Presidential Prediction...Our own Crystal Ball

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

I prefer Biden but Bernie would do a fine job.

The socialism thing is a farce. And it wont play like everyone opposed to a Democrat hopes imho.

https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2019/...ra7iqux5-qVhVI

Just the opposite i believe. i can see it bringing social programs to the forefront of each campaign.

One thing I believe is certain. There will be very, very few not exercise their right to vote in this election. I feel very good about that no matter who represents the Democratic party.

---

Socialism is communism lite. It is a half step that direction where everything is not taken from the individaul and redistributed, just many things. But most importantly the gov't takes control of the major industries and controls the people by controlling the economy, be it education or health or manufacturing.

I see no way Bernie wins because of the confusion between socialism and communism, but even if he does, his policies will never get thru congress. There are not enough jugheads like AOC in congress to pass his pie in the sky plans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

I prefer Biden but Bernie would do a fine job.

The socialism thing is a farce. And it wont play like everyone opposed to a Democrat hopes imho.

---

In the case of prior candidates yes it is.

In the case of a man who is a proud "democratic socialist" it's the truth.

He doesn't hide from it and has been proud of it for decades. You can run to defend the guy but the first person that will reject that approach is Sanders himself.

He's a real honest socialist who wants 100% government run health care with no private insurance or other actors. He wants free tuition supported by taxes and a host of other programs.

No, he's a real died in the wool socialist, who has as recently as this past week tried to defend the Castro regime, who took his honeymoon to the USSR, etc.

There's not enough lipstick to cover up this particular socialist pig. Now you want to talk about the others that's fine, but not Sanders.

Go read about his comments about the Soviets, Castro, etc. and tell me it's an exaggeration. Not this time it's not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

Interview with Bernie on 60 Minutes where he gave props to Castro for his "Literacy program". Saw this much like complimenting Hitler for getting Gernany out of the great depression

---

Or complimenting Hitler for the infrastructure improvements, etc.

Here's a nice piece discussing his Russian honeymoon, from the perspective of an actual Russian who lived in a city he visited:

https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/21...ommunist-dupe/

"He's a communist dupe" sums it up pretty well.

And yes the distinction between socialism and communism is a distinction without much difference. Both have to begin with the basic elimination of the individual rights of man in favor of the global outcome that is "from each according to ability, to each according to need" all helpfully implemented by a state regime with no real limits on its ability to intrude in our lives.

It's pretty simple. Do you believe that the individual and his rights are paramount or do you believe that the equality of economic outcomes is paramount? It's a simple choice. You can temper one with the other here and there, but in the end you cannot accept people like Sanders if you really believe in individual liberty b/c individual liberty inevitably leads to different outcomes for different people.

Question: Hi Senator Sanders, so my father’s family left Soviet Russia in 1979 fleeing from the same socialist policies you seem eager to put in this country. How do you rectify it with the failures of socialism in every country that has tried it?

Sanders: Thank you for that question. Is it your assumption that I believed in authoritarian communism that was in the Soviet Union? I haven’t, and I opposed it. I believe in a vigorous policy. You asked me about democratic socialism. Fair question, and let me answer it.

I happen to believe that in the United States there is something fundamentally wrong when we have three families owning more wealth than the bottom half of American society: 160 million people. Something wrong when the top 1 percent owns more wealth than the bottom 92 percent. Something very wrong when 49 percent of all new income today is going to the top 1 percent.

And something is equally wrong when we have a corrupt political system made worse by this disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision that allows billionaires to spend unlimited sums of money to elect candidates that represent the wealthy. So answer number one, it’s a radical idea. Maybe not everybody agrees but I happen to believe we should have a government that represents working families and not just the 1 percent and powerful corporations. That’s point number one.

Point number two, what do I mean when I talk about democratic socialism? It’s certainly not the authoritarian communism that existed in the Soviet Union. This is what it means. It means that we cherish among other things our bill of rights. Franklin Roosevelt made this point. In 1944 in a State of the Union address that never got a lot of attention, this is what he said basically. A very profound speech. He said we got a great Constitution. Bill of Rights protects your freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, but it doesn’t protect and guarantee you economic rights.

