[QUOTE=BigWhitey;49770731]What's so hard about planning for your retirement? Everyone does it here. It's literally mandated that you provide your employer with details of your superannuation fund account (Australian equivalent of a DCP/IRA/401k) so that they can make deposits into it for you, which you use to buy a retirement annuity when you retire. It's part of the reason why Australia has one of the most sustainable retirement systems in the world.[/QUOTE]
Why lecture me on how your system works when that's not how it works over here? Like okay, yeah good for you, you understand the basis of your system but not the basis of our system, the system in question here.
I'm not saying "It's too hard". You're putting words in my mouth. We lose a set of benefits that make life easier. Yes, we can plan for our own retirements, I am doing just that, it is not hard. But it is something we pay into that we will likely not see money from. That's not how it was supposed to work. We're allowed to be upset about that.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49770812]Why lecture me on how your system works when that's not how it works over here? Like okay, yeah good for you, you understand the basis of your system but not the basis of our system, the system in question here.
I'm not saying "It's too hard". You're putting words in my mouth. We lose a set of benefits that make life easier. Yes, we can plan for our own retirements, I am doing just that, it is not hard. But it is something we pay into that we will likely not see money from. That's not how it was supposed to work. We're allowed to be upset about that.[/QUOTE]
well public or private, as long as intrest rates stay near 0, or even below, people's retirement accounts will be chewed up quickly. the idea of 401ks and such is you put lots of money untaxed in there, and live primarily off the interest.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49770812]Why lecture me on how your system works when that's not how it works over here? Like okay, yeah good for you, you understand the basis of your system but not the basis of our system, the system in question here.
I'm not saying "It's too hard". You're putting words in my mouth. We lose a set of benefits that make life easier. Yes, we can plan for our own retirements, I am doing just that, it is not hard. But it is something we pay into that we will likely not see money from. That's not how it was supposed to work. We're allowed to be upset about that.[/QUOTE]
Yes you can be upset about that, but I don't think Social Security will just disappear. It was unfortunately flawed from the onset; the inherent, inevitable insolvency of the program due to ageing populations, which is why Americans need to invest in private savings for their retirement. Benefits will probably have to be cut in coming decades, so you're doing good by investing in private savings.
[editline]20th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sableye;49770900]well public or private, as long as intrest rates stay near 0, or even below, people's retirement accounts will be chewed up quickly. the idea of 401ks and such is you put lots of money untaxed in there, and live primarily off the interest.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't really work like that. Interest rates do factor into returns on investments, but you make it sound as if 401ks only invest in cash. If they're anything like Australian superannuation funds, they would be investing in all kinds of assets such as cash, bonds, debentures, real estate, domestic shares and foreign shares. Australia has low interest rates but returns on superannuation accounts can still be at around the 10% per annum range for higher risk, higher growth plans.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49769941]If you register to a party, you don't have to pay fees. But you can, every year, expect 3 or 4 letters asking for you to donate to the party you registered to, usually "a minimum of $25". This is completely voluntary and no law requires you to pay a cent to a political party if you do not wish to.
Also, I was under the impression that you simply declare which party you're voting for in the primary before going to the booth in New Jersey (I forget, it's been a while since I last voted in a primary).
I'm registered as an independent and IIRC, you simply say "I'm voting republican/democrat" for the primary, then they show you which options in that party you can vote for, which also bars you from voting for the opposing party. Can't say "I'm voting in the Democratic primary" then try to vote for Trump once in the booth.
[editline]18th February 2016[/editline]
Either way, it's [B]extremely important[/B] for independents to look up this information before going to the primary voting booth.[/QUOTE]
That's kind of fucked.
If I want Sanders to get the nomination and he doesn't, then I'm forced to vote for Hillary. If Hillary gets the nomination I'll vote for another party.
[QUOTE=archangel125;49768682]If it comes down to Trump Vs. Hillary, Trump has a real chance of victory. If it comes to Trump Vs. Bernie, he doesn't have a leg to stand on.[/QUOTE]
The way trump viciously, heh, "trumps" his rival GOP candidates I'd say Bernie would have a hard time with his "keep calm" rhetoric. It would allow trump to trump all over him.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;49772054]That's kind of fucked.
If I want Sanders to get the nomination and he doesn't, then I'm forced to vote for Hillary. If Hillary gets the nomination I'll vote for another party.[/QUOTE]This is for the primary, not the actual election. In closed primary states, you have to register with a party to vote in their primary. When it comes to the actual election, you can vote for whatever candidate you want regardless of which party you are registered for.
[QUOTE=proch;49772056]The way trump viciously, heh, "trumps" his rival GOP candidates I'd say Bernie would have a hard time with his "keep calm" rhetoric. It would allow trump to trump all over him.[/QUOTE]
Trump's spent his entire campaign making fun of the kind of politician that Hillary and his GOP opponents are. When he comes up against someone who has more integrity than he can even pretend to have, he's not going to be able to hold his own very well.
