Ok after looking I see nothing on this issue, the shutdown.

CutePrincess

Moderated
Messages
1,013
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
I totally agree with your statement! Yes people forgot many Bernie Sander supporters had their vote stolen from Hillary. Hillary should not of won the nominee! If it was Bernie Sanders Vs Trump. Bernie would of won! I think Hillary knew Bernie Sanders would bring in all the young voters and she thought once Bernie Sanders lost they all come voting for her to avoid big bad Trump. This actually backfired and because the Bernie sanders supporters were so mad she stole the nomination for spite, they voted for Trump.=
I am .. unsure if bernie would of won.
I am right leaning on a lot of issues, I just can't put myself to vote in someone that far left and pretty much a socialist, more so then Obama. if it was between bernie and trump I literally would not want to vote at all, or find some independent to vote for because they are both just too extreme. Also he was a very left wanting a dreamland that is not possible, i mean this does a good job in summing it up in my opinion:

his tax plan was complete BS and i doono why anyone would be willing to support it. Also it does not make any logical sense to fix anything like what
Crowder goes into (I did not fact check this) but I did see bernie's tax brackets and saw there is no way he was passing that and something like free collage.
 
Last edited:

MrGnome

Est. Contributor
Messages
181
Age
31
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
I am .. unsure if bernie would of won.
I am right leaning on a lot of issues, I just can't put myself to vote in someone that far left and pretty much a socialist, more so then Obama. if it was between bernie and trump I literally would not want to vote at all, or find some independent to vote for because they are both just too extreme. Also he was a very left wanting a dreamland that is not possible, i mean this does a good job in summing it up in my opinion:

his tax plan was complete BS and i doono why anyone would be willing to support it. Also it does not make any logical sense to fix anything like what
Crowder goes into (I did not fact check this) but I did see bernie's tax brackets and saw there is no way he was passing that and something like free collage.
I 100% agree with you I was not fooled by Bernie either. Yes your right he most definitely a socialist. His wife was also caught stealing money from an educaticational foundation. I agree I would not of wanted to vote for Bernie or Trump. To be honest the only reason I voted for Trump was get back at Hillary. I was very close to voting for Jill Stein but found out last minute she was shady too and she supported Hillary at the end. So I was screw it, Ill vote on the wild card. I figured they have they game rigged anyway. But I will assure you I never completely trusted Trump and much would rathered someone like Ron Paul or even Rand Paul. Actually if Rand Paul would of won the Republican nomination I would went with him. Because he's one the only few that talk about auditing the federal reserve, the root of all evil in this country! The next president must dismantle the federal reserve and return us to the gold standard like was before 1912. I have directly messaged Trump this. And this is my biggest test on him if he does NOT audit the federal reserve, like Kennedy wanted to do; it will prove to me he's another globalist puppet brought in to bring out the revolutionist to weed them out. Thats been in the back my head since the beginning of his term. I'm hoping my worst nightmare hasn't came true and that's all paranoia. But usually my gut feeling always proves me right!
 

Near

ADISC Moderator
Staff
Messages
3,266
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Babyfur
I totally agree with your statement! Yes people forgot many Bernie Sander supporters had their vote stolen from Hillary. Hillary should not of won the nominee! If it was Bernie Sanders Vs Trump. Bernie would of won! I think Hillary knew Bernie Sanders would bring in all the young voters and she thought once Bernie Sanders lost they all come voting for her to avoid big bad Trump. This actually backfired and because the Bernie sanders supporters were so mad she stole the nomination for spite, they voted for Trump. Not a lot people talk about this! Now I did lose alot respect for Bernie Sanders after he bent over to Hillary and said voting for Hillary was the only way. I didn't like he was supporting in flooding in refugees either. Bernie Sanders was basically a fake plastic wrapped version of Ron Paul. And this my opinion, but I will go even so far to say, Bernie Sanders might of knew he was plant from the beginning to get Hillary in. As far as the Russia collusion delusion investigation goes, I think it should be pretty obvious after nearly 3 years of this Russian investigation it is a complete fraud paid by Hillary Clinton. Oh and all and mighty Bob Mueller is also a crook who actually sold uranium one to the Russians! This was in the wikileak emails! He also was a big Bush Jr ass kisser. So really the Russian Investigation is complete waste on taxpayers. Mueller needs to be investigated and brought to trial for his shenanigans in the past. I mean we need alot scum bags to be investigated and think while their at it, they should bring George Bush Jr in for his war crimes. I say arrest both the Demoncrats and Rebloodicans!
Not a lot of people talk about it because that narrative isn't supported by the numbers. About 10% of Sanders primary voters voted for Trump, which sounds like a lot until you realize that around 25% of 2008 Clinton primary voters voted for McCain in 2008 (didn't hurt Obama that much...) and that around 10% of 2016 Republican primary voters voted for Clinton in the general. For context, about as many Obama primary voters voted for McCain (!) in 2008 as Sanders voted for Trump in 2016. Voters can be idiosyncratic.

