Gaga and Jamie Lee Curtis promote Hilary Clinton in a new photo

[Fahs 68]

1 minute ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

 

Ummmmm, Hillary became the senator of New York the same exact month that her husband was leaving the Presidency. So she did not have that luxury after all, unless you're trying to say it was through George W. Bush!  

You just proved my point right. Her husband was president. She was a first lady. She had a global presence and very good relationships with presidents of other countries. Hillary had global reach and it's because she was exposed to it by being first lady and then going into the Senate. Not every Senator has the same global reach, but Hillary is different because she was always involved with elite politics. Her husband being president was a catalyst to her being able to do what she did on a global scale. 

I remember Hillary in the 90s with Yasser Arafat. She was able to be that influential in politics back then because her husband was president and had to be involved in many global issues. 

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,268]

25 minutes ago, Fahs said:

You just proved my point right. Her husband was president. She was a first lady. She had a global presence and very good relationships with presidents of other countries. Hillary had global reach and it's because she was exposed to it by being first lady and then going into the Senate. Not every Senator has the same global reach, but Hillary is different because she was always involved with elite politics. Her husband being president was a catalyst to her being able to do what she did on a global scale. 

I remember Hillary in the 90s with Yasser Arafat. She was able to be that influential in politics back then because her husband was president and had to be involved in many global issues. 

Well aren't these all pluses then???!

[monstereo 1,232]

zzzzzzzzzzzz

 

its the same 3 people debating eachother in this thread

[Michelle 2,056]

What is this thread  my goodness.

[mmm 879]

37 minutes ago, Whispering said:

So, you were annoyed and in striking back at those you were annoyed with, you thought insulting Gaga would be a way to get back at those people. You used her to strike back at those that you were upset with. 

I did not use her, I told you my assumption of what I think Gaga is while still telling you and making it clear that we still dont know what she is but based on what shes presented to us, she is a hypocrite. 

[Whispering 18,865]

39 minutes ago, faysalaaa1 said:

I did not use her, I told you my assumption of what I think Gaga is while still telling you and making it clear that we still dont know what she is but based on what shes presented to us, she is a hypocrite. 

No, she is supporting the candidate who best matches the issues that she deems as important in this race and the one she feels is the most experienced and qualified. 

[mmm 879]

7 minutes ago, Whispering said:

No, she is supporting the candidate who best matches the issues that she deems as important in this race and the one she feels is the most experienced and qualified. 

Your just going in circles in this conversation..

[FFXSoul91 1,084]

17 hours ago, faysalaaa1 said:

People disagree with me = Republican debate 
 

No one is simply disagreeing here. They are outright attacking and belittling one another. I don't care what side you are on, this is just silly.

Also, I'm a Bernie supporter, so I'm not sure what you are trying to imply.

[Tresor 1,649]

2 hours ago, LebaneseDude said:

It's funny that you always have to bring economy up, as if that's the only thing that the president has to handle.

She'll get **** done in all fields.

Assuming you are 100% correct and she's the boogieman out to support the evil rich white dudes, at worst the working class American people will stay the same. At best, things will get better.

What would Sanders do? Suddenly break up the entire American system overnight and everyone will be swimming in $$$$$?

Margaret Thatcher is a little too much but she has one quote which is always hilarious to use. I'll paraphrase:

You would prefer the poor be poorer, than the rich be richer. You'd rather the gap shrink downward on both sides, than the gap grow upward on both sides.

Bernie's policies would impose greater tax rates on all people. This would essentially **** over middle class workers who don't get aid but aren't rich enough. This would also **** over the poorer people who have no interest in wherever the money is going such as free education. You're basically saying: It's OK if you're poor. It's in the best interest of society for us to take your money and have it be used in the education of someone else who's more important (in our opinion).

You know who does this nowadays? The evil rich people are the ones who donate a significantly large amount of funds to universities to provide financial aid, such as people like myself. Almost ALL pharmaceutical advancements in the name of healthcare have been done by "Evil" big businesses. Sure there's corruption here and there. Big deal. Look at the good things that come out of these corporations, not just the shitty ones you're deadset on focusing on.

Of course, there are definitely benefits to everything Bernie is saying. Hell I honestly WISH things could work like Bernie says, but even those are in question. Just look at Sweden. They're starting to suffer under the weight of their own over-promising, just like Sanders is doing today. Of course, many Americans don't know this, since they only love to quote the good things about other nations while being totally oblivious to how the real world functions outside of Netflix and CNN.

