Cher RANTS about Bernie Sanders on Twitter

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

26 minutes ago, edgy said:

Not everybody can have degrees because just as if you were having to pay for college, a certain amount of knowledge, dedication and hard work is required to get one. Making education free doesn't guarantee a degree nor does it guarantee a successful future. It does, however, guarantee a chance for the disadvantaged to move up, a chance to prove themselves, a chance to possibly change the world through advances and discovery in science, medicine, astronomy, etc.

Now some people won't possess the ability or the work ethic to make a valuable contribution to the world, but why the hell would you want to deny somebody the chance to succeed?

There has to be an equivalent increase in employment opportunities.

Otherwise, for every person that "climbs up", there's someone else who is "pushed down". 

Fixing unemployment and investing in job opportunities / company subsidy funding is a necessary first step. I'm pretty sure all the democratic candidates have that in mind.

[Lion Heart 15,041]

nine PAGES   

I went to sleep after posting this thread, and it blew up.   

 

Let me read... 

[Alcina Dimitrescu 1,156]

17 hours ago, PoshLife said:

Regarding Jordan's tweet: what is wrong with wanting a woman to be president? What is wrong with thinking the highest office in this country - the leader of the free world - should be a woman for a change? A woman clearly could not do worse than some of the men who have been given the opportunity.

Men are never questioned about whether gender has to do with which candidate they support. Women shouldn't either, and it's entirely sexist that they so constantly are. But Sanders' supporters are so hypnotized by Bernie that they'll sink to Republican-esque attacks towards their fellow Democrats which will only hurt our party in the end.

Edit: I probably shouldn't have wasted my time writing this - this post is more words than Jordan has followers - but I've noticed this over the past few months and it's very nauseating.

Nothing. Wanting a woman to win just because she is a woman is wrong tho. You should elect people for the government plan they have, not for their set of genitalia

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

27 minutes ago, SecretWeapon said:

Nothing. Wanting a woman to win just because she is a woman is wrong tho. 

No it's not. 

Having a woman in power would mean that certain issues more relevant to women may be addressed sooner rather than later.

It's no different than expecting Barack to address African-American issues more etc.. (which he did)

Hillary is a woman. You shouldn't judge her solely based on it, but that characteristic has impact.

Or are you also seriously implying that there aren't many people who won't vote for her because she's a woman? How about you address those first given that they are actually sexist?

[thedirtymonster 590]

I love Cher even more.

I find it worrisome that so many people are, in my opinion, blindly thinking that the United States of America should all-of-a-sudden become socialist and abandon our Capitalist economy that has made us what we are today (America is ALREADY great, Mr. Trump!). Let's look at Denmark, for instance. It's a country that the leading Democratic socialist candidate (Sen. Sanders) likes to reference. It's a nation of only 5.6 million people, making management of their social services much easier than in a nation over 60 TIMES larger at 350 million. They have experienced success with socialism, partly due to that effective management. Though, here are some facts about Denmark and how their socialist economy is afforded:

They have a 180 PERCENT tax on car purchases, as well as a 25% value added tax, which is basically a form of sales tax on just about everything. Also, most importantly, their Income taxes are high on both the middle class as well as the rich, with rates averaging 55 PERCENT among the entire population. Which is actually lower than they were in 2009 at 62.3%!

Now, I don't want people to think that I'm anti-tax, or even against some social programs entirely. Both taxes and social programs are needed to maintain our infrastructure and prop up the people who need help the most. Though we can't just reach into the pockets of American workers and take out half of their hard-earned incomes! We need to put an emphasis on valuing the great American entrepreneur! When a person is facing a government that wants to take nearly half of their profits, why would they go into business there? There is only one Democratic candidate that has promised that in their presidency, there will be NO NEW TAXES ON MIDDLE CLASS INCOMES. That person is Hillary Clinton. Support whomever you'd like to, but just do the research before some other, louder supporters "set you on fire" about a candidate that promises to bring a framework that simply wouldn't work in the United States.

[Alcina Dimitrescu 1,156]

18 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

No it's not. 

Having a woman in power would mean that certain issues more relevant to women may be addressed sooner rather than later.

It's no different than expecting Barack to address African-American issues more etc.. (which he did)

Hillary is a woman. You shouldn't judge her solely based on it, but that characteristic has impact.