And with all due respect, unless you are voting purely on foreign policy there is almost nothing that Sanders and the Ron Paul have in common in terms of policy goals.
 

PCPilot

Est. Contributor
Messages
201
Role
Diaper Lover
Because he's one the only few that talk about auditing the federal reserve, the root of all evil in this country! The next president must dismantle the federal reserve and return us to the gold standard like was before 1912. I have directly messaged Trump this. And this is my biggest test on him if he does NOT audit the federal reserve, like Kennedy wanted to do; it will prove to me he's another globalist puppet brought in to bring out the revolutionist to weed them out.
Wow.
 

CutePrincess

Moderated
Messages
1,013
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
I'm talking about the Democrat politicians and elites, im NOT talking about the average Democratic voter. I think you're misinformed on that, the Democrats continued to support racism well into the 60's and think to this day. They also started the KKK, this is history! Margaret Sanger is a good example she worked for planned parenthood in the 30s and said the "black babies need to be weeded out". Hillary also openly supports Margaret Sanger. Kanye West is right when he says the Democrat party wants to keep minorities on the plantation, poor and on welfare. The Democrat politicians act like their helping the minorities, but in reality they want to make them dependent on the system so they can control them. The political system is sick especially the two parties! History is good lesson on the future to come!
Oh ya I forgot about this quote and mixed it up with my other post, I edited that.
but since you did not answer my question I would really like to know, where did you get this information from?
 

Near

ADISC Moderator
Staff
Messages
3,266
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Babyfur
I 100% agree with you I was not fooled by Bernie either. Yes your right he most definitely a socialist. His wife was also caught stealing money from an educaticational foundation. I agree I would not of wanted to vote for Bernie or Trump. To be honest the only reason I voted for Trump was get back at Hillary. I was very close to voting for Jill Stein but found out last minute she was shady too and she supported Hillary at the end. So I was screw it, Ill vote on the wild card. I figured they have they game rigged anyway. But I will assure you I never completely trusted Trump and much would rathered someone like Ron Paul or even Rand Paul. Actually if Rand Paul would of won the Republican nomination I would went with him. Because he's one the only few that talk about auditing the federal reserve, the root of all evil in this country! The next president must dismantle the federal reserve and return us to the gold standard like was before 1912. I have directly messaged Trump this. And this is my biggest test on him if he does NOT audit the federal reserve, like Kennedy wanted to do; it will prove to me he's another globalist puppet brought in to bring out the revolutionist to weed them out. Thats been in the back my head since the beginning of his term. I'm hoping my worst nightmare hasn't came true and that's all paranoia. But usually my gut feeling always proves me right!
Dude, the guy who has, had or tried to have the following people in his cabinet isn't interested in rattling the status quo for the financial elite - actions matter more than words:
* Steven Mnuchin (former OneWest bank CEO, best known for approving illegal rob-signed foreclosures during the 2008 crisis - and being the executive producer of the Lego Batman movie, which is his one redeeming feature) as treasury secretary
* Patrick Shanahan (former Boeing executive) as acting Secretary of Defence
* David Bernhardt (a petroleum sector lobbyist) as acting Interior Secretary
* Wilbur Ross (a career investment banker) as Commerce Secretary
* Betsy DeVos (the wife Amway's CEO and the sister of Blackwater's founder) as Education Secretary
* Alex Azar (a former Eli Lilly executive) as HHS secretary
* Andrew Wheeler (a coal sector lobbyist) as acting Administrator of the EPA
* Rex Tillerson (ExxonMobil CEO) as former Secretary of State
* William Barr (who spent much of his career representing ISPs against the FCC) as his Attorney General nominee
* Andrew Pizder (CEO of CKE restaurants) as a Labor Secretary nominee