[QUOTE=proch;49772056]The way trump viciously, heh, "trumps" his rival GOP candidates I'd say Bernie would have a hard time with his "keep calm" rhetoric. It would allow trump to trump all over him.[/QUOTE]
Problem is that Trump's only debate skill is being loud, which I think is already wearing off judging by his performance in some of the more recent debates. Trump only gets a chance to be loud and obnoxious because he's on stage with like 6 other people and the moderators basically take a nap while they figure out whose turn it is amongst themselves. If Trump has to go head-to-head with Bernie, Bernie will be able to win based purely on policy and rhetoric. Trump really isn't effective at dismissing policy and debating politics.
[editline]19th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;49772096]No one "deserves" anything. If America is to get away from the corporations, then we must earn it by electing competent leaders, and by educating ourselves.
The "I DESERVE IT" attitude is precisely how we've fucked ourselves into this situation.[/QUOTE]
What an unnecessarily stupid thing to say. This isn't the same as saying we "deserve" free healthcare or welfare or we "deserve" free education, saying that we deserve a political process that represents the citizens instead of corporations and billionaires is very, very reasonable. Don't let your hatred of entitlement get in the way of basic logic dude, America most certainly deserves a political process that isn't completely fucked, as does everyone else on Earth.
[QUOTE=proch;49772056]The way trump viciously, heh, "trumps" his rival GOP candidates I'd say Bernie would have a hard time with his "keep calm" rhetoric. It would allow trump to trump all over him.[/QUOTE]
Go and look up how Sanders handled the BLM guys
Trump is a piece of cake for him
Trump already 180'd his public stance on the minimum wage because of the pressure of Bernie's comments. The idea that Trump would "steamroll" him is only because Trump's GOP contemporaries are such a pack of feckless phonies with easy platforms to defeat.
Trump is effectively pretending to be anti-establishment, because it's convenient for him. He tried to get the same money donors and Super PACs as any of them and was rejected. He applied to be a puppet no different from the others.
Against Bernie, that facade comes into harsh relief, and Trump's "shout a mix of contradictory far left and far right things" strategy won't work against a general election audience. Republicans aren't big into logic, so instead of recognizing his contradictions, they take away only the parts of his mashups that they agree with. General voters are a lot more discerning than that.
Against Bernie, Trump has to stop being vague, because in a debate Bernie would grill him on policy and substance... because that's what he DOES. It'll become clear to everyone that Trump is playing it by ear without even a cursory knowledge of political nuance, while Bernie not only HAS a plan laid out, but that plan has been consistent since he started running.
[QUOTE=Vigilante2470;49773355] because in a debate Bernie would grill him on policy and substance... because that's what he DOES[/QUOTE]
Recent American elections have shown that the candidate with a clear policy and substance is the one that loses.
Trump would win voters by being vague and simple but strong in what he says. Bernie would win by appealing to the people who know whats up.
I can see Trump talking about Stalin and Mao and forcing Bernie to explain democratic socialism a billion times.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;49773340]You only reap what you sow, if the people want to be ignorant and say "well it doesn't matter because the parties are the same" then nothing will change, in such a way, we get EXACTLY what we deserve, IE: A shitty government. No amount of "BUT I'M ENTITLED TO FAIR" is going to change that, if you don't know better, then you're going to get fucked every time the question comes up.
If you want a non shitty government, then you YOURSELF have to go out and get educated, and figure out who the best candidate is that represents what you want, don't sit back and trust the government to not be a corrupt piece of shit, because it's run by humans, and humans in power are inevitably going to try to bastardize things for their own gain.[/QUOTE]
Wow, thanks for the heads up. I'll be sure to go "get educated" and hope that by sheer determination I can will into existence a new political system that doesn't eliminate good candidates before I ever hear their names.
I'm not much info the political business. Though some of my Republican friends always use socialism as the only excuse as to why not to vote for him.
Can someone explain why he is a good choice? I don't read up much on the candidates so I'd like to know
I like how FP totally overlooked that this is a Fox News article :v:, had they been used for any other reason that wasn't pro-bernie you all would decry how it isn't valid.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;49770418]You might not be allowed to. I don't think you can register before you turn 18, and some places (like my state) have laws that you can't vote until 1 month after registering.[/QUOTE]
This is wrong.
So long as you are 18 on election day, you can register to vote while being 17, but only up to 3 or 4 weeks prior to turning 18.
And you are absolutely allowed to vote immediately after registering. I turned 18 just a week prior to election day. I registered a couple weeks before and I voted that year for president.
[QUOTE=wystan;49773871]I like how FP totally overlooked that this is a Fox News article :v:, had they been used for any other reason that wasn't pro-bernie you all would decry how it isn't valid.[/QUOTE]
The fact that [I]any[/I] polls are reporting him ahead is good news. He is supposed to be unelectable remember?
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49773974]The fact that [I]any[/I] polls are reporting him ahead is good news. He is supposed to be unelectable remember?[/QUOTE]
Trump is supposed to be unelectable remember, and his margins are way larger.