So let me be honest with you, I believe in a democratic civilized society health care is a human right. Government should make that happen. I believe that every young person in this country regardless of his or her income has the right to get all the education they need.

That’s why I have fought hard with some success to move toward making public colleges and universities tuition free and very substantially reduce student debt. And I believe there’s something wrong when you have millions of families paying 40 or 50 percent of their limited incomes to put a roof over their heads and that millions of working class families, young parents cannot find quality and affordable child care.

So we have to address the very, very rich getting richer and middle class struggling and 40 million living in poverty. It means to me that we expand Medicare and provide educational opportunity for all Americans. We rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. In other words, government serves the needs of all people rather than just wealthy campaign contributors. That’s what it means to me.

Wonder if he believes it is equally wrong that 51% of the population pay no income tax? Of course he does because paying for health care for all, forgiving all college debt, free college for all and all the other spending will require EVERYBODY to pay their fair share. Only Bolshevic Bernie has not made clear is who is paying for what...other than the obligatory rich will. IMO there is zero doubt the the tax burden would include the lower middle class and lower class in order to cover all the freebies but if you believe otherwise, then listen to Steve Perry and "Don't Stop Believin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

Question: Hi Senator Sanders, so my father’s family left Soviet Russia in 1979 fleeing from the same socialist policies you seem eager to put in this country. How do you rectify it with the failures of socialism in every country that has tried it?

Sanders: Thank you for that question. Is it your assumption that I believed in authoritarian communism that was in the Soviet Union? I haven’t, and I opposed it. I believe in a vigorous policy. You asked me about democratic socialism. Fair question, and let me answer it.

I happen to believe that in the United States there is something fundamentally wrong when we have three families owning more wealth than the bottom half of American society: 160 million people. Something wrong when the top 1 percent owns more wealth than the bottom 92 percent. Something very wrong when 49 percent of all new income today is going to the top 1 percent.

And something is equally wrong when we have a corrupt political system made worse by this disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision that allows billionaires to spend unlimited sums of money to elect candidates that represent the wealthy. So answer number one, it’s a radical idea. Maybe not everybody agrees but I happen to believe we should have a government that represents working families and not just the 1 percent and powerful corporations. That’s point number one.

Point number two, what do I mean when I talk about democratic socialism? It’s certainly not the authoritarian communism that existed in the Soviet Union. This is what it means. It means that we cherish among other things our bill of rights. Franklin Roosevelt made this point. In 1944 in a State of the Union address that never got a lot of attention, this is what he said basically. A very profound speech. He said we got a great Constitution. Bill of Rights protects your freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, but it doesn’t protect and guarantee you economic rights.

So let me be honest with you, I believe in a democratic civilized society health care is a human right. Government should make that happen. I believe that every young person in this country regardless of his or her income has the right to get all the education they need.

That’s why I have fought hard with some success to move toward making public colleges and universities tuition free and very substantially reduce student debt. And I believe there’s something wrong when you have millions of families paying 40 or 50 percent of their limited incomes to put a roof over their heads and that millions of working class families, young parents cannot find quality and affordable child care.

So we have to address the very, very rich getting richer and middle class struggling and 40 million living in poverty. It means to me that we expand Medicare and provide educational opportunity for all Americans. We rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. In other words, government serves the needs of all people rather than just wealthy campaign contributors. That’s what it means to me.

---

All that is well and good. He isn't a communist but is a socialiat. Vut people don't see the difference. It will be no diffeeent than the left labelling Trump a racist. Say it enough and those who want to believe will. The GOP will muddy it, as the shiuld, to paint Bennie on the Russian Mt Rushmore..along with Lenin, Marks and Kruschev

I do not believe Bernie has any intention of bypassing the will of the people to implement his proposal's.
And what he wants may not be what he gets. But there is certainly no more danger of communism than there currently is of fascism in what he proposes to accomplish as president.

The social programs he believes in like Social Security, universal healthcare, and free education are not communist plots.
And such claims as stated above will not fall on deaf ears.

What i think is becoming more and more important to the American people is the direction our country moves in relation to the financial security and health of its citizens. And yes, the widening inequity in the distribution of wealth and the subsequent power afforded the wealthy to manipulate and degrade the "by, of, and for the people" aspect of our republic. And that is not specific to either party.