Trump never had real policy opinions on anything but trade and immigration. And if USMCA is anything to go by he's really not that much different from the establishment on that trade when push comes to shove. Everything else he's done are standard Republican establishment policies dressed up by his less than presidential personality.
 

CutePrincess

Moderated
Messages
1,013
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Trump was never had real policy opinions on anything but trade and immigration. And if USMCA is anything to go by he's really not that much different from the establishment on that issue when push comes to shove. Everything else is standard Republican establishment policies dressed up by his less than presidential personality.
exactly, he is just a reskinned, dumber, bush jr.
 

LittleManAlex

Est. Contributor
Messages
447
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
Thanks for making it obvious that you've given it no thought whatsoever - we can ignore you from now on.
I've given it plenty of thought.... the government should not be involved in 90% of what it does. I think the people who have given it no thought are the people wanting the "shutdown" to end, and think that more government is the way to go about anything.

Do you understand what those workers do? Or the basics why we have a government?

Since people on an individual level are unable to pay for police, roads, and other government controlled areas, we as the people all chip in called taxes. Then we hire people to do the directing for us, to how these funds are allocated best.

When someone does a crime, you can't just charge someone because a majority says so (tyranny by majority) so we have a court system to put those on trial fairly.

also stuff like museams and such are run by the government, you can't just not have 800 000 workers, doesn't make sense.
I do, and that's why I'm only getting rid of 90% of the government, not all of it. I understand how government works. The government steals your money because it knows best how to spend it, if it runs our, it steals some more, it forces you to pay for services that would be far better provided for on the free market, and it pays for people who seek to punish you for not following their own sense of morality. Museums and the likes are not essential functions, and because of that they should not have anything to do with government. A government exists to protect it's citizens and protect their rights, you give it any more power than it needs to do that and it becomes the enemy to both.
 

MrGnome

Est. Contributor
Messages
181
Age
31
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Dude, the guy who has, had or tried to have the following people in his cabinet isn't interested in rattling the status quo for the financial elite - actions matter more than words:
* Steven Mnuchin (former OneWest bank CEO, best known for approving illegal rob-signed foreclosures during the 2008 crisis - and being the executive producer of the Lego Batman movie, which is his one redeeming feature) as treasury secretary
* Patrick Shanahan (former Boeing executive) as acting Secretary of Defence
* David Bernhardt (a petroleum sector lobbyist) as acting Interior Secretary
* Wilbur Ross (a career investment banker) as Commerce Secretary
* Betsy DeVos (the wife Amway's CEO and the sister of Blackwater's founder) as Education Secretary
* Alex Azar (a former Eli Lilly executive) as HHS secretary
* Andrew Wheeler (a coal sector lobbyist) as acting Administrator of the EPA
* Rex Tillerson (ExxonMobil CEO) as former Secretary of State
* William Barr (who spent much of his career representing ISPs against the FCC) as his Attorney General nominee
* Andrew Pizder (CEO of CKE restaurants) as a Labor Secretary nominee

Trump never had real policy opinions on anything but trade and immigration. And if USMCA is anything to go by he's really not that much different from the establishment on that trade when push comes to shove. Everything else he's done are standard Republican establishment policies dressed up by his less than presidential personality.
Yes I agree with you and the fact Jared Kushner is his son in law and closely involved with the Rothchilds. I also was suspcious of how he bailed himself out after the loss of the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City. Im guessing he was bailed out by the Rothchilds. And may be doing dirty work to pay them back. Or a small chance he may want to screw them over in the end. I hoping on the small chance but I very much doubt myself to be honest. There just absoutely was no choice it was once again the lesser of two evils. I very much knew the small odds when I voted for him nor would ever go around wearing that stupid trump red cap around. I mean their all crap in the end including Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and Trump. No one can get any real president for the people without at the very least getting rid of the cpacs.
 