Or are you also seriously implying that there aren't many people who won't vote for her because she's a woman? How about you address those first given that they are actually sexist?

im not judging her or anything. I'm only commenting what the twitter user said lol.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

42 minutes ago, SecretWeapon said:

im not judging her or anything. I'm only commenting what the twitter user said lol.

I'm simply saying that her being a woman is still an important characteristic that shouldn't be discounted.

[Florian 19,833]

6 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

But it's not a country...

The member I quoted talked about EU, that's why I summed the spending of the EU countries. But as I said France alone is #3 and the UK #4

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Actually UK is #5 and France is #6 ... they switch positions depending on the study.

Also there is an exorbitant difference in how much the US spends compared to other countries, so the placement is ultimately irrelevant to the point you are trying to make.

The US spends a lot of money as the world's watchdog, and gets hate for it.

[Luv u Sum 2,164]

22 hours ago, Redstreak said:

Literally no one is advocating this position. Not Bernie, not Hillary, not anyone. So... not sure what you're doing

 

 

 

Um have you never looked at a Bernie Sanders campaign?

[Redstreak 6,651]

1 hour ago, cameron9814 said:

Um have you never looked at a Bernie Sanders campaign?

I have, and advocating for people to not work is strangely missing from it.

[Nemo 3,980]

On January 16, 2016 at 10:23 PM, DiscoHeaven23 said:

I like a lot of what Bernie has to say, but i cannot vote for him because if he gets the Democratic nomination, a Republican will win. Bernie is too far left to get the moderates' votes that are so crucial.

The polls say otherwise. Granted, it's very early, but Bernie actually comes out further ahead than Hillary in head-to-head matchups vs. various Republican candidates. Sure, that can change, but it's the only hard data we have right now, and it actually favors Bernie. On the "he can't win" side, there's just a bunch of hand-waving.

And, have you looked at who the Republicans are about to nominate? They're going to out-extreme any Democrat, and slit their own throats.

BTW, Cher voted for Ross Perot in 1992.

[Nemo 3,980]

On January 16, 2016 at 10:04 PM, MJHolland said:

Yes. The government doesn't create jobs. Maybe you've never had one, but the wealthy are the ones that create jobs, invest in factories, stocks, etc.

This is an absurd rhetorical point. The government creates jobs all the time. Public-sector jobs are just as good as private-sector jobs; often better.

[Kayla 7,595]

On 1/16/2016 at 9:32 PM, FlopSlut said:

You all think it is so easy for a government or your president to bring rainbows and smiles to your country...

Is it so bad to desire things that are good? Why is it that when people are desiring affordable health care, appropriate education accessible to everyone, and a financial system that doesn't leave majority of our population without a savings account, etc., we are treated like we're naive and as if the idea of actually caring about people is an inattainable goal?

You want to call these things rainbows and smiles, I call them things thousands of people have been missing and deserve in their lives. We shouldn't have to live in a country where a $500 doctor bill (which is LOW) can make or break whether or not you pay your rent. http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/01/06/63-of-americans-dont-have-enough-savings-to-cover-a-500-emergency/#7d50f4f56dde6d02b8be6dde

And to people pointing out that you can't just change things overnight- we know that. We know Bernie can't just walk into the oval office, snap his fingers, and get everyone the things they need to be happy. You have to start somewhere. 

170 of the top economists back Bernie's ideas. http://usuncut.com/politics/170-top-economists-back-bernie-sanders-plan-to-rein-in-wall-street/ 

 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

15 minutes ago, Kayla said:

Is it so bad to desire things that are good? Why is it that when people are desiring affordable health care, appropriate education accessible to everyone, and a financial system that doesn't leave majority of our population without a savings account, etc., we are treated like we're naive and as if the idea of actually caring about people is an inattainable goal?

You want to call these things rainbows and smiles, I call them things thousands of people have been missing and deserve in their lives. We shouldn't have to live in a country where a $500 doctor bill (which is LOW) can make or break whether or not you pay your rent. http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/01/06/63-of-americans-dont-have-enough-savings-to-cover-a-500-emergency/#7d50f4f56dde6d02b8be6dde

And to people pointing out that you can't just change things overnight- we know that. We know Bernie can't just walk into the oval office, snap his fingers, and get everyone the things they need to be happy. You have to start somewhere. 

170 of the top economists back Bernie's ideas. http://usuncut.com/politics/170-top-economists-back-bernie-sanders-plan-to-rein-in-wall-street/ 

 

Well said.

Still it's just that Americans are so resistant to change that I don't think most of Bernie's policies will ever gain traction.