And even more importantly, the tendency to do so by using social media of all types in a way that would make Joseph Goebbels nod his head in agreement, which has caught us off guard as a nation.
With its enemies using fear, mistrust, and anger to promote untruths, rumor, and railing accusation to satisfy the insatiable hunger they have created, all to further a political agenda contrary to the actual will of the people. I think the danger to democracy is real, and a direct assault on the basic principles of the constitution. Some see it and tremble, while others remain in denial, either willing or otherwise.

And the candidate who first acknowledges, and then adopts a transparent strategy to defend America's election process from it could win going away. it is important to Americans on both sides of the political spectrum. Yet meaningless to the far extremes of either.

And now because of the nature of our Presidential election, we will hear both sides clearly. The "People" know the truth so the prevailing opportunity to defend America cant be overlooked by either candidate.

I think this is the way it will trend as we go forward and what will decide the election.

thanks for the definition of democratic socialism. I was totally unaware, lol.

No, it's not Stalinism. Then again Lenin and Marx didn't suggest stalinism or Maoism, they are simply a natural result of what happens when you centralize power in the state and strip away the ability of the people to resist.

No one said there was a danger of communism. That's a strawman logical fallacy you just committed.

What I said is that he is absolutely a socialist, and that from the standpoint of individual liberties they are a distinction without a difference in the long run, and that is a true statement.

What Bernie wants is that nice soft western European socialism. I get that, but it's a) still socialism, and b) lots of countries that have tried it end up with a lot worse, even in Europe.

I'm all for reducing the power of the elites over our lives and our government. The problem is that socialism is by its very nature a concentration of power, and power corrupts. it's a maxim, it cannot be ignored or wished away.

The reason big corporations and big money have such power over us is that the power is concentrated in DC where they can spend billions to insure they get what they want. if power was decentralized as it was meant to be by the Founders, and government was truly limited, then they would have no ability to run things b/c there would be nothing to run.

Bernie promises railing against Wall Street and inequality, but it's a pretty well proven fact that socialism inevitably only helps entrench the elites. The people who pay for all the programs end up being the middle class, b/c they have the only means to really afford it. Seizing all the wealth of all our billionaires won't even move the needle on the cost of his medicare for all program over just 10 years, so the money must come from you and me in other ways.

Bernie Sanders is a socialist. He's been one for decades, he's proud of it, and what he is proposing will absolutely kill the goose that lays our economic eggs.

Oh and btw, income inequality is a completely meaningless concept, unless it's OK to simply embrace the deadly sin of envy as policy.

Does it matter if someone else has WAY more as long as others are also improving? If my standard of living is improving compared to last year, last decade what does it matter if someone else's goes up even more?

The proper metric for measuring how we're doing is to look not at the difference between wealth but whether those at the bottom are also improving.

Bernie wants to focus on inequality as if that's some moral wrong, that we should all be made more economically equally at the point of a gun (and in the end that is what the State does), but that entire premise is false and has no basis in any of the ideology of individual rights or liberty that is the basis for this nation's founding and mission.

Now, can we address the wrongs of fraud and theft and the manipulations of big companies that hurt people by trying to fix the market? Absolutely. We do need to focus on making the lives of Americans better, but it's by focusing on what will actually help them, not lusting for our neighbor's things.

What can we then do? Jobs and education. That's what drives economic growth of a people or individual. Bernie's promise of free education is a falsehood though, and his probability of increasing jobs in this country is nil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

All that is well and good. He isn't a communist but is a socialiat. Vut people don't see the difference. It will be no diffeeent than the left labelling Trump a racist. Say it enough and those who want to believe will. The GOP will muddy it, as the shiuld, to paint Bennie on the Russian Mt Rushmore..along with Lenin, Marks and Kruschev

---

It won't be hard.

While he's a socialist and not a communist, his praise of more than one communist regime makes it clear where his heart lies on the scale. He's not a capitalist trying to tame it's excesses like liberals such as John Kennedy. he's a real socialist, a true believer.

He could have honeymooned in a nice democratically socialist country in 1988 like Belgium or France, right? How about Norway or Sweden? Nope, he went to the Soviet Union where he returned with high praise for the regime.