CutePrincess

Moderated
Messages
1,013
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
I do, and that's why I'm only getting rid of 90% of the government, not all of it. I understand how government works. The government steals your money because it knows best how to spend it, if it runs our, it steals some more, it forces you to pay for services that would be far better provided for on the free market, and it pays for people who seek to punish you for not following their own sense of morality. Museums and the likes are not essential functions, and because of that they should not have anything to do with government. A government exists to protect it's citizens and protect their rights, you give it any more power than it needs to do that and it becomes the enemy to both.
free market? run the police and fire dept???????///
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHA *dies laughing*

do you like.. see.. the problems all this will cause?
 

MrGnome

Est. Contributor
Messages
181
Age
31
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Oh ya I forgot about this quote and mixed it up with my other post, I edited that.
but since you did not answer my question I would really like to know, where did you get this information from?
Ill dig up for you. To be honest I was obsessed with this stuff and at the end all it caused arguments with family members. In the past id be crack head start spilling out urls. I just really told myself to take a break from politics in last 3 months. I moved Oregon to get away from it. But I will provide that link it is very shocking first time I saw for myself. I honestly have more Liberal ideas than conservative but just try to keep in balance. I like to take good policies from both parties and decide myself. I honestly think best way to approach the crazyness from the two parties.
 

LittleManAlex

Est. Contributor
Messages
447
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
free market? run the police and fire dept???????///
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHA *dies laughing*

do you like.. see.. the problems all this will cause?
I believe they would fall under the purview of the 10% of the government that would remain... though the FD could actually be privatized. But please actually read the post, it helps from you making a fool of yourself.
 

PCPilot

Est. Contributor
Messages
201
Role
Diaper Lover
I do, and that's why I'm only getting rid of 90% of the government, not all of it.
The federal government spent 4.1 trillion dollars last year. Of that, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid was $2 trillion. Defense was another $1.1 trillion. Interest on our debt is another $345b. That's 70-75% right there.

So since you think that 90% of our spending needs to be gotten rid of, do you believe in getting rid of Social Security or Medicare? Or do you want to eliminate our military and surrender to our enemies, or default on the debt and destroy our economy?

Or (more likely) you have no idea what you're talking about and just ranting about the Gold Standard, the Rothschilds and the International Jewish Conspiracy? I'm waiting for an Illuminati reference, or maybe the Bilderberg group.
 

LittleManAlex

Est. Contributor
Messages
447
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
The federal government spent 4.1 trillion dollars last year. Of that, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid was $2 trillion. Defense was another $1.1 trillion. Interest on our debt is another $345b. That's 70-75% right there.

So since you think that 90% of our spending needs to be gotten rid of, do you believe in getting rid of Social Security or Medicare? Or do you want to eliminate our military and surrender to our enemies, or default on the debt and destroy our economy?

Or (more likely) you have no idea what you're talking about and just ranting about the Gold Standard, the Rothschilds and the International Jewish Conspiracy? I'm waiting for an Illuminati reference, or maybe the Bilderberg group.
Yes, also Yes and largely yes, the US can have a force large enough to actually defend itself, but it's time to close the bases around the world and bring the troops home, It's not Americas job to police the world, and interfering in other nations is the biggest threat to national security there is.

I'm waiting for you to start ranting about how the governement is always perfect and always knows how to run your life better than you, and know how to spend your money better and people are too stupid too look after themselves and the only logical conclusion is that those same stupid people should be in charge of other people aswell.
 