[QUOTE=wystan;49773980]Trump is supposed to be unelectable remember, and his margins are way larger.[/QUOTE]
I would say he is said to be unelectable for different reasons.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49773974]The fact that [I]any[/I] polls are reporting him ahead is good news. He is supposed to be unelectable remember?[/QUOTE]
Unelectable =/= unnominatable
[QUOTE=redBadger;49773834]I'm not much info the political business. Though some of my Republican friends always use socialism as the only excuse as to why not to vote for him.
Can someone explain why he is a good choice? I don't read up much on the candidates so I'd like to know[/QUOTE]
Bernie's major platform, which he will gladly repeat for you whenever you like, is basically "fuck banks" and "Europe does a lot of things way better than we do, lets copy them". And also, all the various scandals and dishonesty and etc etc that's normally par for the course in American politics? His response generally boils down to "Can we quit dicking around and discuss the problems with this country already?"
I have a few disagreements with him here and there, on some things I consider minor, but he's probably the best candidate America's had in a long time, because even if he fails, nobody who has any inkling of what they're on about will be able to say that it was from lack of trying. I don't think I've ever been able to say that since I even became aware of politics.
I wonder what would happen if Bernie steamrolls Hillary in most states however the nomination ends up going to Hillary.
[QUOTE=wystan;49773871]I like how FP totally overlooked that this is a Fox News article :v:, had they been used for any other reason that wasn't pro-bernie you all would decry how it isn't valid.[/QUOTE]
The first thing I do when I read these polls is check out the methodology and sample number.. both of which are clearly outlined in the article.
Secondly, you assess the question for bias, and in this instance (Question 6) there doesn't appear to be bias or ambiguity.
If the methodology is good, I'm cool with it.
[URL]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/02/18/fox-news-poll-national-presidential-race-february-18-2016/[/URL]
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;49777679]I wonder what would happen if Bernie steamrolls Hillary in most states however the nomination ends up going to Hillary.[/QUOTE]
Coups d'état. :toadleave:
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;49777679]I wonder what would happen if Bernie steamrolls Hillary in most states however the nomination ends up going to Hillary.[/QUOTE]
Americans in particular don't seem to understand this but political parties aren't permanent. They can die and be replaced.
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;49777679]I wonder what would happen if Bernie steamrolls Hillary in most states however the nomination ends up going to Hillary.[/QUOTE]
4-8 years of Trump.
Going against the popular vote would be suicide for the DNC.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49777755]Americans in particular don't seem to understand this but political parties aren't permanent. They can die and be replaced.[/QUOTE]
[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/PartyVotes-Presidents.png[/t]
Hopefully, but this is how long America has been Democratic/Republican...
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;49768744]Young voters don't vote because there's never been anyone to vote for. Young voters know better than any other demographic that voting in previous elections was pointless, if Clinton/McCain/Romney beat Obama, if Gore beat Bush, etc, it wouldn't have mattered, all politicians are the same, regardless of party affiliation, the only thing that matters is who pays their bills. Bernie though is the only candidate in forever that hasn't been bought by companies and Wall Street, which is why he's attracting young voters to the booths in droves, they finally have someone to vote for.[/QUOTE]
Bernie is being endorsed by MoveOn.org, the multi-billion dollar company run by George Soros. Pretty much the DNC's equivalent of the Koch brothers.
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;49778049][t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/PartyVotes-Presidents.png[/t]
Hopefully, but this is how long America has been Democratic/Republican...[/QUOTE]
Realignment isn't shown in there. Democratic didn't always mean left-wing.
[QUOTE=wystan;49773871]I like how FP totally overlooked that this is a Fox News article :v:, had they been used for any other reason that wasn't pro-bernie you all would decry how it isn't valid.[/QUOTE]
Are you fucking joking me? Every time a Fox article has been posted of late, one person goes "lol it's Fox" and then suddenly everyone throws a shitfit exclaiming how CNN and MSNBC are so much worse then Fox.
[QUOTE=GravyKing;49778290]Bernie is being endorsed by MoveOn.org, the multi-billion dollar company run by George Soros. Pretty much the DNC's equivalent of the Koch brothers.[/QUOTE]
ya but the difference is that MoveOn isn't being run by any of bernie's friends or campaign staff and he hasn't appeared at any of their events, so basically its running how superPACs are actually supposed to be run, not like Clinton's which are all run by people who have directly worked for her for years, and she provides them with speeches and appearances.
Sanders can't actually do anything about a superPAC endorsing him either except for asking them politely to stop
[QUOTE=GravyKing;49778290]Bernie is being endorsed by MoveOn.org, the multi-billion dollar company run by George Soros. Pretty much the DNC's equivalent of the Koch brothers.[/QUOTE]
MoveOn decided it via popular vote. And MoveOn hasn't provided financial backing to Sanders in any way except through individual donations.
The tendency is for groups that vote for the endorsement go for Sanders - the groups that have a committee choose go for Hillary.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