When you praise Castro and the Soviets, you get what you get.

If socialists understood economics they wouldn’t be socialist.....

My post wasn’t directed at the opinions here as much as how social media is trying to paint Sanders. That is evident to anyone who frequents Facebook and other social media outlets. As a matter of fact this has been a very good discussion which is why I jumped in
That and to submit why I think the Sanders platform would be well received by many Americans. He is not my preferred candidate though.

I do not believe Bernie wants to make everyone economically equal at the point of the gun. That is pretty much a vague accusation of communism and a little misleading statement. It would be accomplished with the input of many representatives of the American people in Congress.
Making sure everyone has the same chance economically and the disadvantaged are helped to lift themselves out of poverty and misfortune by the most blessed nation in the world is not a bad thing. Is it an affordable thing? Can it be managed properly? Those are the only questions amongst a caring people.

A Christian nation has a unique responsibility to do so. In spite of loyalties to political party or other ideology. We are commanded to do so by Christ himself. And if that is thrown by the wayside we are guilty of separating ourselves from God. No ifs ands or buts.

There are sins a democratic society cannot control, and there are those we can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

I prefer Biden but Bernie would do a fine job.

The socialism thing is a farce. And it wont play like everyone opposed to a Democrat hopes imho.

https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2019/...ra7iqux5-qVhVI

Just the opposite i believe. i can see it bringing social programs to the forefront of each campaign.

One thing I believe is certain. There will be very, very few not exercise their right to vote in this election. I feel very good about that no matter who represents the Democratic party. It's importance has been magnified and amplified by each party. It is entirely possible tens of millions more will vote

---

I have to say that as of right now I don't think I'll vote for President, so I must be in the minority. Last time I despised both candidates and didn't think either were fit to hold office, but I ended up voting for the one I despised slightly less. I wish I'd sat it out, especially since I live in a state where my Presidential vote doesn't matter.

I think the importance will gradually be amplified by the historical significance of this election. It will be like no other Before imo.

Do you cross party lines with your vote very often? Not meaning to be nosey

Not sure if the last question is an open question, or not. I never vote party line. I’ve never seen a truly Libertarian candidate for me to put that to the test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

I think the importance will gradually be amplified by the historical significance of this election. It will be like no other Before imo.

Do you cross party lines with your vote very often? Not meaning to be nosey

---

No problem. I'd say sometimes, more at the local level.

I voted Republican exclusively until Bill Clinton. Since then Democratic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

I do not believe Bernie wants to make everyone economically equal at the point of the gun. That is pretty much a vague accusation of communism and a little misleading statement. It would be accomplished with the input of many representatives of the American people in Congress.
Making sure everyone has the same chance economically and the disadvantaged are helped to lift themselves out of poverty and misfortune by the most blessed nation in the world is not a bad thing. Is it an affordable thing? Can it be managed properly? Those are the only questions amongst a caring people.

A Christian nation has a unique responsibility to do so. In spite of loyalties to political party or other ideology. We are commanded to do so by Christ himself. And if that is thrown by the wayside we are guilty of separating ourselves from God. No ifs ands or buts.

There are sins a democratic society cannot control, and there are those we can.

---

First, all State control is inherently at the point of a gun. If I refuse to pay my taxes someone will come to take my property. If I refuse they will show up with guns and take it by force.

Don't ever forget that's how it works.

As for consulting with Congress and the American people, the Founders had a deathly fear of the Tyranny of the Majority, and we should too. Just b/c 51% of people will be helped by reducing the liberties, economic or otherwise, of the other 49% does not mean it is OK. That's the fallacy of putting "democracy" above "liberty". The Greeks had democracy as did the US along with Slavery at the same time. Democracy is meaningless in the end if it is used simply to do the will of the majority and not respect the rights of all.

As for being a Christian nation, the Lord helps those who help themselves.

First, Bernie isn't about everyone having the same chance. Having the same chance is great, but he wants the same outcomes.

As for lifting people from poverty, what socialist nation has ever accomplished such a thing? In every nation there will still be income inequality, so by definition the bottom group will be "poor". Can we make them better off by raising the overall standard of living? Absolutely, and the US has done that through capitalism at a rate unprecedented in the history of humankind. But socialism is shockingly bad at it despite the promises.