PCPilot

Est. Contributor
Messages
201
Role
Diaper Lover
Yes, also Yes and largely yes
Does this mean you won't be applying for Social Security or Medicare? Is your spouse on board with this? How much do you have saved for retirement, and do you have enough to pay the $25k+ a year that health insurance costs in your sixties? Or will you be claiming "I earned that" as you line up for your government subsidy?

The world is full of "rugged individualists" in their 20s who are confident that they don't need anyone else. Strangely that doesn't seem to last long once they encounter real life.
 

CutePrincess

Moderated
Messages
1,013
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
I believe they would fall under the purview of the 10% of the government that would remain... though the FD could actually be privatized. But please actually read the post, it helps from you making a fool of yourself.
Ok, first of all you are aware you have an out there viewpoint compared to the rest right? so it is your job to explain your self VERY CLEARLY while linking sources behind what you say. Because honestly, i am still confused on what you are trying to say but do not claim I am making a fool of myself when it seems you are doing a better job in that department.

Now on a hunch I had a feeling that I had good reasoning to disagree with saying FD can be privatized but I wanted some proof of my reasoning, and I ended up being correct.
3. Fire Departments


Libertarian John Stossel (a host on the Fox Business Channel and writer for FoxNews.com) has long been a proponent of privatizing fire departments, which he believes would lower Americans’ tax burden and make them safer. As Stossel sees it, privatization would make firefighting more efficient. But the subscription-based privatized firefighting model can have disastrous results.


In 1996, the village of Rye Brook, NY (which is about 30 miles from Manhattan) made the mistake of hiring the Rural/Metro Fire Department (a private company) to fight fires—prior to that, firefighter protection in Rye Brook was handled by the fire department of nearby Port Chester, NY. But Rye Brook returned to public-sector firefighting only two years later after a $1 million home was destroyed by fire—perhaps avoidably. Salvatore M. Cresenzi, Rye Brook’s mayor at the time, acknowledged that Rye Brook’s deal with Rural/Metro “was not a success”—and public-sector firefighters’ unions asserted that the home could have been saved had Rural/Metro operated more efficiently in Rye Brook.



Seventeen years later in August 2013, there was another horror story involving Rural/Metro—this time in Surprise, Arizona (a Phoenix suburb), where Justin and Kasia Purcell lived in a mobile home. Two weeks after their home burned to the ground, the Purcells received a bill for $19,825 from Rural/Metro because they had not paid the annual subscription Rural/Metro charges for firefighter service in Surprise. But the Purcells told the Huffington Post they had no idea such a service existed and that they would have gladly paid the annual fee had they known.


The Purcells’ nightmare is a classic example of why the public is much better served by an “all for one/one for all” approach to firefighting: people pay taxes, and firefighting is among the things those taxes cover. Period. And there are no outrageous bills for $19,825 when your home burns to the ground.

------
so no the government is not there to seal people's money, they tax us so they can dispute that money to critical society needs, and this is done because most people of the human race can't manage something that large to service that large of people while keeping order.

When you have something like the FD run purely by private businesses, they can do exactly what ISP companies want to do to people, just no.
 

LittleManAlex

Est. Contributor
Messages
447
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
Ok, first of all you are aware you have an out there viewpoint compared to the rest right? so it is your job to explain your self VERY CLEARLY while linking sources behind what you say. Because honestly, i am still confused on what you are trying to say but do not claim I am making a fool of myself when it seems you are doing a better job in that department.

Now on a hunch I had a feeling that I had good reasoning to disagree with saying FD can be privatized but I wanted some proof of my reasoning, and I ended up being correct.
3. Fire Departments


Libertarian John Stossel (a host on the Fox Business Channel and writer for FoxNews.com) has long been a proponent of privatizing fire departments, which he believes would lower Americans’ tax burden and make them safer. As Stossel sees it, privatization would make firefighting more efficient. But the subscription-based privatized firefighting model can have disastrous results.