Let me clarify for you since you're not informed on Bernie's policies. This policy is completely transparent on his campaign's website stating that only people with an income greater than 250,000 will receive higher taxes..aka the top 5% of the country. He will NOT impose taxes on ALL people, you're just wrong about that.

This is a plan that can and WILL work to pay for social institutions like free healthcare and education. Please be aware of his proposed policies before you reference them incorrectly. Hillary - who is backed by wall street- cannot and would never punish her lead campaign financiers by doing what the chart above shows. She time and time again proves she is not willing to stand up to corruption, and that is just not acceptable if you are trying to be a genuine, diplomatic leader in 2016 American politics.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

3 minutes ago, mattwiththehat said:

Let me clarify for you since you're not informed on Bernie's policies. This policy is completely transparent on his campaign's website stating that only people with an income greater than 250,000 will receive higher taxes..aka the top 5% of the country. He will NOT impose taxes on ALL people, you're just wrong about that.

Lol no.

This is the ideal. The reality will be far different. Just look at other countries that employ the system he seeks. The rich won't pay that high a tax rate because frankly it's too much for anyone to agree on, and in order to cover the changes the middle class will eat a higher percentage. Perhaps the lower ones will be untouched, but you're still ****ing over a significant number of people.

A small increase in tax rate has much broader impact than you think it does. 

[Reality 66,877]

I'm honestly okay with it. Really, as long as it wasn't one of the Republican nominees, I'm indifferent towards who she votes for. 

But, was this really a shocker to anyone? I mean, it's not like she's been shying away from Hillary, and she certainly hasn't talked about Bernie at all.

[Tresor 1,649]

9 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Lol no.

This is the ideal. The reality will be far different. The rich won't pay that high a tax rate, and in order to cover the changes the middle class will eat a higher percentage.

A 5% increase in tax rate has much broader impact than you think it does. 

Lol no? As the leader of the executive branch, Bernie would have all the resources and conviction to get this plan into motion. The rich WILL pay higher taxes regardless under his command and if they don't and jump to tax havens (hence the panama papers scandal) it exposes more of their corruption to the world which would initiate an FBI IRS investigation. I'm fully aware of the logistics, but I don't think you understand that the power and greed of the rich is the backbone of your defense.

"it wont happen, its unrealistic....we'll just tax the middle class more".... that's an incredibly dangerous, and cowardly self fulfilling prophecy if I've ever seen one.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

4 minutes ago, mattwiththehat said:

Lol no? As the leader of the executive branch, Bernie would have all the resources and conviction to get this plan into motion. The rich WILL pay higher taxes regardless under his command and if they don't and jump to tax havens (hence the panama papers scandal) it exposes more of their corruption to the world which would initiate an FBI IRS investigation. I'm fully aware of the logistics, but I don't think you understand that the power and greed of the rich is the backbone of your defense.

"it wont happen, its unrealistic....we'll just tax the middle class more".... that's an incredibly dangerous, and lazy self fulfilling prophecy if I've ever seen one.

...You think the President has that much power when the current Senate is dominated by Republicans? LOL

"Command". Do you think this is a totalitarian regime? Holy **** you don't even know how your own democracy works

[Tresor 1,649]

3 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

...You think the President has that much power when the current Senate is dominated by Republicans? LOL

"Command". Do you think this is a totalitarian regime?

Here you are again simply stating it's too difficult so it can't happen...that is a textbook anti-Bernie remark. And as Commander in Chief, 'command' would be the relevant terminology.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, mattwiththehat said:

Here you are again simply stating it's too difficult so it can't happen...that is a textbook anti-Bernie remark. And as Commander in Chief, 'command; would be the relevant terminology.

He's commander in chief, not supreme commander. He gets the final say, but he doesn't enforce a plan on anyone without the majority to it. He's not a monarch nor an emperor.

To get any of his plans he needs more money. That money is going to come from somewhere. If the Republicans (and many Democrats who are not in favor of such extreme tax increases by the way) somehow magically agree to his plans (lol), then the only compromise that will work is tax increases leveled across the board. Increasing taxes on "the rich" by 16% is hilariously high. This is nothing more than manipulating the average supporter into a more sidelined extremist stance by exploiting their vulnerable "oppressed" state. It's an ideal plan, not a pragmatic outcome.
 

Stop being manipulated by political advertisements targeted at you. It's like me saying "Hillary will champion LGBT rights" because of her recent video of being supported by a gay couple, as opposed to her impressive history on global LGBT rights.