And the answer to if it is affordable is "no". We're running over $20 trillion in debt now and Bernie wants to spend about another $100 trillion over the next decade or so. It's not hard math to see it would take MASSIVE taxes to fund it, and that would no doubt cripple our economy and, as I said before, strangle the goose that's laying the golden eggs of economic growth.

The best path to helping lift people out of poverty is a simple formula that has worked well: education and jobs. Our education system is lousy b/c it's completely a government run monopoly and jobs will dry up fast if Sanders is in charge, just as they have in every other nation that has gone down this road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KSRBEvans

I have to say that as of right now I don't think I'll vote for President, so I must be in the minority. Last time I despised both candidates and didn't think either were fit to hold office, but I ended up voting for the one I despised slightly less. I wish I'd sat it out, especially since I live in a state where my Presidential vote doesn't matter.

---

If I didn't vote every time I had to hold my nose to vote for someone I wouldn't have voted since Reagan. lol.

It's always about who you hate the least, at least in 90% of races.

I have said from the start with Trump I don't really like him, and he wasn't my choice from that field at all.

I support what he's done with judicial picks so I feel like i got exactly what I wanted out of it, anything else is gravy. And I do think that for some reason people have absolutely lost their minds over him and made him out to be some massive threat to the very fabric of the nation if not space/time, which is just hyperbole. He's a jerk and an ass and probably our most boorish President since Andrew Jackson, but he's really not been a bad POTUS and certainly isn't undermining our nation or institutions.

If anything he's made it clear just how far gone our institutions have become and just how not in charge we are as The People.

"..the Lord helps those who help themselves"


I think that's from Poor Richards Almanac and not the bible.;)

But the saying has it's place. If you are sick and proven treatment is available to you...you should seek it and not wait for a miracle.

According to the Bible, God helps those who put their trust in Him: “The Lord is my strength and my shield; my heart trusted in him, and I am helped: therefore my heart greatly rejoiceth; and with my song will I praise him.” – Psalm 28:7 KJV. And God also helps those who cannot help themselves, through His people:

Proverbs 22:9 - He that hath a bountiful eye shall be blessed; for he giveth of his bread to the poor. Hebrews 13:16 - But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.

"For You have been a defense for the helpless, a defense for the needy in his distress, a refuge from the storm, a shade from the heat..." Romans 5:6 tells us, "For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly."

How about 2 Thessalonians 3:10
I don't often post on this board, and for personal reasons; I do not wish to offend anyone with my beliefs.
In the King James Version it says:
For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Commentary now, granted I may be new in my walk only having been born again for 24 years, but I was raised by a family that believed and loved the Lord with everything about them, and I always understood that to mean if you are capable, and will not work then sorry about your luck. Doesn't mean to include the widowed, aged or the orphans we are told to take care of.
For the I have no problems with my taxes going toward their upkeep and maintenance, and not at the poverty levels that some would have them; the sorry individuals that will not work and are just scamming the system, that I have a big problem with.
Just my observation and opinion from Pap's corner of the world. If I offended anyone, I am sorry; that was not my intent.

No offense, and that's the problem with social programs.

They are well intentioned to help the widows and orphans of the world, but what they do in practice is create a permanent poor underclass with a deep victim ideology that convinces them they cannot succeed and have no reason to try.

What welfare and social government engineering does to families is the least Christian thing one can do. As Alan Keyes pointed out, the illegitimacy rate among African Americans now is higher than it was under slavery. Creating economic incentives where you are hurt financially to get married (your benefits end if you have more income from another person) along with mass public housing and the host of other programs has decimated generations of Americans.

The idea we should embrace Socialist ideas b/c they are Christian is a complete falsehood. They sound Christian but are in fact the very opposite of Biblical teachings.

Ironically one of the first things government programs do is push out non profit religious based efforts to help the poor and the local community, by limiting funds to only non-religious groups in many states.

There's nothing Christian, or even religious, about socialism, and absolutely nothing that comes from it that really lifts people up. Lifting people up is about raising them spiritually and mentally as well as economically, so they can be productive and have pride and self worth. Leftism and socialist programs strip away that humanity, that pride, and leave people shells of themselves.