In 1996, the village of Rye Brook, NY (which is about 30 miles from Manhattan) made the mistake of hiring the Rural/Metro Fire Department (a private company) to fight fires—prior to that, firefighter protection in Rye Brook was handled by the fire department of nearby Port Chester, NY. But Rye Brook returned to public-sector firefighting only two years later after a $1 million home was destroyed by fire—perhaps avoidably. Salvatore M. Cresenzi, Rye Brook’s mayor at the time, acknowledged that Rye Brook’s deal with Rural/Metro “was not a success”—and public-sector firefighters’ unions asserted that the home could have been saved had Rural/Metro operated more efficiently in Rye Brook.



Seventeen years later in August 2013, there was another horror story involving Rural/Metro—this time in Surprise, Arizona (a Phoenix suburb), where Justin and Kasia Purcell lived in a mobile home. Two weeks after their home burned to the ground, the Purcells received a bill for $19,825 from Rural/Metro because they had not paid the annual subscription Rural/Metro charges for firefighter service in Surprise. But the Purcells told the Huffington Post they had no idea such a service existed and that they would have gladly paid the annual fee had they known.


The Purcells’ nightmare is a classic example of why the public is much better served by an “all for one/one for all” approach to firefighting: people pay taxes, and firefighting is among the things those taxes cover. Period. And there are no outrageous bills for $19,825 when your home burns to the ground.

------
so no the government is not there to seal people's money, they tax us so they can dispute that money to critical society needs, and this is done because most people of the human race can't manage something that large to service that large of people while keeping order.

When you have something like the FD run purely by private businesses, they can do exactly what ISP companies want to do to people, just no.
It is sad, but not surprising, that the principles and beliefs that the US were founded upon are considered "out there." I said the FD could be privatized, but it's such a low priority that it's not something I have put alot of thought into the specifics of it. But the incompetence of the cited incidents is possible both public and private. Heck I was reading recently about a lawsuit being thrown out, because the Police Department and School Board did not have a duty to protect the students under it's care, and that same precedent would translate to other departments .

But I'm not to sure what's so hard to understand that there are 800,000 government jobs, the could and should be eliminated.
 

LittleManAlex

Est. Contributor
Messages
447
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
Does this mean you won't be applying for Social Security or Medicare? Is your spouse on board with this? How much do you have saved for retirement, and do you have enough to pay the $25k+ a year that health insurance costs in your sixties? Or will you be claiming "I earned that" as you line up for your government subsidy?

The world is full of "rugged individualists" in their 20s who are confident that they don't need anyone else. Strangely that doesn't seem to last long once they encounter real life.
Well it's really a loaded question, If the government allowed me to pay zero tax, but I would be outside it's protection, in terms of security, healthcare, welfare and what not... without a doubt. But if they are going to steal my money, I'm not opposed to recouping the fruits of my labor.... but not a cent more.
 

CutePrincess

Moderated
Messages
1,013
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
It is sad, but not surprising, that the principles and beliefs that the US were founded upon are considered "out there." I said the FD could be privatized, but it's such a low priority that it's not something I have put alot of thought into the specifics of it. But the incompetence of the cited incidents is possible both public and private. Heck I was reading recently about a lawsuit being thrown out, because the Police Department and School Board did not have a duty to protect the students under it's care, and that same precedent would translate to other departments .

But I'm not to sure what's so hard to understand that there are 800,000 government jobs, the could and should be eliminated.
BECAUSE THEY CANT!
those are museums, police, fire, fbi, other things of that nature, you also ignored my ISP comment. If these things go pure private, you will get that bias where low income neighborhoods face an even greater bias then they do with it being government managed (well that is a reference for schooling)

It is hard to understand that statement when you do not understand what those 800 000 jobs are, no they cannot be cut. This is why i am getting irritated, you can't say something like that while lacking information and insight that makes you draw such bizarre conclusions.
But if they are going to steal my money, I'm not opposed to recouping the fruits of my labor.... but not a cent more.
they are not sealing it. This is getting annoying to hear, I feel like I am listeining to trump. You can't just say something without reason or logic and expect people take your word.
 
Top