shadowchris wrote:Then fact that anyone believe Sanders will be able to do any of the shit he's promising indicates y'all are wishful thinkers.
Sanders is way too idealistic, targeting young voters who don't know much about the political system. "I'm going after big corporations and making education free!" Automatically attracts voters and other idealistic people in this country. how does Sanders plan on making his campaign promises happen when A. Republicans control Congress B. Lobbyists are powerful as ever. Voting for Sanders is asking for another eight years of unfulfilled campaign promises.
At least Trump and even Clinton are being realistic in there own deluded ways but they favor lobbyists interests, but Sanders ideals are beyond unreachable with the way our political system is setup
Like building a 90 ft wall that would cost over an estimated 20 Billion? (and somehow forcing a country that has already refused to pay for this "stupid wall")
Like creating a system that would require all Muslims to register?
Burinn wrote:My question is how calling it a "cartel" is even remotely accurate.
If you spent as much time reading up on the definition of cartel as you do reading about the definition of privilege you would be able to answer that question for yourself I am sure. Albeit alongside blatant misinterpretation.
If you're trying to say that a country having total control over its supply of money and its interest rates is a bad thing, you couldn't be any more wrong. Calling it a cartel implies there's some kind of shady syndicate behind all of it.
Protip: There isn't.
implying the United States government has control of the Federal Reserve and not vice-versa?
sabinati wrote:
implying the United States government has control of the Federal Reserve and not vice-versa?
Given that all of the people sitting on the Board of Governors are appointed federally, and the power of the Federal Reserve system is derived from Congress, I think I am implying that. The Fed always brings the conspiracy nuts out of the wood works
sabinati wrote:do you expect me to just check the forum constantly, fuck off
shadowchris wrote:Then fact that anyone believe Sanders will be able to do any of the shit he's promising indicates y'all are wishful thinkers.
Sanders is way too idealistic, targeting young voters who don't know much about the political system. "I'm going after big corporations and making education free!" Automatically attracts voters and other idealistic people in this country. how does Sanders plan on making his campaign promises happen when A. Republicans control Congress B. Lobbyists are powerful as ever. Voting for Sanders is asking for another eight years of unfulfilled campaign promises.
At least Trump and even Clinton are being realistic in their own deluded ways but they favor lobbyists interests, but Sanders ideals are beyond unreachable with the way our political system is setup
have you watch anything trump said? trump is far from realistic.
grandented none of them are going to be able to do the things they said, main thing a president is these days is a public figure that represents the usa and will affect how other countries view
us. trump will be very damaging in those aspects. I'd rather the nation not look more neanderthal then it already does.
Not in support of his policies, not in faith of his ability to govern, but to hasten the inevitable tide of chaos and madness that must sweep this world before we can start anew. Ia! Ia! Seek terror on the horizon and run to it! Hail the coming storm!
Burinn wrote:My question is how calling it a "cartel" is even remotely accurate.
If you spent as much time reading up on the definition of cartel as you do reading about the definition of privilege you would be able to answer that question for yourself I am sure. Albeit alongside blatant misinterpretation.
If you're trying to say that a country having total control over its supply of money and its interest rates is a bad thing, you couldn't be any more wrong. Calling it a cartel implies there's some kind of shady syndicate behind all of it.
Protip: There isn't.
You know that they are privately owned and not part of the state since the 'federal' is just a name and not a description?
Burinn wrote:My question is how calling it a "cartel" is even remotely accurate.
If you spent as much time reading up on the definition of cartel as you do reading about the definition of privilege you would be able to answer that question for yourself I am sure. Albeit alongside blatant misinterpretation.
Granger wrote:
You know that they are privately owned and not part of the state since the 'federal' is just a name and not a description?
Who are they privately owned by? You're making a false dichotomy. Just because it isn't state owned doesn't mean it's privately owned. It's not "owned" by anyone. Regardless of all that, what's your point?
sabinati wrote:do you expect me to just check the forum constantly, fuck off