Socialism destroys the very souls of the people it claims to help, you can just go anywhere it's at work and see it in plain sight (and can be seen in the hard data looking at alcohol and drug use among those populations in the US and worldwide), and we're to think that's somehow in keeping with the teachings of the Lord? Seriously?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigBluePappy

How about 2 Thessalonians 3:10
I don't often post on this board, and for personal reasons; I do not wish to offend anyone with my beliefs.
In the King James Version it says:
For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

Commentary now, granted I may be new in my walk only having been born again for 24 years, but I was raised by a family that believed and loved the Lord with everything about them, and I always understood that to mean if you are capable, and will not work then sorry about your luck. Doesn't mean to include the widowed, aged or the orphans we are told to take care of.
For the I have no problems with my taxes going toward their upkeep and maintenance, and not at the poverty levels that some would have them; the sorry individuals that will not work and are just scamming the system, that I have a big problem with.
Just my observation and opinion from Pap's corner of the world. If I offended anyone, I am sorry; that was not my intent.

---

I believe most everyone agrees with that Pappy. The abuse of social programs is a wide spread problem.

But, if for every two that gets over on the system to some extent, another family that is quite deserving is blessed by it, what should we do with that program? Promise that family that by not giving help we are actually helping them in the long run?
Or maintain or even increase the aid and work to improve the system?
Then we multiply that by the tens of thousands.

Poverty is not a choice! i'll say that again..poverty is not a choice, but can be at times a product of bad choices. Yet it more often is a result of poor education and the poor choices made by the ultra rich to look down on the poor and hungry as being less dignified. And demonize them for selfish reasons holding up poor examples to deny any basic Christian compassion. And many times the rich did not work so very hard to accumulate such wealth that a handful of them could feed and clothe all the worlds hungry children.

There are many very poor folks that work harder than anyone of us here. And for the God fearing, we are called to remember the Lord said, the poor you always have with you. And what Christ commands with regard to them is not debatable.

Now as individuals we all fail to do our part as Christians because we get caught up in our own lives and the things of this world. But for a free nation, it is a matter of outright choosing what best defines us as a people. I myself support compassion towards the many though a few do not deserve it.

I have to. Although if I were a rich person I can't promise i would be quite so noble. I hope i would be.

Compassionate giving is a trait of Gods Spirit. The lack of it is an indication God's Spirit does not abide there. That goes for both men and nations imho.

What if that program doesn't just help one and let others skate by, but actually condemns those two that skate by to never having the dignity of self esteem and pride in oneself? Is that OK to sacrifice those people?

Generosity is a good thing, but government run "generosity" has been a massive failure at every level. The "War on Poverty" begun in the 1960s has left more people in poverty than when it began, with massive rates of drug abuse and illegitimacy.

how about people who want to help the poor back up and say "hey, we've been trying this for 60 years and it's not working, maybe we should try a different approach?" ?

that approach is simple: incentive based help for people at a local level that can cut through the bureaucracy of massive federal programs. That's why the abuse and failures.

Focus on incentive, market based solutions and we might actually help people for a change. Get them out of horrible government run schools with vouchers, create tax incentive zones in poor communities to get job opportunities to people, and stop telling them they can't do anything about their circumstances and that society is to blame for everything.

Sure people are born to bad circumstances every day, and others born with silver spoons. What you do with it is what counts, and we can help those born to bad circumstances, but massive federal spending and taxes has never made a quantitative real difference, whereas we don't even try the obvious solutions based in the same economics that built the wealthiest nation on earth.

It's utter madness. Start with education by letting churches and local groups get into the education business, let trade schools flourish and you'll see real results. but be ready for the bureaucrats to scream bloody murder.

As a Christian, all I know is Christ's teachings are clear on the matter. And if by choice we allow one adult or child to suffer when we have the means to prevent it, there is no escape from fault. That is if our intentions are to allow it for "the greater good of the system or for any reason. Ignoring the need is terrible in it's own right, but taking a stand against it, is doing so against Christ himself.

He who mocks the poor reproaches his Maker;

He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the LORD; and that which he hath given will he pay him again.

Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.

He that hath a bountiful eye shall be blessed; for he giveth of his bread to the poor.

Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with [his] hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.

Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that [there shall] not [be room] enough [to receive it].

