things he wanted to do have been blocked by conservatives.
Being business friendly, or hawkish, or even supporting the TPP doesn't just make someone not a liberal, not even in a economic sense.
If you think that Obama has tried and just have people "more of the same" after Bush and Clinton. Then I don't what to tell you.
Because that is plain and simple not true. Period
I already gave Obama props for some social change (DADT,AHCA,gay marriage)
He claimed this was going to be the most transparent administration, but that was a lie. Actually had a website dedicated to it, but he was shortly taken down
He claimed he would stop the wars and pull out troops, that was a lie. Actually stepped up the droning and extended the troops.
He claimed that whistleblowers will have a place and shouldn't fear prosecution but that was a lie.
Obama has deported more people than any other president, after he campaigned on immigration reform. (Yes he needs congress, but he can defintley stop deportations)
He failed to prosecute the bankers who caused the collapsed, even had a whole BS speech on 'moving forward'
While I'm not saying Obama doesn't have a hard time with congress, he ran as liberal and these were his promises, and this stuff doesn't need congress. Only when he gets in, NONE of that changes. He only moves more to the center and gets more hawkish.
I already know you bought into the HRC Corp[emoji]8482[/emoji], and that's fine, but I'm far from delusional. I can see it for what it is, and HIllary will be the same, I don't care how many times she does the nae nae, or how liberal she claims to be today. When I say 'more of the same', I mean business as usual and that's what we basically got with Obama IMO. Kills me to say that because I believed
Last edited by a moderator:
- Aug 27, 2015
- 1,044
- 392
Repped.
- Jul 20, 2009
- 64,966
- 196,177
-Sorry to be harsh, but you're being delusional.
-Obama was supported by "the establishment" (funny how this is a dirty word for Sanders supporters
But go read up on some of the things Obama tried to do, but couldn't.
Even in this first two years he had Blue Dogs to deal with. He wanted a pubic option, he wanted to unleash Elizabeth Warren on Wall Street, he want a infrastructure bill, he passed a stimulus, he wants a jobs bill, he wanted to reform students loans, he nominated liberal Supreme court justices, and he has been pushing for a infrastructure bill.
Most of the more liberal things he wanted to do have been blocked by conservatives.
Being business friendly, or hawkish, or even supporting the TPP doesn't just make someone not a liberal, not even in a economic sense.
If you think that Obama has tried and just have people "more of the same" after Bush and Clinton. Then I don't what to tell you.
Because that is plain and simple not true. Period
I already gave Obama props for some social change (DADT,AHCA,gay marriage)
He claimed this was going to be the most transparent administration, but that was a lie. Actually had a website dedicated to it, but he was shortly taken down
He claimed he would stop the wars and pull out, that was a lie. Actually stepped up the droning and extended the troops.
He claimed that whistleblowers will have a place and shouldn't fear prosecution but that was a lie.
Obama has deported more people than any other president, after he campaigned on immigration reform. (Yes he needs congress, but he can defintley stop deportations)
He failed to prosecute the bankers who caused the collapsed, even had a whole BS speech on 'moving forward'
While I'm not saying Obama doesn't have a hard time with congress, he ran as liberal and these were his promises, and this stuff he doesn't need congress. Only when he gets in, NONE of that changes. He only moves more to the center and gets more hawkish.
I already know you bought into the HRC Corp[emoji]8482[/emoji], and that's fine, but I'm far from delusional. I can see it for what it is, and HIllary will be the same, I don't care how many times she does the nae nae, or how liberal she claims to be today. When I say 'more of the same', I mean business as usual and that's what we basically got with Obama IMO.
I have given Sanders thousands of dollars of my money, and caucused for him.
So you can miss me with the ad-hominem "bought into HR Corp" bull ****.
Were cool, so I'm more that willing to have a civil debate about this, but I'm not gonna put up with the usual Bernie Bros steez.
-I will reponse to your post in more depth later. But one quick point, NO OBAMA CAN"T JUST STOP DEPORTING PEOPLE, he can't just defy Congress like that.
Last edited:
- Oct 18, 2017
- 2,695
- 5,660
Honestly dude, you go hard for Hillary. We usually agree on many topics, and you're one of the better posters on this board. However, we can agree to disagree. All I said is Hillary is more of a pro-choice Republican (due to financial backers, ties to wall street), and didn't even mention Bernie I believe. I would LOVE to see a real liberal president, but that hasn't been the case in my life time.
The Clintons are a machine, and a lot of problems of today can be traced back to Bill's administration. People just ate up the saxophone playing, weed smoking act, and I see the same with Hillary is all.
I can't hit you the HRC Corp[emoji]8482[/emoji], but you can hit me with the "Bernie Bro' jab, come'on I think we cool. There's no hard feeling at the end of the day.
And props for contributing money to the campaign, because honestly I haven't.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Jan 16, 2011
- 14,956
- 36,302
This is a penny-wise, pound-foolish attitude.
This way of thinking is not unlike the elites of poor countries, who will buy fleets of SUVs for high-ranking officials instead of paving the dirt roads they have to use everyday to get to work (and provide jobs for the locals). Same people who never invest in sports (player development or infrastructure) but are first in line to lift trophies won by their national teams and hijack their achievements.
That's the kind of country I grew up in, and it saddens me a little bit that there are Americans who think this is the way to go. Some of you who are advocating for a reduction in standards by way of defunding oversight agencies and social services have no idea what it's like to live in a society where profit trumps all.
