+2 votes
71 views
in Society & Culture by

I'll leave this question open, as 'yes' and 'no' may be too 'black and white' for explanations.


3 Answers

0 votes
by

There will be times when such a lie will become plausible.

by

I'm afraid you are correct. There is so much misinformation out there due to both blatant lies and miseducation. It's always good to do a significant amount of research, especially where anecdotal evidence is concerned.

0 votes
by

That technique hasn't worked well for Hillary. Most people still think she's a liar.

And they're right.

image

by
It must've worked on some, otherwise she wouldn't even be mentioned here.

I'm mostly apathetic, when it comes to politics, but if I weren't, I'd campaign for Senator Sanders. He's the only one who doesn't seem to be battling a walk-in closet full of skeletons. Sure, everyone hates socialism, until extremism has reached the point of diminishing return.

Politics suck.
by

Yes it has worked on some, like those who would vote for Osama bin Laden, as long as he was running as a liberal Democrat.

But seriously, she's out in front because the Dems simply don't have anyone much better.

The fact that an old socialist who can't do simple math has done so well against her is an indication that there is a LOT of dissatisfaction with Hillary, even among Dems.

And yes, politics do suck. :sick:

by

There are those who are loyal to 'their' party to a fault, for sure. Blind as bats.

Seems neither party has anyone much better, actually. :'( I think it's a reflection on both parties, in other words. 

It's funny how people have 'opinions' on simple math. Numbers don't lie, but interpretations run the gamut.

by

Sanders pretends that there are enough millionaires and billionaires to finance his schemes, but in fact the brunt will fall on the shrinking middle class, as usual.

http://www.ihavesolved.com/7121/bernie-sanders-becomes-president-obliterate-billionaires?show=7121#q7121

And yes, the Repubs are no great shakes either.

by

It's not the number of millionaires or even billionaires that are in question. It's about income inequality. It's the amount the top 0.1 percent takes in compared to the middle and lower classes combined. As far as budgeting and dispersing wealth goes; we only have his word and no reason to doubt it thus far. Can't say that about the other three.


by

After visiting your poll, I, more than ever, realize that we sharply disagree. This made me wonder who, if any, you would endorse out of the four, especially after this comment, "And yes, the Repubs are no great shakes either." Will you be making your voice heard by not voting? Political apathy is a valid stance, imo.

by

If it's not the number of millionaires and billionaires that is in question, then why did Bernie spend practically his whole talk on them and the top 0.1% (who obviously are at least millionaires if not multi-millionaires)?  And when he was focusing on the billionaires, why did he emphasize the Koch brothers and conspicuously fail to mention Warren Buffett, Michael Moore or Michael Bloomberg (not to mention Al Gore)?

The truth is, Bernie has no way of confiscating their wealth, as they can move it anywhere in the world, and they can buy influence in Congress (as they always have), so the long and the short of it is that the costs will fall on the wage-earning middle class, who can neither hide what wealth they have, nor can they afford to buy influence.

by

No, I always vote, but it may be for the candidate I think is the least crooked and least stupid, or perhaps a third-party candidate.

If I had my druthers, I would probably like to see Kasich as president, but it's too soon to say.

by

Although I can see your logic, is that not what has been going on since time immemorial? And if you can agree with that, can you also agree there is nothing wrong with trying to correct this injustice? If no one can break this stranglehold, if you will, why do we even care to be discussing these issues? If congress can be bought, then we can elect any one of the potential candidates and keep going the direction we are now.

Anyway, these questions are mostly rhetorical. I find the whole mess exhausting.

All we can do is vote and hope for the best outcome for our economy and other important issues, no matter who we end up calling our next president.

by

I agree that this has been going on since time immemorial, but I think the level of corruption today is at an exceptionally high level.

And of course it should be corrected.  One way or another, corrupt status quos are swept aside every hundred years or so in the histories of many countries.

by

I can agree with what you added as well, both statements. The pendulum can only swing so far in one direction before it must resume the opposite direction. Too bad a happy medium is never the goal. One side or the other is always pushing/pulling.

0 votes
by

Yes, our history, and religion is full of them..

by

Very much so!


by

It's funny I can flag your reply but not give it a thumbs up... Like from me....

by

Yeah, I wish we could thumbs up replies, too. It's kinda like an acknowledgement that it's been read.

Like from me, too. :)

Is this page not working?

Click here to see the recent version of this page

...