And to me it follows that on the day we as a nation decide it better to withhold from feeding the hungry and helping the poor in necessary ways, this country will lose its great wealth.
It's our slowly evolving negative attitude towards social programs meant to heal the sick, feed the poor, and supply the needy that endangers us. God will not bless a nation that takes that attitude. And our claim to desire a Christian nation becomes insincere at its very core.

And our wealth as a nation is not due to our ingenuity, but is a Blessing from God. if someone dont believe that, then all this naturally means nothing.

Or to put it in context a socialist might understand, from Taoism and Lao Tzu:

"If you give a hungry man a fish, you feed him for a day, but if you teach him how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

My post wasn’t directed at the opinions here as much as how social media is trying to paint Sanders. That is evident to anyone who frequents Facebook and other social media outlets. As a matter of fact this has been a very good discussion which is why I jumped in
That and to submit why I think the Sanders platform would be well received by many Americans. He is not my preferred candidate though.

---

are you concerned that social media paints Trump as a racist, a klansman, etc.... Social media paints political people all the time. Sanders isn't unique. Personally I don't care how social media paints anybody because I look at their deeds, actions and words. I am not a fan of any of Sanders. Spent decades in Congress and hasn't had much impact at all. Says he wants the gov't MORE involved in our day to day life. Personally I does not matter one bit to me how he is painted on facebook or any other social media

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof

Not sure if the last question is an open question, or not. I never vote party line. I’ve never seen a truly Libertarian candidate for me to put that to the test.

---

I usually vote for the lesser of two evils because like you I am more a libertarian than anything (but registered republican). Lots of GOP policies I disagree with but far more liberal one

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc

are you concerned that social media paints Trump as a racist, a klansman, etc.... Social media paints political people all the time. Sanders isn't unique. Personally I don't care how social media paints anybody because I look at their deeds, actions and words. I am not a fan of any of Sanders. Spent decades in Congress and hasn't had much impact at all. Says he wants the gov't MORE involved in our day to day life. Personally I does not matter one bit to me how he is painted on facebook or any other social media

---

I am concerned about all of it. I think political ads and links if any kind should be banned across the board. The electorate is dumbed down drastically because of it. I do not open or share any social media links regarding politics. None at all.

But does not change the fact that millions believe everything from satire to outright deceit that halfway agrees with their political entertainment. And American politics rather than expose it, accepts it as appropriate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kingcat

As a Christian, all I know is Christ's teachings are clear on the matter. And if by choice we allow one adult or child to suffer when we have the means to prevent it, there is no escape from fault. That is if our intentions are to allow it for "the greater good of the system or for any reason. Ignoring the need is terrible in it's own right, but taking a stand against it, is doing so against Christ himself.

---

Great principle. Here's the problem: the policies you are supporting are not helping, and are hurting a whole lot of people.

Simply calling for "helping the poor" and then implementing things that doesn't actually help much and creates a lot of harm is not Christian. Ignoring the outcomes while patting yourself on the back and feeling good for being generous is not Christian. We must look at the results if we're to really care about people.

ANd I think you'd agree with that.

So when you look at the results of what Sanders proposes, they are awful. They don't work, they have never worked, and won't work now.

Look at his comments about China recently. He applauded china for bringing more people out of poverty than any nation ever. OK, great. How did they do it? With their decades of socialism? No, they embraced the capitalism he hates and turned a lot of people into billionaires, but that also created jobs and wealth for the poor so they could partake.

He just endorsed a nation that is doing the exact opposite of what he suggests we do, and you and others are still cheering him? Why?

If you really care about the poor you owe it to them to question the actual policies and not just assume that more government spending and taxing and wealth redistribution is actually helping to mitigate poverty. We've done it for 60 years and the problems of the poor are worse now than when we started. That's a clue that we may not be doing it right.

Caring about the poor isn't enough. Throwing money at the problem isn't enough. Supporting the guy who just talks the most about caring about them isn't going to help.

Sanders will do just the opposite of help the poor, just as we've seen in all his favorite countries like Venezuela.

It's not Christian to be socialist or even liberal. It's Christian to care about people, but as it turns out the best way to care about people is to give them a chance to be productive members of society and not wards of the state.