Last edited:
MVP
Supporter
- Feb 28, 2008
- 83,026
- 85,610
The ol bootstraps fallacy
- Jun 28, 2004
- 6,971
- 17,042
Just remember that a large and expansive middle class requires government help and subsidies. The free market can produce a lot of wealth but absent deliberate redistributive policies, the middle class will only be 15% of the population and usually much less than that. No amount of individual grit, hustle, gumption or creativity has been able to over turn these immutable economic facts.
- Jun 28, 2004
- 6,971
- 17,042
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/02/debtors-prison/462378/
I read this article today. It's a good example of why Hillary Clinton's econ free approach to social justice is problematic.
I read this article today. It's a good example of why Hillary Clinton's econ free approach to social justice is problematic.
- Oct 18, 2017
- 2,695
- 5,660
cl-1b
Banned
- Jul 6, 2015
- 1,165
- 126
Man the mentality is simple to understand... The more free money you pump.. the more dependency grows.
What defines people who really need help?
Where do you draw the line?
Encouraging growth in these communities is what will help them.. including reasonable small business regulation so these communities can build foundations for the future.
Just take a look at Chicago.. no one talks about that but that's Obamas home town. You think seeing how things went down he would do some real good there. What did he do to control gangs, murder and government/police corruption? NOTHING... except over-regulate and create a larger black market of guns, drugs and violence. I don't even want to get into the court ruling for concealed weapons and how they have tried to over-regulate decent people from protecting themselves in these neighborhoods. But no.. the awnser is give the slums more free money and hope for change. Its a crock of ****.
saying this type of thing is proving you are willingly and equally adding to the racial problem in this country, which btw has been at its peak under a black democrat president.... You seem like a coherent human with a brain... do better for your community then preaching that nonsense because saying things like that should invalidate your word because you are WRONG. There have been black and hispanic candidates / politicians that have represented that party in the past... are they white supremacists too?
Did i really see ole boy call Hillary a republican? smh PLEASE.. LEFTY just like RUSTY
MVP
Supporter
- Feb 28, 2008
- 83,026
- 85,610
[emoji]128557[/emoji][emoji]128557[/emoji][emoji]128557[/emoji]
Yo that dude is comedy. Dogs, fire hoses, lynchings, etc were nothing compared to today I guess. Even more utter nonsense he acts like blacks are the only beneficiaries of government assistance, news flash, there's way more poor whites than blacks that constantly vote against their better interests.
- Oct 18, 2017
- 2,695
- 5,660
This is something they've parroted since he got in. They've repeated it so much that it's become a 'fact' in their circles. However, in that same breath they'll tell you that we have a black man in the White House, so racism is dead, move on.
- Mar 16, 2010
- 146,996
- 179,157
Last edited:
cl-1b
Banned
- Jul 6, 2015
- 1,165
- 126
obviously not, but i wasn't alive then so i can't speak on anything haven't witnessed myself.. but my point being in the time that I've been alive.. i haven't seen as much racist behavior as i have under this presidency.
District of Columbia
formerly dcmade
- Mar 17, 2013
- 8,311
- 3,977
If you attribute that to anything other then Whites being outraged a black man is in office then
- Oct 18, 2017
- 2,695
- 5,660
I'll bite, can you provide some info on this rampant racist behavior under Obama's presidency?
- Jan 16, 2011
- 14,956
- 36,302
It has nothing to do with free money and everything to do with some Americans believing that certain types of Americans don't deserve to succeed. It's that simple.
You see, this country is large enough that if you don't like your taxes funding a less advantaged school district, you can take your money and leave. That's what happened to Detroit and Chicago. The suburbs grew wealthier and whiter as the inner cities faltered thanks to federal and state policies that allocated all kinds of financial help only to the white populations while brown and black communities were left to fend for themselves(redlining).
BTW, Obama is not the mayor of Chicago; Rahm is, and he is invested in destroying the future of inner city kids. Did you read about the fifty schools he closed on the south and west sides in an effort to save the city money (hence contributing to overcrowded schools and all the issues that come with it), and he is fighting to reduce the number of CPS teachers. So much for providing guidance to poor communities.
Like I said, penny-wise, pound-foolish.
- Mar 16, 2010
- 146,996
- 179,157
If you attribute that to anything other then Whites being outraged a black man is in office then
Last edited:
- Jun 26, 2005
- 7,437
- 2,006
cl-1b
Banned
- Jul 6, 2015
- 1,165
- 126
http://atlantablackstar.com/2015/04...n-president-here-are-the-numbers-to-prove-it/
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015...nt-to-denounce-racist-blacklivesmatter-video/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/3/ben-stein-obama-most-racist-president-in-american-/
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/24/us/racism-problem-cnn-kff-poll/
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DailyNewsletter
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015...nt-to-denounce-racist-blacklivesmatter-video/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/3/ben-stein-obama-most-racist-president-in-american-/
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/24/us/racism-problem-cnn-kff-poll/
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DailyNewsletter
- Oct 18, 2017
- 2,695
- 5,660
Breitbart
Ben Stein
Let me guess, BLM is also a terrorist organization too
Ben Stein
Let me guess, BLM is also a terrorist organization too
Last edited by a moderator:
- Mar 16, 2010
- 146,996
- 179,157
Breitbart
Ben Stein
C'mon man,they're 2 of the most credible and knowledgeable voices on race relations...
Last edited:
Similar threads
